Post by Gil Jesus on Jun 10, 2022 19:36:05 GMT -5
Was CE 399 fired from the Depository Rifle?
by Gil Jesus (2022)
"Based on a comparison of test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and the two bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle". (Warren Report, pg. 558)
The Commission based this conclusion on the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier. (3 H 429)
But what if that wasn't true. What if the FBI lied? What if the evidence showed that the "stretcher bullet" (CE 399) wasn't fired from the CE 139 (Depository) rifle?
In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel examined CE 399 and the FBI test bullets (CE 572) and found that they were fired from the same weapon. (1 HSCA 465)
And since CE 399 had been fired from the same weapon as CE 572, it would be safe to assume that whatever results the Panel obtained from its comparison between its test bullets and CE 572 would apply to CE 399 as well.
In his testimony, the Panel's expert, John S. Bates, Jr. of the New York State Police Scientific Lab in Albany, was careful not to say that CE 399 and CE 572 had been fired from the CE 139 rifle, only to say that they were fired from the same "firearm barrel". (ibid.)
A careful and curious choice of words. But there's a reason why he worded it that way.
Because when they test fired the CE139 rifle, the HSCA Firearms Panel found that their test bullets did not match the test bullets fired by the FBI in 1963.
Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show?
Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not determine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.
Mr. MCDONALD. And would you please explain your answer?
Mr. BATES. Based in the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual identifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets. (1 HSCA 463)
Mr. Bates testified that the difference in the individual characteristics was ( in the Panel's opinion ) due to "deterioration in the barrel". He gave 3 examples of how the markings in the barrel could have deteriorated.
Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panels tests with each other and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
No.1, repeated test firing over the years causing extensive changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon.
No.2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon.
No.3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning and/or protective lubrication. (1 HSCA 464)
This in and of itself is unbelievable.
"Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first."
www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm
Next, neither the 6.5 rifle nor its ammunition was considered "high velocity". In his Warren Commission testimony, Frazier called both the rifle and the bullets "low velocity". (3 H 422)
In any other criminal case, this would be proof that although the bullets in evidence (CE 399 and CE 572) matched each other, neither were fired from the alleged murder weapon. And to understand that, we must understand how firearms identification works.
Firearms Identification
Firearms identification involves taking a "standard" (the bullets you fire through a suspected murder weapon) and comparing them with a bullet from a source not known to you (evidence).
"Fired standards,...are examined first to determine if in fact the barrel is producing striated marks in a unique and consistent pattern. Once a consistently reoccurring pattern to the marks is identified on standards, the standards are compared to the evidence bullets to see if the same pattern of marks exists on the evidence."
www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm
The "standards" are the ones you know to be true because you fired them through the weapon. The "evidence" are the bullets you did not fire yourself and are comparing to the "standards".
In this case the "standards" were the bullets fired by the HSCA Firearms Panel and the "evidence bullets" were the ones fired by the FBI in 1963.
The other alternative to the "deterioration" theory was that the bullets didn't match the 1963 bullets, including CE 399 because they were not fired from the CE 139 rifle.
By accepting the "deterioration in the barrel" excuse for why the bullets did not match, the Select Committee then accepted the "evidence" bullets from 1963 as if they had matched their own "standards" even though they hadn't and assumed that all of the bullets from 1963 had been in fact fired from the CE 139 rifle.
Then the Committee, in its final report, said that its conclusion that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository was based in part because:
"The positive identification of firearms experts that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine." (HSCA final report, page 51)
That was a lie.
As I've cited above, the Firearm Panel's examination of the bullets made no such positive identification.
In fact, their experts avoided saying exactly that.
Although the Committee was willing to accept any or all three of its panel's reasons for barrel deterioration, there was a 4th possibility and one that they never stated publicly: the differences in the individual identifying characteristics between CE 572/CE 399 and the ones fired from CE 139 in 1978 proved that those 1963 bullets were not fired from CE 139.
They could have been fired from another 6.5 rifle and the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such weapon in their possession.
CE 542: The FBI's "Replica" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano
Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a "replica" rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein's had mounted the scope. (3 H 396)
Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle (CE 542), they had to tell Klein's where to position the scope. (Ibid.)
Lo and behold when he finally received the replica rifle with the scope mounted, it was mounted exactly they way the scope was mounted on CE-139.
Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope?
It's like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.
It's ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.
Questions Remain
Could the condition of the CE 139 rifle have been so bad when the FBI received it that they used a replica rifle to obtain the "bullet evidence" they needed?
What significance should we give the fact that the spent shells contain exhibit numbers (543, 544, and 545) that follow sequentially the exhibit number of the replica rifle (542) instead of the CE-139 rifle? Shouldn't those spent shells have been introduced into evidence right after the alleged murder weapon?
The evidence indicates that the three spent 6.5 shells that were retrieved from the sixth floor of the TSBD contained marks from another weapon on them. That weapon was never identified by the FBI. Why not? Was the replica rifle the rifle that left those marks?
Were parts interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle? Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle? Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle's bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance?
Why didn't the HSCA Firearms Panel examine the replica rifle and test IT, if for no other reason than to eliminate it as a possible source for those 1963 bullets, shells and fragments?
The House Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.
But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored.
They weren't interested in opening doors.
So the questions remain.
by Gil Jesus (2022)
"Based on a comparison of test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and the two bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle". (Warren Report, pg. 558)
The Commission based this conclusion on the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier. (3 H 429)
But what if that wasn't true. What if the FBI lied? What if the evidence showed that the "stretcher bullet" (CE 399) wasn't fired from the CE 139 (Depository) rifle?
In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel examined CE 399 and the FBI test bullets (CE 572) and found that they were fired from the same weapon. (1 HSCA 465)
And since CE 399 had been fired from the same weapon as CE 572, it would be safe to assume that whatever results the Panel obtained from its comparison between its test bullets and CE 572 would apply to CE 399 as well.
In his testimony, the Panel's expert, John S. Bates, Jr. of the New York State Police Scientific Lab in Albany, was careful not to say that CE 399 and CE 572 had been fired from the CE 139 rifle, only to say that they were fired from the same "firearm barrel". (ibid.)
A careful and curious choice of words. But there's a reason why he worded it that way.
Because when they test fired the CE139 rifle, the HSCA Firearms Panel found that their test bullets did not match the test bullets fired by the FBI in 1963.
Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show?
Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not determine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.
Mr. MCDONALD. And would you please explain your answer?
Mr. BATES. Based in the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual identifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets. (1 HSCA 463)
Mr. Bates testified that the difference in the individual characteristics was ( in the Panel's opinion ) due to "deterioration in the barrel". He gave 3 examples of how the markings in the barrel could have deteriorated.
Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panels tests with each other and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
No.1, repeated test firing over the years causing extensive changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon.
No.2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon.
No.3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning and/or protective lubrication. (1 HSCA 464)
This in and of itself is unbelievable.
"Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first."
www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm
Next, neither the 6.5 rifle nor its ammunition was considered "high velocity". In his Warren Commission testimony, Frazier called both the rifle and the bullets "low velocity". (3 H 422)
In any other criminal case, this would be proof that although the bullets in evidence (CE 399 and CE 572) matched each other, neither were fired from the alleged murder weapon. And to understand that, we must understand how firearms identification works.
Firearms Identification
Firearms identification involves taking a "standard" (the bullets you fire through a suspected murder weapon) and comparing them with a bullet from a source not known to you (evidence).
"Fired standards,...are examined first to determine if in fact the barrel is producing striated marks in a unique and consistent pattern. Once a consistently reoccurring pattern to the marks is identified on standards, the standards are compared to the evidence bullets to see if the same pattern of marks exists on the evidence."
www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm
The "standards" are the ones you know to be true because you fired them through the weapon. The "evidence" are the bullets you did not fire yourself and are comparing to the "standards".
In this case the "standards" were the bullets fired by the HSCA Firearms Panel and the "evidence bullets" were the ones fired by the FBI in 1963.
The other alternative to the "deterioration" theory was that the bullets didn't match the 1963 bullets, including CE 399 because they were not fired from the CE 139 rifle.
By accepting the "deterioration in the barrel" excuse for why the bullets did not match, the Select Committee then accepted the "evidence" bullets from 1963 as if they had matched their own "standards" even though they hadn't and assumed that all of the bullets from 1963 had been in fact fired from the CE 139 rifle.
Then the Committee, in its final report, said that its conclusion that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository was based in part because:
"The positive identification of firearms experts that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine." (HSCA final report, page 51)
That was a lie.
As I've cited above, the Firearm Panel's examination of the bullets made no such positive identification.
In fact, their experts avoided saying exactly that.
Although the Committee was willing to accept any or all three of its panel's reasons for barrel deterioration, there was a 4th possibility and one that they never stated publicly: the differences in the individual identifying characteristics between CE 572/CE 399 and the ones fired from CE 139 in 1978 proved that those 1963 bullets were not fired from CE 139.
They could have been fired from another 6.5 rifle and the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such weapon in their possession.
CE 542: The FBI's "Replica" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano
Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a "replica" rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein's had mounted the scope. (3 H 396)
Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle (CE 542), they had to tell Klein's where to position the scope. (Ibid.)
Lo and behold when he finally received the replica rifle with the scope mounted, it was mounted exactly they way the scope was mounted on CE-139.
Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope?
It's like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.
It's ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.
Questions Remain
Could the condition of the CE 139 rifle have been so bad when the FBI received it that they used a replica rifle to obtain the "bullet evidence" they needed?
What significance should we give the fact that the spent shells contain exhibit numbers (543, 544, and 545) that follow sequentially the exhibit number of the replica rifle (542) instead of the CE-139 rifle? Shouldn't those spent shells have been introduced into evidence right after the alleged murder weapon?
The evidence indicates that the three spent 6.5 shells that were retrieved from the sixth floor of the TSBD contained marks from another weapon on them. That weapon was never identified by the FBI. Why not? Was the replica rifle the rifle that left those marks?
Were parts interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle? Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle? Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle's bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance?
Why didn't the HSCA Firearms Panel examine the replica rifle and test IT, if for no other reason than to eliminate it as a possible source for those 1963 bullets, shells and fragments?
The House Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.
But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored.
They weren't interested in opening doors.
So the questions remain.