Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 17, 2023 19:28:29 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-7.jpg
jfkindex.com/photos/Mannlicher-CarcanoRifle.gif
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) began a look into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1976. I will NOT use the word "investigate" as outside of the Mexico City area there was no real investigation just like the Warren Commission (WC).
This post will focus on the alleged murder weapon that the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) used to assassinate JFK with on November 22, 1963. What will the HSCA say about this rifle in terms of whether it was the murder weapon or not?
The HSCA Says...The Alleged Murder Weapon.
**************************************************
The HSCA begins with a synopsis of what the WC said about the rifle in question.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.gif
(186) The Warren Commission concluded that CE 139, a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, was used to assassinate President Kennedy. This rifle was linked by the Commission to Lee Harvey Oswald by both fingerprint and cloth fiber analysis, and by two photographs taken in Oswald's backyard that depict him holding the weapon. These findings, however, have been questioned on the basis of observations relative to post assassination photographs of the alleged murder weapon. (HSCA VI, p. 63)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.htm
Quote off
We have seen in this series, and my other series entitled "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions", that the claims listed above for how the WC concluded that LHO owned the alleged murder weapon and used it on November 22, 1963, are false. Totally false. No fingerprints tied to LHO were found on the rifle on the day of the assassination or the entire weekend. NONE. The ONLY print that was claimed to be LHO's was an alleged palm print that was not turned into the FBI for a full week as the agent working with the rifle, Sebastian Latona, testified to not receiving it until November 29, 1963. Needless to say, it had NO chain of custody.
The only "fingerprints" found were smeared and inconclusive to anyone in particular. In terms of the cloth fiber analysis the WC's own expert, FBI Agent Paul Stombaugh, disagreed with their conclusion as he testified to the following before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
IF only the WC was concerned with presenting the "facts" instead of guesses!
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.
There was no way for them to state positively that the sample they were given came from one particular shirt as the WC was claiming, and yet, the WC claimed it anyway. This of course doesn't even get into the issue of whether LHO was even wearing the shirt in question (Commission Exhibit (CE) 150) at the time of the assassination as he said he went home and changed shirts. This claim does have some corroboration for it as well.
So, we see right away that the two claims that the HSCA mentioned were false. In terms of the supposed backyard photographs (BYPs) we have seen numerous posts showing that they were not genuine. There are just too many issues with them and Marina Oswald couldn't even remember taking two or when she took them (she thought it was late February or early March) or how many she took (first it was one, then two). The WC claimed only two were taken, but at least FIVE versions have surfaced over the years. IF only two were taken, and that is the official conclusion, where did the other ones come from and when were they taken?
I won't rehash all the issues with these supposed photographs as you can search this board for them, but I will mention the issue the HSCA alluded to -- the rifle. The rifle in the alleged BYPs has never been shown to be the same one that was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building (CE 139). Never. In fact, they have different sling swivel mounts as one has them on the side of the rifle and the other has them on the bottom of the rifle. The FBI expert, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, again disagreed with the WC's claim as he could not positively show that they were the same rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
This is a good example of how practically EVERYTHING in the WC Report (WCR) is UNSUPPORTED by the actual evidence. Instead of dealing with this monumental issue of importance, the HSCA instead went about seeing if they were the same rifle themselves. They would use their photographic panel that had tools that were not available in 1963/1964 we are told, but let's face it, this is basic stuff that would have been available in 1963 or people would have been getting away with crimes left and right. Remember that the FBI expert said there was NO way to make a positive identification between the two rifles (BYPs and TSBD rifles).
The two individuals who were in charge of this project were Calvin McCamy and Sergeant Cecil Kirk and they would employ the WC method as they would spend a lot of time discussing the dimensions of the rifle. It is long and very boring. I have covered this already in this series so I won't go over that again. Here is a link to that post.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1478/hsca-looks-rifle-byps
While the panel spent a lot of time trying to explain the differences in size of the rifles, they totally ignored the issue of the fact that there is NO evidence linking any rifle to LHO -- especially the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). So, even IF they could show it was the same weapon (and they couldn't) that doesn't mean LHO had anything to do with the weapon. The panel came up with the "tilt" solution to explain why the rifles appeared to be different lengths. They even provided a chart for us.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0036a.jpg
After a lot of boring detail they finally came to their conclusion.
Quote on
(196) a. A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various post assassination photographs. (Ibid., p. 66)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
Quote off
How many falsehoods can you put into one paragraph? I don't know, but this one paragraph should be submitted to Guiness as it has to be close to the record. They obsessed on the length, but did NOT deal with the sling swivel mounts at all? Why? They mention photographs that were taken in 1963, but this was NEVER proven to be true by either the WC or the HSCA. The alleged BYPs have never been PROVEN to be genuine by either "investigation." They were also not working with the negative for both photographs as somehow the negative for CE 133-A was never found in 1963 by the Dallas Police Department (DPD) during their searches. Also lacking is a reason why by the WC in their report.
The HSCA panel claimed that first generation copies for CE 133-A were just as good, but this isn't true. Here is Sergeant Kirks explanation of this issue before the HSCA.
Quote on
Sergeant KIRK. These are the two photographs that were sent over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Police Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on the Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI this photographic negative. These are the three elements that were examined by the Warren Commission.
In addition, the photographic panel also was asked to examine 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committee investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, and also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been established to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to be examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turned over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who executed the search warrant at the Paine residence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are all the materials represented on that flow chart either original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The camera panel established that the 133-B negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first-generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel agreed to only investigate first generation prints and original negative material.
Quote off
Any professional that works with photographic work will tell you that negatives are the best and not prints, and yet, they used a print for their study. What ever happened to CE 133-A's negative? This is a big question that was never answered by the WC. If LHO had them taken by Marina as claimed one should expect them to have been kept together, but apparently they weren't as one is missing.
The validity of the photographs is key as they keep referring to photographs showing the rifle in 1963. Kirk would be an accommodating witness as he would say the gouge seen on the rifle in the alleged BYPs was the same as the rifle in the National Archives (NA).
First of all, did you notice the sleight of hand by the HSCA's panel? We began this post with the rifles seen in the alleged BYPs and the one found in the TSBD, but when the HSCA made their conclusion, they skipped that rifle and went to the one in the NA. Guess what? Researchers have questioned for decades whether the one in the NA is the SAME ONE that was found in the TSBD! It appears none of the rifles (BYPs, TSBD and NA) appear to be the same. The HSCA skipping the TSBD rifle almost proves they knew they were NOT the same despite their claim to the contrary.
Secondly, the ONLY honest statement is that CE 139 was the ALLEGED assassination rifle. Of course, it was not mentioned that it was never tied to LHO in any way.
Again, they never dealt with the sling swivel mounts. Why? Because they are NOT the same and that alone shows they were different rifles.
Rifle in an alleged BYP (bottom sling swivel mounts):
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
Rifle leaving the TSBD (side sling swivel mounts):
www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/13018301_web1_NY506-JFK-ANNIVERSARY-JFK_ANN.jpg
How can they be so different IF the same rifle is being photographed? We quickly trip over another falsehood when the HSCA wrote the following.
Quote on
(198) Among Oswald's personal effects, the police found photographs depicting Oswald standing in his backyard, holding a rifle that looked like the rifle found in the book depository. These photographs were among the evidence considered by the Warren Commission. (Ibid., p. 67)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0037a.htm
Quote off
When did the DPD find these photographs? Supposedly on Saturday, November 23, 1963, when they had a search warrant, but according to the testimony of Michael Paine they had to have found them on Friday, November 22, 1963, when they had NO search warrant.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
This tells us even IF they did find the BYPs, and that is a huge if, they would have been tossed out in a court of law as they were found when the DPD had NO search warrant. In fact, anything they discovered in their search on November 23 would have been TOSSED OUT for the same reason -- fruit from the same poisonous tree. LHO would have walked faster than Flash because of the horrendous work of the DPD and FBI. Of course, he was never going to see a court of law anyway.
The HSCA then goes on and on about the rifle when they, like the WC, NEVER even showed that the rifle in evidence (NA) is even relevant. CE 139 was NEVER PROVEN to be the murder weapon of JFK so this is all a distraction by your government. They kept saying the rifles seen in photographs and the one in the NA were consistent without ever proving the one in the NA was the actual murder weapon. In fact, they even kept using the word "alleged" for once when mentioning it. So, why did they spend so much time on this rifle?
Once again, we see a ton of verbiage from a government body without them actually proving anything. This was just another waste of taxpayer money.
cdn.videos.rollcall.com/blogs/sites/2/2015/08/Attic-Assassinations-22-091910.jpg
www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/lee-harvey-oswald-7.jpg
jfkindex.com/photos/Mannlicher-CarcanoRifle.gif
The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) began a look into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1976. I will NOT use the word "investigate" as outside of the Mexico City area there was no real investigation just like the Warren Commission (WC).
This post will focus on the alleged murder weapon that the WC claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) used to assassinate JFK with on November 22, 1963. What will the HSCA say about this rifle in terms of whether it was the murder weapon or not?
The HSCA Says...The Alleged Murder Weapon.
**************************************************
The HSCA begins with a synopsis of what the WC said about the rifle in question.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.gif
(186) The Warren Commission concluded that CE 139, a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, was used to assassinate President Kennedy. This rifle was linked by the Commission to Lee Harvey Oswald by both fingerprint and cloth fiber analysis, and by two photographs taken in Oswald's backyard that depict him holding the weapon. These findings, however, have been questioned on the basis of observations relative to post assassination photographs of the alleged murder weapon. (HSCA VI, p. 63)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0035a.htm
Quote off
We have seen in this series, and my other series entitled "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions", that the claims listed above for how the WC concluded that LHO owned the alleged murder weapon and used it on November 22, 1963, are false. Totally false. No fingerprints tied to LHO were found on the rifle on the day of the assassination or the entire weekend. NONE. The ONLY print that was claimed to be LHO's was an alleged palm print that was not turned into the FBI for a full week as the agent working with the rifle, Sebastian Latona, testified to not receiving it until November 29, 1963. Needless to say, it had NO chain of custody.
The only "fingerprints" found were smeared and inconclusive to anyone in particular. In terms of the cloth fiber analysis the WC's own expert, FBI Agent Paul Stombaugh, disagreed with their conclusion as he testified to the following before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
IF only the WC was concerned with presenting the "facts" instead of guesses!
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.
There was no way for them to state positively that the sample they were given came from one particular shirt as the WC was claiming, and yet, the WC claimed it anyway. This of course doesn't even get into the issue of whether LHO was even wearing the shirt in question (Commission Exhibit (CE) 150) at the time of the assassination as he said he went home and changed shirts. This claim does have some corroboration for it as well.
So, we see right away that the two claims that the HSCA mentioned were false. In terms of the supposed backyard photographs (BYPs) we have seen numerous posts showing that they were not genuine. There are just too many issues with them and Marina Oswald couldn't even remember taking two or when she took them (she thought it was late February or early March) or how many she took (first it was one, then two). The WC claimed only two were taken, but at least FIVE versions have surfaced over the years. IF only two were taken, and that is the official conclusion, where did the other ones come from and when were they taken?
I won't rehash all the issues with these supposed photographs as you can search this board for them, but I will mention the issue the HSCA alluded to -- the rifle. The rifle in the alleged BYPs has never been shown to be the same one that was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) Building (CE 139). Never. In fact, they have different sling swivel mounts as one has them on the side of the rifle and the other has them on the bottom of the rifle. The FBI expert, Lyndal Shaneyfelt, again disagreed with the WC's claim as he could not positively show that they were the same rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
This is a good example of how practically EVERYTHING in the WC Report (WCR) is UNSUPPORTED by the actual evidence. Instead of dealing with this monumental issue of importance, the HSCA instead went about seeing if they were the same rifle themselves. They would use their photographic panel that had tools that were not available in 1963/1964 we are told, but let's face it, this is basic stuff that would have been available in 1963 or people would have been getting away with crimes left and right. Remember that the FBI expert said there was NO way to make a positive identification between the two rifles (BYPs and TSBD rifles).
The two individuals who were in charge of this project were Calvin McCamy and Sergeant Cecil Kirk and they would employ the WC method as they would spend a lot of time discussing the dimensions of the rifle. It is long and very boring. I have covered this already in this series so I won't go over that again. Here is a link to that post.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1478/hsca-looks-rifle-byps
While the panel spent a lot of time trying to explain the differences in size of the rifles, they totally ignored the issue of the fact that there is NO evidence linking any rifle to LHO -- especially the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). So, even IF they could show it was the same weapon (and they couldn't) that doesn't mean LHO had anything to do with the weapon. The panel came up with the "tilt" solution to explain why the rifles appeared to be different lengths. They even provided a chart for us.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pages/HSCA_Vol6_0036a.jpg
After a lot of boring detail they finally came to their conclusion.
Quote on
(196) a. A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. b. A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various post assassination photographs. (Ibid., p. 66)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
Quote off
How many falsehoods can you put into one paragraph? I don't know, but this one paragraph should be submitted to Guiness as it has to be close to the record. They obsessed on the length, but did NOT deal with the sling swivel mounts at all? Why? They mention photographs that were taken in 1963, but this was NEVER proven to be true by either the WC or the HSCA. The alleged BYPs have never been PROVEN to be genuine by either "investigation." They were also not working with the negative for both photographs as somehow the negative for CE 133-A was never found in 1963 by the Dallas Police Department (DPD) during their searches. Also lacking is a reason why by the WC in their report.
The HSCA panel claimed that first generation copies for CE 133-A were just as good, but this isn't true. Here is Sergeant Kirks explanation of this issue before the HSCA.
Quote on
Sergeant KIRK. These are the two photographs that were sent over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the Dallas Police Department as a result of the execution of a search warrant on the Paine residence. In addition, they also turned over to the FBI this photographic negative. These are the three elements that were examined by the Warren Commission.
In addition, the photographic panel also was asked to examine 133-A, De Mohrenschildt, which was recovered by the committee investigator from the deceased estate of Mr. De Mohrenschildt, and also requested to examine 133-C, Dees, which has been established to be from a deceased Dallas police officer, and also asked to be examined 133-A, Stovall, and 133-C, Stovall, which was turned over to the investigators by retired Officer Stovall who executed the search warrant at the Paine residence.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are all the materials represented on that flow chart either original negatives or first generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The camera panel established that the 133-B negative is the original camera negative material and all the other photographs on this chart are first generation prints.
Mr. GOLDSMITH. To what extent, if any, did the panel base its analysis upon materials that were not original negatives or first-generation prints?
Sergeant KIRK. The panel agreed to only investigate first generation prints and original negative material.
Quote off
Any professional that works with photographic work will tell you that negatives are the best and not prints, and yet, they used a print for their study. What ever happened to CE 133-A's negative? This is a big question that was never answered by the WC. If LHO had them taken by Marina as claimed one should expect them to have been kept together, but apparently they weren't as one is missing.
The validity of the photographs is key as they keep referring to photographs showing the rifle in 1963. Kirk would be an accommodating witness as he would say the gouge seen on the rifle in the alleged BYPs was the same as the rifle in the National Archives (NA).
First of all, did you notice the sleight of hand by the HSCA's panel? We began this post with the rifles seen in the alleged BYPs and the one found in the TSBD, but when the HSCA made their conclusion, they skipped that rifle and went to the one in the NA. Guess what? Researchers have questioned for decades whether the one in the NA is the SAME ONE that was found in the TSBD! It appears none of the rifles (BYPs, TSBD and NA) appear to be the same. The HSCA skipping the TSBD rifle almost proves they knew they were NOT the same despite their claim to the contrary.
Secondly, the ONLY honest statement is that CE 139 was the ALLEGED assassination rifle. Of course, it was not mentioned that it was never tied to LHO in any way.
Again, they never dealt with the sling swivel mounts. Why? Because they are NOT the same and that alone shows they were different rifles.
Rifle in an alleged BYP (bottom sling swivel mounts):
www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CE-133-all.jpg
Rifle leaving the TSBD (side sling swivel mounts):
www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/13018301_web1_NY506-JFK-ANNIVERSARY-JFK_ANN.jpg
How can they be so different IF the same rifle is being photographed? We quickly trip over another falsehood when the HSCA wrote the following.
Quote on
(198) Among Oswald's personal effects, the police found photographs depicting Oswald standing in his backyard, holding a rifle that looked like the rifle found in the book depository. These photographs were among the evidence considered by the Warren Commission. (Ibid., p. 67)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0037a.htm
Quote off
When did the DPD find these photographs? Supposedly on Saturday, November 23, 1963, when they had a search warrant, but according to the testimony of Michael Paine they had to have found them on Friday, November 22, 1963, when they had NO search warrant.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the FBI or any other investigatory agency of the Government ever show you a picture of the rifle that was supposed to have been used to assassinate the President?
Mr. PAINE - They asked me at first, the first night of the assassination if I could locate, identify the place where Lee was standing when he was holding this rifle and some, the picture on the cover of Life.
This tells us even IF they did find the BYPs, and that is a huge if, they would have been tossed out in a court of law as they were found when the DPD had NO search warrant. In fact, anything they discovered in their search on November 23 would have been TOSSED OUT for the same reason -- fruit from the same poisonous tree. LHO would have walked faster than Flash because of the horrendous work of the DPD and FBI. Of course, he was never going to see a court of law anyway.
The HSCA then goes on and on about the rifle when they, like the WC, NEVER even showed that the rifle in evidence (NA) is even relevant. CE 139 was NEVER PROVEN to be the murder weapon of JFK so this is all a distraction by your government. They kept saying the rifles seen in photographs and the one in the NA were consistent without ever proving the one in the NA was the actual murder weapon. In fact, they even kept using the word "alleged" for once when mentioning it. So, why did they spend so much time on this rifle?
Once again, we see a ton of verbiage from a government body without them actually proving anything. This was just another waste of taxpayer money.