Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 20, 2023 19:33:07 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2025
www.conspiracyarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Featured-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg
We will continue our look at Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) sightings in the weeks (and months) leading up the assassination. At the same time as the Dial Ryder and Albert Bogard incidents there were sightings made of LHO at the Sports Drome Rifle Range (SDRR) and at a firing range in Irving, Texas.
Let’s look at these now.
**************************************
First off, it should be noted the Warren Commission (WC) said it was NOT LHO who these people saw, but this is the overview they gave to us in their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0171b.gif
One GROUP of witnesses, however, believed that they observed LHO at the SDRR in Dallas at VARIOUS TIMES from September through November of 1963. In light of the NUMBER OF WITNESSES, the SIMILARITY of descriptions of the man they saw, and the type of weapon they thought the individual was shooting, there is reason to BELIEVE that these witnesses did see the same person at the firing range, although the testimony of none of these witnesses is fully consistent with the reported observations of the other witnesses. (WCR, p. 318) (emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0171b.htm
Quote off
Notice the words I capitalized. We see a GROUP of witnesses, NOT one like the WC relied on for various areas of their case. We see the statement that “in light of the number of witnesses”, again, illustrating that more than one witness saw this man. We see they gave similar descriptions of the man that they saw. We see their description led those who took it to believe that these witnesses saw the same man. Finally, we saw they observed this man more than once over a two-month period.
This shows the WC was brave to reach the conclusion it was NOT LHO that they saw since this meant two things: 1) someone was impersonating LHO and using his name; and 2) the WC was left with NO way to show LHO was out practicing to hone his skills for the big event on 11/22/63.
Both of these things destroy their conclusion that LHO acted alone with NO help on 11/22/63.
Also note the last sentence—if only the WC would point out that to all of their star witnesses (Helen Markham, Mary Bledsoe, Howard Brennan, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald) who are at ODDS WITH ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES that would make things more fair. But, we only see these kinds of remarks when they are trying to eliminate things that would show or make LHO look innocent.
Let’s resume with the synopsis given to us by the WC in their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0171b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0172a.gif
The witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald at the firing range had MORE than a PASSING notice of the person they observed. Malcolm H. Price, Jr., adjusted the scope on the individual’s rifle one occasion; Garland G. Slack had an altercation with the individual on another occasion because he was shooting at Slack’s target; and Sterling C. Wood, who on a third date was present at the range with his father, Dr. Homer Wood, spoke with his father and very briefly with the man himself about the individual’s rifle. All THREE of these persons, as well as Dr. Wood, expressed confidence that the man they saw was Oswald. Two other persons believed they saw a person resembling Oswald firing a similar rifle at another range near Irving 2 days before the assassination. (WCR, pp. 318-19) (emphasis added)
Quote off
These witnesses were CONFIDENT the man they saw was LHO based on seeing the man in a more than “passing fashion.. That is very clear from what even the WC wrote, so how did the WC know for sure it was NOT LHO? Let’s look and see.
Quote on
Although the testimony of these witnesses was PARTIALLY CORROBORATED by other witnesses, there was other evidence which prevent the Commission from reaching the conclusion that LHO was the person these witnesses saw. OTHERS who were at the firing range remembered the same individual but, though noting a similarity to Oswald, did not believe the man was Oswald; OTHERS were either unable to state whether the man was Oswald or did not recall seeing anybody who they feel may have been Oswald. (WCR, p. 319)
Quote off
Despite them writing on the previous page that there is reason to believe that these witnesses did see the SAME PERSON, they write on page 319 that this was not possible due to “other evidence” and the statements of “other witnesses” that they NEVER NAME. Where are the names for those who did NOT believe it was LHO? Why did the WC NOT mention them by name if they did NOT believe the man looked like LHO or that they did NOT see anyone who looked similar to him? What were they afraid of? This could lead one to believe these “witnesses” did NOT exist at all.
Let’s look at the witnesses who were named to see what they said. We will begin with Malcolm Price’s testimony before the WC.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with Sports Drome Rifle Range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; very familiar with it.
Mr. LIEBELER. As a matter of fact, you work there from time to time, do you not?
Mr. PRICE. I have helped them there--I'm not, as you say, employed, but I do help there from time to time. They are close friends of mine and I have helped them get the things set up and get it started.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you referring to the Davises?
Mr. PRICE. Virginia and Floyd Davis.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. PRICE. That's right. The first time that I saw this person was in September, the last week--the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon that they opened the rifle range.
Why did the WC have to shoot this testimony down? Because they had LHO SOMEWHERE ELSE at the end of September! This testimony shows us that IF it was LHO he was out and about firing his rifle to get ready for the big event he was planning (per the WC) and that should be good for the WC, right? WRONG, as they had him doing something else instead. These incidences show us the WC was NOT searching for the truth no matter where it led, but instead they actively protected their PRECONCEIVED conclusion from any TRUTH that might get in the way.
Also, note what a small world it was in the JFK assassination saga as one of the owners of SDRR, Virginia Davis, would be a witness for the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit!
Mr. LIEBELER. On the last Saturday of September?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would be September 28?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw this fellow?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it was just about dusky dark and he came in in an old model car, I would judge it was possibly a 1940 or 1941 model Ford.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anyone with him?
Mr. PRICE. No; he was by himself, and I have heard that he couldn't drive, but he was driving that day because he was the only one in the car, and he came down and inquired if there was anyone there that could set a scope, a telescope on a rifle, and I told him that I could, and he said, well--he had one that he had had mounted and boresighted but it hadn't been fired on a range and that he would like to have it sighted in, so I went down and set up a target on a hundred yards.
Actually, he set the target up himself and I drove my car and turned the headlights on the target and as I proceeded to set the rifle--I fired the rifle approximately 12 to--12 to 18 times I would say and zeroed it in on a hundred yards and Mr. Davis came in from work before we left and he also drove his pickup down and turned his lights on. He drove his pickup down on the opposite side and turned his lights on the target.
Again, we see that the man Price saw, and presumed to be LHO, was driving a car, an old model car, and the LHO we all know could NOT drive an automobile per the WC. This caused another issue and again this had to be squelched.
We also saw that Price sighted his scope for him and it worked very well as this is the next part of the relevant testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did this man fire the rifle himself?
Mr. PRICE. He fired three shots after I had got it set to where I could fire a pattern, with three shots in a bull's eye. I turned it over to him and I said, "Now, I'm satisfied with it, you try it."
And, he fired three shots and he scored bull's eye with all three--a very tight pattern and he said, "Well, I am completely satisfied."
Mr. LIEBELER. How much did you charge him for zeroing the rifle in?
Mr. PRICE. I didn't charge him anything. I charged him $1 for the use of the range and that was all. I just did that as a favor to Floyd to help him get his business in. I figured this was just another hunter who had come down to get his rifle zeroed in for deer season.
The man fired and scored a bull’s eye with ALL THREE SHOTS! Does that sound like the LHO we all know from this case? Without being able to show LHO practiced with a rifle it would be over three years since he last took a test firing a rifle in the Marines, so how could we expect LHO to shoot this well? Also, what is with the three shots and only three shots stuff?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any other conversation with this fellow at that time?
Mr. PRICE. No, that was all. It was rather abrupt. He didn't talk too much, and I was kind of surprised that he didn't fire the rifle more. He just fired the three shots and he said, "Well, that's good enough," and he got up and left.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he leave the shell casings lying there at the range or did he take them with him?
Mr. PRICE. No, he took them with him--he picked them all up after the rifle was fired and took the shell casings along with him.
Was this to make it match the supposed shooting feat in Dealey Plaza (DP)? What kind of rifle did this man have?
Mr. LIEBELER. You had an opportunity to observe the rifle, did you not?
Mr. PRICE. Yes, I had it in my hand.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be able to identify the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Well, I believe I would--it was a foreign make rifle and I wasn't too familiar with it at the time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see it again?
Mr. PRICE. On two other occasions that he was there.
This sounds promising so of course the WC stalled here and went back to discussing the lights that were on the target and in general as they were probably hoping it was still pretty dark to make an ID, but that didn’t go so well for them.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you didn't have any difficulty in seeing this fellow?
Mr. PRICE. No--no difficulty at all.
Here they were hoping he would say a “blanket” I guess.
Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't have anything he wrapped the rifle in?
Mr. PRICE. Not that I know of. In fact, the best I remember, when he got out of the car, he just picked the gun up out of the back seat because it wasn't wrapped in anything or wasn't in a case.
He would testify to seeing this man two more times—two weeks later and at a turkey shoot. Price did not notice if he was carrying the same gun at the turkey shoot, but did notice it was the same gun when he saw him for a third time. It would seem “Oswald” spent some big bucks on his scopes too.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who commented on the telescope?
Mr. PRICE. Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. Commented to you?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; he asked me to look through it, and he said, "It's one of the clearest telescopes that I have ever seen---one of the brightest." He said, "It's a Japanese scope and I gave $18 for it."
Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that he paid $18 for it?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; he said that it was--he remarked that it was a 4-power telescope and he said it was mounted on Redfield mounts.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he paid $18 for the scope or did he say that he paid $18 for the whole works?
Mr. PRICE. No; he said he paid $18 for the scope.
Wow, where would LHO get $18 for a scope? Where did he purchase it from? These are scary questions for the WC to consider. Finally, we have to go pages and pages, but we finally hear about this man’s rifle and what kind it was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the rifle closely that day--you must have handled it in looking through the scope?
Mr. PRICE. Oh, yes; I handled it--it was a Mauser-type rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. What do you mean by that--I don't know anything about rifles?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it's strictly a military rifle and it's patterned after the German Mauser.
Mr. LIEBELER. A bolt-action rifle?
Mr. PRICE.. A bolt action, and the general outline it had--about oh, possibly a six shot clip that set just ahead of the trigger, and I understand it was a 6.5 Italian, but at that time I didn't know. I thought it was a Mauser because there's a friend of mine in Grand Prairie that has an Argentine Mauser that was 7.6 and it looked very familiar--they looked a whole lot alike.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a chance to look at any of the writing or printing that was stamped on the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Well, the only thing that I could see on it--I looked for a brand name so I could see approximately where it was made, and the only thing that I could find on it was a serial number.
It is obvious Mr. Price wants to aid the WC as he throws in the mention of an Italian rifle, but we know it was NOT the alleged murder weapon simply because that rifle had “MADE ITALY” and “6.5” stamped on it and Price said the ONLY thing he could find was the serial number. Also, the rifle Price saw was “sporterized” (remember Warren Caster’s Mauser?) and the alleged murder weapon has NEVER been accused of this.
Mr. LIEBELER. It had been taken off as part of the attempt to sporterize the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Price would be shown photographs of the alleged murder weapon, and he would say save for the sling (the rifle he saw had NO sling) and the wooden piece on top of the barrel it looked the same, but remember, he saw NO markings and CE-139 has markings.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, if you took the sling off this rifle and took the top wooden piece off the barrel, you think it would look pretty much like the one that this fellow had?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Here are the pictures he was shown to compare the rifles.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0026a.jpg
Notice the biased, and inaccurate, description of “Assassin’s rifle” when LHO was never shown to be the assassin or CE 139 to have belonged to him. Again, he found NO markings on the rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before that when you examined this rifle, you looked for the brand name and you weren't able to find a brand name?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
However, the WC never showed us via testimony that the serial number he saw on the rifle was C2766. They never asked him if this was the number he saw on the rifle in question. Why?
The WC then does something very interesting. They show him photos of Larry Crafard and ask him to ID them.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0098b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0100a.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0100b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0101a.jpg
Why is this interesting? Because for one thing it would show someone was impersonating LHO, and two, he WORKED for Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club! He only picks out one (CE-455) as looking like the man he saw, but when he is shown photos of LHO he picks him out right away (these are the street photos of LHO passing out leaflets in New Orleans I believe).
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you another picture--it is a photograph of a street scene with several people in it and I show you two different pictures and ask you if you notice anybody in there as being the fellow you saw at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; this one here and this one here--he has a part of the receding hairline on the right side.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which one?
Mr. PRICE. This one--right here--he's got a long--kind of a sharp nose.
Mr. LIEBELER. The pictures that I have just showed you do not have any marks on them, is that right?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
He would be shown the Pizzo exhibits too.
Mr. LIEBELER. In the identical picture which has been marked as "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B," and that is the man that you saw at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the second picture I showed you, you identified as the man you saw at the rifle range the man who has a green "X" over him?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that picture has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A." I'll show you a picture that has been marked as "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, and ask you if you recognize that as the man you saw on the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Price either saw the real LHO, which means he was in town and NOT in Mexico as claimed, or a man who looked much more like him than Crafard did. He said he contacted the FBI because he was so sure the man in custody was the same man he saw at the rifle range.
Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become aware of the fact it was Oswald--when did you first think that it was Oswald?
Mr. PRICE. When I saw him on television when they were transferring him from the Dallas jail.
Mr. LIEBELER. And did you recognize him right away as the fellow you had seen at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; and I contacted the FBI the next day. I debated on it all night whether I should call them or get mixed up with it or not.
Ironically, as much of this case is, he spoke with a man who has the name of a famous cartoon character at the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. Whom did you talk with at the FBI, do you remember?
Mr. PRICE. Charlie Brown.
We clearly see either someone was impersonating LHO or he was working on a plan that involved others. We will look at the others in this story in another post.
This post contains evidence that disputes the claims of the WC once more.
www.conspiracyarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Featured-Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg
We will continue our look at Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) sightings in the weeks (and months) leading up the assassination. At the same time as the Dial Ryder and Albert Bogard incidents there were sightings made of LHO at the Sports Drome Rifle Range (SDRR) and at a firing range in Irving, Texas.
Let’s look at these now.
**************************************
First off, it should be noted the Warren Commission (WC) said it was NOT LHO who these people saw, but this is the overview they gave to us in their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0171b.gif
One GROUP of witnesses, however, believed that they observed LHO at the SDRR in Dallas at VARIOUS TIMES from September through November of 1963. In light of the NUMBER OF WITNESSES, the SIMILARITY of descriptions of the man they saw, and the type of weapon they thought the individual was shooting, there is reason to BELIEVE that these witnesses did see the same person at the firing range, although the testimony of none of these witnesses is fully consistent with the reported observations of the other witnesses. (WCR, p. 318) (emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0171b.htm
Quote off
Notice the words I capitalized. We see a GROUP of witnesses, NOT one like the WC relied on for various areas of their case. We see the statement that “in light of the number of witnesses”, again, illustrating that more than one witness saw this man. We see they gave similar descriptions of the man that they saw. We see their description led those who took it to believe that these witnesses saw the same man. Finally, we saw they observed this man more than once over a two-month period.
This shows the WC was brave to reach the conclusion it was NOT LHO that they saw since this meant two things: 1) someone was impersonating LHO and using his name; and 2) the WC was left with NO way to show LHO was out practicing to hone his skills for the big event on 11/22/63.
Both of these things destroy their conclusion that LHO acted alone with NO help on 11/22/63.
Also note the last sentence—if only the WC would point out that to all of their star witnesses (Helen Markham, Mary Bledsoe, Howard Brennan, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald) who are at ODDS WITH ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES that would make things more fair. But, we only see these kinds of remarks when they are trying to eliminate things that would show or make LHO look innocent.
Let’s resume with the synopsis given to us by the WC in their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0171b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0172a.gif
The witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald at the firing range had MORE than a PASSING notice of the person they observed. Malcolm H. Price, Jr., adjusted the scope on the individual’s rifle one occasion; Garland G. Slack had an altercation with the individual on another occasion because he was shooting at Slack’s target; and Sterling C. Wood, who on a third date was present at the range with his father, Dr. Homer Wood, spoke with his father and very briefly with the man himself about the individual’s rifle. All THREE of these persons, as well as Dr. Wood, expressed confidence that the man they saw was Oswald. Two other persons believed they saw a person resembling Oswald firing a similar rifle at another range near Irving 2 days before the assassination. (WCR, pp. 318-19) (emphasis added)
Quote off
These witnesses were CONFIDENT the man they saw was LHO based on seeing the man in a more than “passing fashion.. That is very clear from what even the WC wrote, so how did the WC know for sure it was NOT LHO? Let’s look and see.
Quote on
Although the testimony of these witnesses was PARTIALLY CORROBORATED by other witnesses, there was other evidence which prevent the Commission from reaching the conclusion that LHO was the person these witnesses saw. OTHERS who were at the firing range remembered the same individual but, though noting a similarity to Oswald, did not believe the man was Oswald; OTHERS were either unable to state whether the man was Oswald or did not recall seeing anybody who they feel may have been Oswald. (WCR, p. 319)
Quote off
Despite them writing on the previous page that there is reason to believe that these witnesses did see the SAME PERSON, they write on page 319 that this was not possible due to “other evidence” and the statements of “other witnesses” that they NEVER NAME. Where are the names for those who did NOT believe it was LHO? Why did the WC NOT mention them by name if they did NOT believe the man looked like LHO or that they did NOT see anyone who looked similar to him? What were they afraid of? This could lead one to believe these “witnesses” did NOT exist at all.
Let’s look at the witnesses who were named to see what they said. We will begin with Malcolm Price’s testimony before the WC.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you familiar with Sports Drome Rifle Range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; very familiar with it.
Mr. LIEBELER. As a matter of fact, you work there from time to time, do you not?
Mr. PRICE. I have helped them there--I'm not, as you say, employed, but I do help there from time to time. They are close friends of mine and I have helped them get the things set up and get it started.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you referring to the Davises?
Mr. PRICE. Virginia and Floyd Davis.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?
Mr. PRICE. That's right. The first time that I saw this person was in September, the last week--the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon that they opened the rifle range.
Why did the WC have to shoot this testimony down? Because they had LHO SOMEWHERE ELSE at the end of September! This testimony shows us that IF it was LHO he was out and about firing his rifle to get ready for the big event he was planning (per the WC) and that should be good for the WC, right? WRONG, as they had him doing something else instead. These incidences show us the WC was NOT searching for the truth no matter where it led, but instead they actively protected their PRECONCEIVED conclusion from any TRUTH that might get in the way.
Also, note what a small world it was in the JFK assassination saga as one of the owners of SDRR, Virginia Davis, would be a witness for the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit!
Mr. LIEBELER. On the last Saturday of September?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would be September 28?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw this fellow?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it was just about dusky dark and he came in in an old model car, I would judge it was possibly a 1940 or 1941 model Ford.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anyone with him?
Mr. PRICE. No; he was by himself, and I have heard that he couldn't drive, but he was driving that day because he was the only one in the car, and he came down and inquired if there was anyone there that could set a scope, a telescope on a rifle, and I told him that I could, and he said, well--he had one that he had had mounted and boresighted but it hadn't been fired on a range and that he would like to have it sighted in, so I went down and set up a target on a hundred yards.
Actually, he set the target up himself and I drove my car and turned the headlights on the target and as I proceeded to set the rifle--I fired the rifle approximately 12 to--12 to 18 times I would say and zeroed it in on a hundred yards and Mr. Davis came in from work before we left and he also drove his pickup down and turned his lights on. He drove his pickup down on the opposite side and turned his lights on the target.
Again, we see that the man Price saw, and presumed to be LHO, was driving a car, an old model car, and the LHO we all know could NOT drive an automobile per the WC. This caused another issue and again this had to be squelched.
We also saw that Price sighted his scope for him and it worked very well as this is the next part of the relevant testimony.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, did this man fire the rifle himself?
Mr. PRICE. He fired three shots after I had got it set to where I could fire a pattern, with three shots in a bull's eye. I turned it over to him and I said, "Now, I'm satisfied with it, you try it."
And, he fired three shots and he scored bull's eye with all three--a very tight pattern and he said, "Well, I am completely satisfied."
Mr. LIEBELER. How much did you charge him for zeroing the rifle in?
Mr. PRICE. I didn't charge him anything. I charged him $1 for the use of the range and that was all. I just did that as a favor to Floyd to help him get his business in. I figured this was just another hunter who had come down to get his rifle zeroed in for deer season.
The man fired and scored a bull’s eye with ALL THREE SHOTS! Does that sound like the LHO we all know from this case? Without being able to show LHO practiced with a rifle it would be over three years since he last took a test firing a rifle in the Marines, so how could we expect LHO to shoot this well? Also, what is with the three shots and only three shots stuff?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any other conversation with this fellow at that time?
Mr. PRICE. No, that was all. It was rather abrupt. He didn't talk too much, and I was kind of surprised that he didn't fire the rifle more. He just fired the three shots and he said, "Well, that's good enough," and he got up and left.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he leave the shell casings lying there at the range or did he take them with him?
Mr. PRICE. No, he took them with him--he picked them all up after the rifle was fired and took the shell casings along with him.
Was this to make it match the supposed shooting feat in Dealey Plaza (DP)? What kind of rifle did this man have?
Mr. LIEBELER. You had an opportunity to observe the rifle, did you not?
Mr. PRICE. Yes, I had it in my hand.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would you be able to identify the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Well, I believe I would--it was a foreign make rifle and I wasn't too familiar with it at the time.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see it again?
Mr. PRICE. On two other occasions that he was there.
This sounds promising so of course the WC stalled here and went back to discussing the lights that were on the target and in general as they were probably hoping it was still pretty dark to make an ID, but that didn’t go so well for them.
Mr. LIEBELER. So you didn't have any difficulty in seeing this fellow?
Mr. PRICE. No--no difficulty at all.
Here they were hoping he would say a “blanket” I guess.
Mr. LIEBELER. He didn't have anything he wrapped the rifle in?
Mr. PRICE. Not that I know of. In fact, the best I remember, when he got out of the car, he just picked the gun up out of the back seat because it wasn't wrapped in anything or wasn't in a case.
He would testify to seeing this man two more times—two weeks later and at a turkey shoot. Price did not notice if he was carrying the same gun at the turkey shoot, but did notice it was the same gun when he saw him for a third time. It would seem “Oswald” spent some big bucks on his scopes too.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who commented on the telescope?
Mr. PRICE. Oswald.
Mr. LIEBELER. Commented to you?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; he asked me to look through it, and he said, "It's one of the clearest telescopes that I have ever seen---one of the brightest." He said, "It's a Japanese scope and I gave $18 for it."
Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that he paid $18 for it?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; he said that it was--he remarked that it was a 4-power telescope and he said it was mounted on Redfield mounts.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he paid $18 for the scope or did he say that he paid $18 for the whole works?
Mr. PRICE. No; he said he paid $18 for the scope.
Wow, where would LHO get $18 for a scope? Where did he purchase it from? These are scary questions for the WC to consider. Finally, we have to go pages and pages, but we finally hear about this man’s rifle and what kind it was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see the rifle closely that day--you must have handled it in looking through the scope?
Mr. PRICE. Oh, yes; I handled it--it was a Mauser-type rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. What do you mean by that--I don't know anything about rifles?
Mr. PRICE. Well, it's strictly a military rifle and it's patterned after the German Mauser.
Mr. LIEBELER. A bolt-action rifle?
Mr. PRICE.. A bolt action, and the general outline it had--about oh, possibly a six shot clip that set just ahead of the trigger, and I understand it was a 6.5 Italian, but at that time I didn't know. I thought it was a Mauser because there's a friend of mine in Grand Prairie that has an Argentine Mauser that was 7.6 and it looked very familiar--they looked a whole lot alike.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have a chance to look at any of the writing or printing that was stamped on the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Well, the only thing that I could see on it--I looked for a brand name so I could see approximately where it was made, and the only thing that I could find on it was a serial number.
It is obvious Mr. Price wants to aid the WC as he throws in the mention of an Italian rifle, but we know it was NOT the alleged murder weapon simply because that rifle had “MADE ITALY” and “6.5” stamped on it and Price said the ONLY thing he could find was the serial number. Also, the rifle Price saw was “sporterized” (remember Warren Caster’s Mauser?) and the alleged murder weapon has NEVER been accused of this.
Mr. LIEBELER. It had been taken off as part of the attempt to sporterize the rifle?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Price would be shown photographs of the alleged murder weapon, and he would say save for the sling (the rifle he saw had NO sling) and the wooden piece on top of the barrel it looked the same, but remember, he saw NO markings and CE-139 has markings.
Mr. LIEBELER. So, if you took the sling off this rifle and took the top wooden piece off the barrel, you think it would look pretty much like the one that this fellow had?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Here are the pictures he was shown to compare the rifles.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0026a.jpg
Notice the biased, and inaccurate, description of “Assassin’s rifle” when LHO was never shown to be the assassin or CE 139 to have belonged to him. Again, he found NO markings on the rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, you testified before that when you examined this rifle, you looked for the brand name and you weren't able to find a brand name?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
However, the WC never showed us via testimony that the serial number he saw on the rifle was C2766. They never asked him if this was the number he saw on the rifle in question. Why?
The WC then does something very interesting. They show him photos of Larry Crafard and ask him to ID them.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0098b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0100a.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0100b.jpg
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0101a.jpg
Why is this interesting? Because for one thing it would show someone was impersonating LHO, and two, he WORKED for Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club! He only picks out one (CE-455) as looking like the man he saw, but when he is shown photos of LHO he picks him out right away (these are the street photos of LHO passing out leaflets in New Orleans I believe).
Mr. LIEBELER. Now, I show you another picture--it is a photograph of a street scene with several people in it and I show you two different pictures and ask you if you notice anybody in there as being the fellow you saw at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; this one here and this one here--he has a part of the receding hairline on the right side.
Mr. LIEBELER. Which one?
Mr. PRICE. This one--right here--he's got a long--kind of a sharp nose.
Mr. LIEBELER. The pictures that I have just showed you do not have any marks on them, is that right?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
He would be shown the Pizzo exhibits too.
Mr. LIEBELER. In the identical picture which has been marked as "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-B," and that is the man that you saw at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. On the second picture I showed you, you identified as the man you saw at the rifle range the man who has a green "X" over him?
Mr. PRICE. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And that picture has been marked "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-A." I'll show you a picture that has been marked as "Pizzo Exhibit No. 453-C, and ask you if you recognize that as the man you saw on the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes.
Price either saw the real LHO, which means he was in town and NOT in Mexico as claimed, or a man who looked much more like him than Crafard did. He said he contacted the FBI because he was so sure the man in custody was the same man he saw at the rifle range.
Mr. LIEBELER. When did you first become aware of the fact it was Oswald--when did you first think that it was Oswald?
Mr. PRICE. When I saw him on television when they were transferring him from the Dallas jail.
Mr. LIEBELER. And did you recognize him right away as the fellow you had seen at the rifle range?
Mr. PRICE. Yes; and I contacted the FBI the next day. I debated on it all night whether I should call them or get mixed up with it or not.
Ironically, as much of this case is, he spoke with a man who has the name of a famous cartoon character at the FBI.
Mr. LIEBELER. Whom did you talk with at the FBI, do you remember?
Mr. PRICE. Charlie Brown.
We clearly see either someone was impersonating LHO or he was working on a plan that involved others. We will look at the others in this story in another post.
This post contains evidence that disputes the claims of the WC once more.