Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 11, 2018 22:27:59 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
Alleged Rifle Clip Found In The Texas School Book Depository:
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/day_clip.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) would claim that a clip was found in the alleged murder weapon (CE-139—Mannlicher-Carcano) when it was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on November 22, 1963. They were not able to put forth any evidence that shows it was in the rifle when it was found. In legal terms this is called “in situ” meaning “in position” or as found. The WC lacked any in situ evidence showing us a clip was found near or in the rifle as they claimed.
When I brought these up years ago, I was vehemently attacked by many of the WC defenders, but oddly enough I was also attacked by quite a few who claimed to be conspiracy supporters too (Ben Holmes, Walt Cakebread, Barb Junkkarinen and Tony Marsh to name some). Why is that when there is NO evidence showing the clip was inside the rifle when it was found as the WC claimed?
Let’s look at this critical area more now.
*****************************************
There is no record of any notation for an ammunition clip in the inventory list of the items allegedly found in the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN). There is NO photograph of the clip as it was found—whether that was inside or outside the rifle when it was discovered. There are NO mentions of a clip by anyone including most importantly Lt. Day who was responsible for processing the rifle on the scene (i.e. dusting for prints and photographing the rifle in situ). And there is NO mention of it being dusted for fingerprints. Why is that? The best WC defenders can come up with is the picture of Lt. Day taking the rifle OUT of the TSBD, but anyone that is remotely familiar with crime scene procedures will tell you this means NOTHING as the only evidence that matters is the evidence documented in situ. A photograph taken 30-50 minutes later does NOT show us the condition something was discovered in, now does it?
Here is what the WC claimed about the clip in their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0290a.gif
When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the manufacturer's code number). (WCR, p. 555)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0290a.htm
Quote off
Here is the photograph along with John McAdams’ attempt at “debunking” the clip issue. He too offers NOTHING but acts like he has set the record straight.
The best they can do is provide a “report” from Lieutenant Day that was supposedly written on 11/22/63 by him.
If we look at this “report” we will see quite a few things immediately. Firstly, there is NO letterhead on this document. Why NOT? Who writes a formal report that will become part of evidence on a blank piece of paper? Secondly, it does NOT say the clip was FOUND near or INSIDE the rifle—it simply says, “The clip is stamped SMI 952.” That is NOT the same thing. As we saw from the quote above from the WCR it simply said the rifle “contained” a clip, but that is NOT possible based on the design of the rifle, which is, to shed itself of the clip once the last round is CHAMBERED. The clip should NOT have been in the rifle; thus, the WC had to try and explain why it was. This is how we got the “jammed” explanation, but the clip should still have been seen and photographed with Lt. Day took the rifle apart to process it (see below). Why did this NOT happen?
It has been claimed that it was listed in an INVENTORY LOG of items found in the alleged SN, but as I showed many years ago it was NOT. Why NOT? IF it was found in the SN or in the rifle why is NOT listed then? Why is there NO evidence that it was found near or in the rifle as claimed by the WC? This vague “report” by Lt. Day is NOT the same as an inventory of evidence report. Finally, this is a SUMMARY of what occurred allegedly, NOT an inventory of items on a log.
It has also been said that NO processing was done on site to the rifle, but again, I showed the WC defenders what should be done and what was done.
Quote on
Fingerprints
Fingerprints (also includes palm prints and bare footprints) are the best evidence to place an individual at the scene of a crime. Collecting fingerprints at a crime scene requires very few materials, making it ideal from a cost standpoint. All non-movable items at a crime scene should be processed at the scene using gray powder, black powder, or black magnetic powder. Polaroid 665 black and white film loaded in a Polaroid CU-5 camera with detachable flash should be used to make one-to-one photographs of prints which do not readily lift. All small transportable items should be packaged in paper bags or envelopes and sent to the crime lab for processing. Because of the "package it up and send it to the lab" mentality, some investigators skim over collecting prints at a crime scene. ***Collecting prints at the crime scene should be every investigator's top priority.*** Fingerprints from the suspect as well as elimination fingerprints from the victim will also be needed for comparison (the same holds true for palm and bare footprints).
Quote off
We see in this statement that processing (i.e. dusting for prints) is imperative and we know this happened on 11/22/63 because Lt. Day told us so in his WC testimony.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this in an effort, perhaps, to save time. In all of your processing of prints did you use anything other than this black powder at the scene that day?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. So whenever you say you processed for prints you used black powder, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.
Despite their claims, the WC defenders cannot show the rifle was NOT processed on site as Lt. Day says he did PROCESS the alleged murder weapon in the TSBD! Another odd thing is this, part of processing is SAFE handling and that requires taking the weapon apart. I provided this quote years ago to show this too.
Quote on
Firearms and Toolmarks
Bullets and casings found at the crime scene can be positively matched back to a gun in the possession of a suspect. Bullets and casings can also be examined at the crime lab and sometimes tell an investigator what make and model of weapons may have expended the casing or bullet. A bullet found at the crime scene can sometimes be matched back to the same lot of ammunition found in a suspect's possession. Toolmarks can be positively matched to a tool in the suspect's possession. ***Firearm safety is a must at any crime scene.*** If a firearm must be moved at a crime scene, never move it by placing a pencil in the barrel or inside the trigger guard. Not only is this unsafe, but it could damage potential evidence. The gun can be picked up by the textured surface on the grips without fear of placing unnecessary fingerprints on the weapon. Before picking up the gun, make sure that the gun barrel is not pointed at anyone. Keep notes on the condition of the weapon as found and stops taken to render it as safe as possible without damaging potential evidence. The firearm can then be processed for prints and finally rendered completely safe. ***FIREARMS MUST BE RENDERED SAFE BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE CRIME LAB. The firearm should be packaged in an envelope or paper bag separately from the ammunition and/or magazine.***
Quote off
This leads me to another question—why was the rifle NOT disassembled when it was taken out of the TSBD? We know it was not because of the photograph above (the one the WC defenders rely on). So, can any WC defender explain why it was NOT taken apart? Also, explain why the clip was supposedly “jammed” inside the rifle in the TSBD, but hanging out in the photograph of Lt. Day leaving the TSBD? What caused it to come loose in such a short period of time?
Here are pictures of the clip as it was included in the twenty-six volumes.
Commission Exhibit (CE) 574/loaded clip:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
CE-575/empty clip:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0143a.jpg
Do either of these looked crimped or bent from being “jammed” in the rifle to you? Here is a picture of the clip inside the rifle.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0054a.jpg
The WC would write this about the clip in their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0290a.gif
The rifle was probably sold without a clip; however, the clip is commonly available. (WCR, p. 555)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0290a.htm
Quote off
This is a very misleading set of statements by the WC. First of all, there was NO clip sold with the rifle as Klein’s included this as an option and it was NOT chosen by LHO allegedly. There is no indication of a clip on the alleged order form and there is NO money included for it either, thus, the word “probably” can be eliminated as we KNOW if LHO ordered a rifle from Klein’s he did NOT order a clip or ammunition. Secondly, the comment about the clip being “commonly available” is incorrect as ONLY TWO stores in all of the Dallas area sold Mannlicher-Carcano Western Cartridge Company (WCC) ammunition, so why would more carry clips for this ammunition? They wouldn’t. We know ONLY two stores carried this kind of ammunition because the WC was good enough to check this out for us. In CE 2694 we see the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0049b.gif
In an effort to locate a source of supply of the 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano, Western Cartridge Company, ammunition where Lee Harvey Oswald purchased ammunition for his Carcano rifle, a telephone canvass was made of all places of business in the Dallas and Irving area currently listed in the Dallas-Irving Classified Section of the telephone directories under listings of ammunition, guns, hardware stores, pawn shops, department stores, discount stores, sporting goods stores, and Army and Navy surplus stores.
Only the TWO FOLLOWING listed places were located as a result of this telephone canvass:
John Thomas Masen, owner, Mason’s Gun Shop, 7402 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas;
John H. Brinegar, owner, The Gun Shop, 11448 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas. (CE 2694, p. 12) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0049b.htm
Quote off
Out of all the places they mentioned ONLY two sold WCC ammunition, thus, it can be surmised the purchaser of this ammunition would buy his clip there too! The problem for the WC was this—neither place said they sold any ammunition to LHO! Mr. Masen said this in CE-2694 on page 63.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0050a.gif
Mr. Masen claimed he had NEVER seen Lee Harvey Oswald, had NO recollection of his ever having come to his place of business, and he had NEVER sold ANY of this ammunition to Oswald. (CE 2694, p. 13) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0050a.htm
Quote off
On the same page we see this from Mr. Brinegar about this issue.
Quote on
Mr. Brinegar stated he did NOT know Lee Harvey Oswald, had NO recollection of ever seeing him, and did NOT believe he had sold any of this type of ammunition. (Ibid.) (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
So we see the phrase “commonly available” is NOT so true as ONLY two stores handled the ammunition LHO allegedly used, thus, there are only two stores he would have gotten his clip from. The WC NEVER showed us where he got the ammunition and clip from, thus, their claims are empty. NO ammunition or cleaning supplies for the rifle were ever found among LHO’s possessions either, so where did the four WCC bullets come from then IF LHO fired them as claimed?
The clip issue is HUGE because without a clip one had to HAND-LOAD the bullets into the chamber and this means there is NO way LHO could have fired three shots in 5.6 seconds as the WC claimed. Here is an explanation how those on the scene could have been confused or manipulated into finding a clip for the M-C when NONE existed.
[Note: The term “ejected” is the authors, NOT mine. I am comfortable saying the clip FALLS OUT by itself. I mention this because the WC defenders distracted the thrust of this point years ago by focusing on the word “eject” instead of the context of the point. Sound familiar?]
Quote on
THE GUN THAT DIDN'T SMOKE
By Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew
It is important enough to repeat that, on the M-1 Garand, the clip is ejected when the last round is fired, while on the Mannlicher system, the clip is ejected when the last round is chambered.
That was the state of the weapon left at the TSBD. Yet it is not until the Warren Report's Appendix X that, at long last, the silence is broken on the location of the clip. We read that when the rifle was found in the TSBD, it contained a clip. That was the only place in the world where the clip could not be found. It would have fallen out the bottom when the last round was chambered. The word "contained" precludes the slight possibility that the clip was stuck in the magazine.
Events at the crime scene seem to be predicated on 1) somehow a clip was involved, but 2) somehow these events were based on the misconception that the clip, as in the M-1 Garand, was ejected when the last round was fired, not chambered. See the Warren Report's Appendix X.
Forget where the rifle came from, forget whether Oswald ever had the rifle, rate of fire or accuracy or whether the rifle was fired that day (there appears to be no evidence it was checked for recent firing). Forget everything about the rifle except two things: 1) the Carcano was the evidence on the scene and 2) its load-fire-reload cycle in relation to the state in which the rifle was found was that the last round was chambered.
The first factor was understood on the afternoon of November 22nd. The second factor was misunderstood and may have resulted in what Ruby referred to as the "confusion over the rifle." This confusion governed that afternoon, evening, night and the next day. It resulted in the Warren Commission drawing a conclusion that is completely impossible. It resulted in Henry Wade being forced to make ridiculous statements.
Quote off
Note: This paragraph explains the Mauser discussion.
Quote on
Since there is no physical or photographic (and, as discussed below, truthful anecdotal) evidence of a Mauser or a clip at the sixth-floor crime scene, the Mannlicher-Carcano was the only weapon in evidence on the sixth floor of the TSBD at 1:22 p.m., November 22nd, 1963. The evidential line therefore had to be set up. Through failure to understand the second factor above, it was mistakenly thought a clip had to be found. A clip was obtained. A period of uncertainty followed. The public had to be informed it was a Mauser (the Carcano's non-clip-fed superficial-twin). As a result, no one asked, "Where's the clip?" When the conspirators realized they must remain committed to the clip (because Day had been photographed leaving the TSBD with the rifle and the clip is shown sticking noticeably out of the bottom of the trigger guard), the cover story was explained away as Weitzman's imagination having only "glimpsed" the murder weapon of the century. This, in all likelihood, is the "situation" Wade was talking about. Neither this nor anything else, however, suggests that Wade had knowledge of what was transpiring. It suggests only that he was being given a "bum steer."(24H (CE 2169, p. 4) 829. 5H 250.)
And because the weapon was apparently never tested for recent firing, a probably unfired rifle was planted supposedly in a state to suggest an actual fire. For rifle experts, the first thing they focus on in picking up the Mannlicher-Carcano is the unusual clip ejection system and the characteristic of the clip getting stuck on occasion. The silence on this subject was deafening at Dallas, and this silence continued through most of the Warren Report. Finally, in the Report's Appendix X, it was dismissed in a terse, tortured manner, dismissed with a sentence that sounds like a thunderclap: "When the rifle was found at the [TSBD] it contained a clip." "Contained" does not mean "stuck in the bottom." Had that been what was observed, it would have been among the very first observations made at the crime scene.
If the clip was on the sixth floor for everyone to see, the tool mark notwithstanding, how could these men mistake a clip-fed rifle for a non-clip-fed Mauser? If the clip was there, the long-lived Mauser identification does not make sense: **unless it was a deliberate lie**. And since there was no reason to lie about a Mannlicher-Carcano with a clip, it either was a Mauser, quickly replaced by a Mannlicher-Carcano, or there was no clip. Those are two very good reasons to lie; but in the latter case, only if you think a clip is needed. And until there is evidence of a Mauser or a clip on the sixth floor, the latter explanation must predominate.
Therefore, if there was no clip on the sixth floor, why did the authorities say there was? If the clip was not there -- a perfectly normal situation -- the fact that they said it was does not make sense; unless they knew the rifle was planted, inserted a clip which they erroneously thought it needed, and lied to cover it up. Either way, Oswald was framed. If not for the serious implications, it would be laughable, because they did not need the clip.
Quote off
I differ a little with the authors on this last point because a clip was NEEDED as otherwise LHO would have had to HAND-LOAD the weapon allegedly and there is NO way he could have done this and still hoped to kill President Kennedy. The article mentions that LHO did NOT purchase a clip and that he could have had one for free with a ammunition purchase from Klein’s.
Quote on
The clip was offered free with the purchase of 108 rounds of ammunition which cost $7.50. The carbine with scope was $19.95, plus $1.50 for postage and handling. The money order was in the amount of $21.45. The order form sent to Klein's Sporting Goods was for only item C20-T750 ("Carbine with brand new good quality 4X scope"). The Klein's shipping order itemized only "1 ITALIAN CARBINE 6.5 W/4X SCOPE...19.95...PP-1.50." No ammunition was ordered or purchased, and no clip was ordered or purchased.(R 555 ("commonly available"). R 120 ("paperwork"). Martha Moyer, "Ordering the Rifle," Assassination Chronicles, March 1996, pp. 25-35 ("conflicting evidence"). 17H (CE 773) 635. 21H (Waldman Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8) 703, 704 ("purchase order" and "shipping order"). 17H (CE 788) 677 ("money order").
After showing the clip inside the rifle in a photograph (CE 541) on page 83, the Warren Report first mentions it on page 555 at the end of the section called "The Rifle." Here the reader learns that "As long as there is ammunition in the clip, one need only work the bolt and pull the trigger to fire the rifle." The next, and last, paragraph of this section is entirely about the clip. While this section tells how it is inserted into the rifle, no mention is made of the unique way it is ejected. Of course, if they did that they would have to open a can of threatening worms and explain why the rifle "contained a clip." FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier did testify about the ejection mechanism but said nothing about the clip remaining stuck in the weapon. (3H 397-98.)
The clip is not mentioned again. Even on pages 565-566, it is not mentioned as one of the "Objects in the Texas School Book Depository Building" dusted for prints. This section comes close when discussing "faint ridge formations" on the metal magazine housing in front of the trigger. (An identifiable fingerprint of Oswald's, according to the PBS Frontline television broadcast, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald," first aired on Nov. 16, 1993.) It comes close again when saying "No prints were developed on the cartridge found in the rifle or on the three expended cartridge cases." This statement's sources (R 855 n.132.) are FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona,(4H 23. ) Lt. Carl Day,(4H 253-258) and CE 2011, pp. 1, 5.
Quote off
Here are pages 565-566 in the report.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295b.gif
The bottom line is this—NO clip is mentioned by the personnel on the scene, NO clip is inventoried, NO clip was dusted for prints, and NO clip is photographed in situ in the TSBD when the rifle was found.
John McAdams uses the same kind of language as the WC as he wrote this on his website about the clip issue.
Quote on
Thus, while the paper trail may be less than complete, there simply is no doubt that the clip was in the rifle when it was recovered in the Depository, and no reason to doubt that it was in the rifle while Oswald was shooting it.
www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm
Quote off
This is what is known as hyperbole folks. He is making FALSE claims and acting like they are the truth! Less than complete is totally false as there is NO PAPER TRAIL to the clip. NONE. In his biased mind there may be “no doubt” that the clip was in the rifle when it was found, but to most of us there is a ton of doubt since it was NOT photographed, seen, inventoried or fingerprinted! The last part is just ridiculous to the extreme as NO evidence shows us LHO was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting so he could NOT be firing the rifle at all. The WC defenders, like the WC, live on denial, speculation, faith, and biased opinions.
Sadly for them, their OWN evidence SINKS their conclusion!
Alleged Rifle Clip Found In The Texas School Book Depository:
www.jfk-assassination.net/images/day_clip.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) would claim that a clip was found in the alleged murder weapon (CE-139—Mannlicher-Carcano) when it was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on November 22, 1963. They were not able to put forth any evidence that shows it was in the rifle when it was found. In legal terms this is called “in situ” meaning “in position” or as found. The WC lacked any in situ evidence showing us a clip was found near or in the rifle as they claimed.
When I brought these up years ago, I was vehemently attacked by many of the WC defenders, but oddly enough I was also attacked by quite a few who claimed to be conspiracy supporters too (Ben Holmes, Walt Cakebread, Barb Junkkarinen and Tony Marsh to name some). Why is that when there is NO evidence showing the clip was inside the rifle when it was found as the WC claimed?
Let’s look at this critical area more now.
*****************************************
There is no record of any notation for an ammunition clip in the inventory list of the items allegedly found in the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN). There is NO photograph of the clip as it was found—whether that was inside or outside the rifle when it was discovered. There are NO mentions of a clip by anyone including most importantly Lt. Day who was responsible for processing the rifle on the scene (i.e. dusting for prints and photographing the rifle in situ). And there is NO mention of it being dusted for fingerprints. Why is that? The best WC defenders can come up with is the picture of Lt. Day taking the rifle OUT of the TSBD, but anyone that is remotely familiar with crime scene procedures will tell you this means NOTHING as the only evidence that matters is the evidence documented in situ. A photograph taken 30-50 minutes later does NOT show us the condition something was discovered in, now does it?
Here is what the WC claimed about the clip in their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0290a.gif
When the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a clip which bore the letters "SMI" (the manufacturer's markings) and the number "952" (possibly a part number or the manufacturer's code number). (WCR, p. 555)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0290a.htm
Quote off
Here is the photograph along with John McAdams’ attempt at “debunking” the clip issue. He too offers NOTHING but acts like he has set the record straight.
The best they can do is provide a “report” from Lieutenant Day that was supposedly written on 11/22/63 by him.
If we look at this “report” we will see quite a few things immediately. Firstly, there is NO letterhead on this document. Why NOT? Who writes a formal report that will become part of evidence on a blank piece of paper? Secondly, it does NOT say the clip was FOUND near or INSIDE the rifle—it simply says, “The clip is stamped SMI 952.” That is NOT the same thing. As we saw from the quote above from the WCR it simply said the rifle “contained” a clip, but that is NOT possible based on the design of the rifle, which is, to shed itself of the clip once the last round is CHAMBERED. The clip should NOT have been in the rifle; thus, the WC had to try and explain why it was. This is how we got the “jammed” explanation, but the clip should still have been seen and photographed with Lt. Day took the rifle apart to process it (see below). Why did this NOT happen?
It has been claimed that it was listed in an INVENTORY LOG of items found in the alleged SN, but as I showed many years ago it was NOT. Why NOT? IF it was found in the SN or in the rifle why is NOT listed then? Why is there NO evidence that it was found near or in the rifle as claimed by the WC? This vague “report” by Lt. Day is NOT the same as an inventory of evidence report. Finally, this is a SUMMARY of what occurred allegedly, NOT an inventory of items on a log.
It has also been said that NO processing was done on site to the rifle, but again, I showed the WC defenders what should be done and what was done.
Quote on
Fingerprints
Fingerprints (also includes palm prints and bare footprints) are the best evidence to place an individual at the scene of a crime. Collecting fingerprints at a crime scene requires very few materials, making it ideal from a cost standpoint. All non-movable items at a crime scene should be processed at the scene using gray powder, black powder, or black magnetic powder. Polaroid 665 black and white film loaded in a Polaroid CU-5 camera with detachable flash should be used to make one-to-one photographs of prints which do not readily lift. All small transportable items should be packaged in paper bags or envelopes and sent to the crime lab for processing. Because of the "package it up and send it to the lab" mentality, some investigators skim over collecting prints at a crime scene. ***Collecting prints at the crime scene should be every investigator's top priority.*** Fingerprints from the suspect as well as elimination fingerprints from the victim will also be needed for comparison (the same holds true for palm and bare footprints).
Quote off
We see in this statement that processing (i.e. dusting for prints) is imperative and we know this happened on 11/22/63 because Lt. Day told us so in his WC testimony.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this in an effort, perhaps, to save time. In all of your processing of prints did you use anything other than this black powder at the scene that day?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. So whenever you say you processed for prints you used black powder, is that correct?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints.
Despite their claims, the WC defenders cannot show the rifle was NOT processed on site as Lt. Day says he did PROCESS the alleged murder weapon in the TSBD! Another odd thing is this, part of processing is SAFE handling and that requires taking the weapon apart. I provided this quote years ago to show this too.
Quote on
Firearms and Toolmarks
Bullets and casings found at the crime scene can be positively matched back to a gun in the possession of a suspect. Bullets and casings can also be examined at the crime lab and sometimes tell an investigator what make and model of weapons may have expended the casing or bullet. A bullet found at the crime scene can sometimes be matched back to the same lot of ammunition found in a suspect's possession. Toolmarks can be positively matched to a tool in the suspect's possession. ***Firearm safety is a must at any crime scene.*** If a firearm must be moved at a crime scene, never move it by placing a pencil in the barrel or inside the trigger guard. Not only is this unsafe, but it could damage potential evidence. The gun can be picked up by the textured surface on the grips without fear of placing unnecessary fingerprints on the weapon. Before picking up the gun, make sure that the gun barrel is not pointed at anyone. Keep notes on the condition of the weapon as found and stops taken to render it as safe as possible without damaging potential evidence. The firearm can then be processed for prints and finally rendered completely safe. ***FIREARMS MUST BE RENDERED SAFE BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE CRIME LAB. The firearm should be packaged in an envelope or paper bag separately from the ammunition and/or magazine.***
Quote off
This leads me to another question—why was the rifle NOT disassembled when it was taken out of the TSBD? We know it was not because of the photograph above (the one the WC defenders rely on). So, can any WC defender explain why it was NOT taken apart? Also, explain why the clip was supposedly “jammed” inside the rifle in the TSBD, but hanging out in the photograph of Lt. Day leaving the TSBD? What caused it to come loose in such a short period of time?
Here are pictures of the clip as it was included in the twenty-six volumes.
Commission Exhibit (CE) 574/loaded clip:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
CE-575/empty clip:
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0143a.jpg
Do either of these looked crimped or bent from being “jammed” in the rifle to you? Here is a picture of the clip inside the rifle.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0054a.jpg
The WC would write this about the clip in their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0290a.gif
The rifle was probably sold without a clip; however, the clip is commonly available. (WCR, p. 555)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0290a.htm
Quote off
This is a very misleading set of statements by the WC. First of all, there was NO clip sold with the rifle as Klein’s included this as an option and it was NOT chosen by LHO allegedly. There is no indication of a clip on the alleged order form and there is NO money included for it either, thus, the word “probably” can be eliminated as we KNOW if LHO ordered a rifle from Klein’s he did NOT order a clip or ammunition. Secondly, the comment about the clip being “commonly available” is incorrect as ONLY TWO stores in all of the Dallas area sold Mannlicher-Carcano Western Cartridge Company (WCC) ammunition, so why would more carry clips for this ammunition? They wouldn’t. We know ONLY two stores carried this kind of ammunition because the WC was good enough to check this out for us. In CE 2694 we see the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0049b.gif
In an effort to locate a source of supply of the 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano, Western Cartridge Company, ammunition where Lee Harvey Oswald purchased ammunition for his Carcano rifle, a telephone canvass was made of all places of business in the Dallas and Irving area currently listed in the Dallas-Irving Classified Section of the telephone directories under listings of ammunition, guns, hardware stores, pawn shops, department stores, discount stores, sporting goods stores, and Army and Navy surplus stores.
Only the TWO FOLLOWING listed places were located as a result of this telephone canvass:
John Thomas Masen, owner, Mason’s Gun Shop, 7402 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas;
John H. Brinegar, owner, The Gun Shop, 11448 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas. (CE 2694, p. 12) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0049b.htm
Quote off
Out of all the places they mentioned ONLY two sold WCC ammunition, thus, it can be surmised the purchaser of this ammunition would buy his clip there too! The problem for the WC was this—neither place said they sold any ammunition to LHO! Mr. Masen said this in CE-2694 on page 63.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0050a.gif
Mr. Masen claimed he had NEVER seen Lee Harvey Oswald, had NO recollection of his ever having come to his place of business, and he had NEVER sold ANY of this ammunition to Oswald. (CE 2694, p. 13) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0050a.htm
Quote off
On the same page we see this from Mr. Brinegar about this issue.
Quote on
Mr. Brinegar stated he did NOT know Lee Harvey Oswald, had NO recollection of ever seeing him, and did NOT believe he had sold any of this type of ammunition. (Ibid.) (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
So we see the phrase “commonly available” is NOT so true as ONLY two stores handled the ammunition LHO allegedly used, thus, there are only two stores he would have gotten his clip from. The WC NEVER showed us where he got the ammunition and clip from, thus, their claims are empty. NO ammunition or cleaning supplies for the rifle were ever found among LHO’s possessions either, so where did the four WCC bullets come from then IF LHO fired them as claimed?
The clip issue is HUGE because without a clip one had to HAND-LOAD the bullets into the chamber and this means there is NO way LHO could have fired three shots in 5.6 seconds as the WC claimed. Here is an explanation how those on the scene could have been confused or manipulated into finding a clip for the M-C when NONE existed.
[Note: The term “ejected” is the authors, NOT mine. I am comfortable saying the clip FALLS OUT by itself. I mention this because the WC defenders distracted the thrust of this point years ago by focusing on the word “eject” instead of the context of the point. Sound familiar?]
Quote on
THE GUN THAT DIDN'T SMOKE
By Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew
It is important enough to repeat that, on the M-1 Garand, the clip is ejected when the last round is fired, while on the Mannlicher system, the clip is ejected when the last round is chambered.
That was the state of the weapon left at the TSBD. Yet it is not until the Warren Report's Appendix X that, at long last, the silence is broken on the location of the clip. We read that when the rifle was found in the TSBD, it contained a clip. That was the only place in the world where the clip could not be found. It would have fallen out the bottom when the last round was chambered. The word "contained" precludes the slight possibility that the clip was stuck in the magazine.
Events at the crime scene seem to be predicated on 1) somehow a clip was involved, but 2) somehow these events were based on the misconception that the clip, as in the M-1 Garand, was ejected when the last round was fired, not chambered. See the Warren Report's Appendix X.
Forget where the rifle came from, forget whether Oswald ever had the rifle, rate of fire or accuracy or whether the rifle was fired that day (there appears to be no evidence it was checked for recent firing). Forget everything about the rifle except two things: 1) the Carcano was the evidence on the scene and 2) its load-fire-reload cycle in relation to the state in which the rifle was found was that the last round was chambered.
The first factor was understood on the afternoon of November 22nd. The second factor was misunderstood and may have resulted in what Ruby referred to as the "confusion over the rifle." This confusion governed that afternoon, evening, night and the next day. It resulted in the Warren Commission drawing a conclusion that is completely impossible. It resulted in Henry Wade being forced to make ridiculous statements.
Quote off
Note: This paragraph explains the Mauser discussion.
Quote on
Since there is no physical or photographic (and, as discussed below, truthful anecdotal) evidence of a Mauser or a clip at the sixth-floor crime scene, the Mannlicher-Carcano was the only weapon in evidence on the sixth floor of the TSBD at 1:22 p.m., November 22nd, 1963. The evidential line therefore had to be set up. Through failure to understand the second factor above, it was mistakenly thought a clip had to be found. A clip was obtained. A period of uncertainty followed. The public had to be informed it was a Mauser (the Carcano's non-clip-fed superficial-twin). As a result, no one asked, "Where's the clip?" When the conspirators realized they must remain committed to the clip (because Day had been photographed leaving the TSBD with the rifle and the clip is shown sticking noticeably out of the bottom of the trigger guard), the cover story was explained away as Weitzman's imagination having only "glimpsed" the murder weapon of the century. This, in all likelihood, is the "situation" Wade was talking about. Neither this nor anything else, however, suggests that Wade had knowledge of what was transpiring. It suggests only that he was being given a "bum steer."(24H (CE 2169, p. 4) 829. 5H 250.)
And because the weapon was apparently never tested for recent firing, a probably unfired rifle was planted supposedly in a state to suggest an actual fire. For rifle experts, the first thing they focus on in picking up the Mannlicher-Carcano is the unusual clip ejection system and the characteristic of the clip getting stuck on occasion. The silence on this subject was deafening at Dallas, and this silence continued through most of the Warren Report. Finally, in the Report's Appendix X, it was dismissed in a terse, tortured manner, dismissed with a sentence that sounds like a thunderclap: "When the rifle was found at the [TSBD] it contained a clip." "Contained" does not mean "stuck in the bottom." Had that been what was observed, it would have been among the very first observations made at the crime scene.
If the clip was on the sixth floor for everyone to see, the tool mark notwithstanding, how could these men mistake a clip-fed rifle for a non-clip-fed Mauser? If the clip was there, the long-lived Mauser identification does not make sense: **unless it was a deliberate lie**. And since there was no reason to lie about a Mannlicher-Carcano with a clip, it either was a Mauser, quickly replaced by a Mannlicher-Carcano, or there was no clip. Those are two very good reasons to lie; but in the latter case, only if you think a clip is needed. And until there is evidence of a Mauser or a clip on the sixth floor, the latter explanation must predominate.
Therefore, if there was no clip on the sixth floor, why did the authorities say there was? If the clip was not there -- a perfectly normal situation -- the fact that they said it was does not make sense; unless they knew the rifle was planted, inserted a clip which they erroneously thought it needed, and lied to cover it up. Either way, Oswald was framed. If not for the serious implications, it would be laughable, because they did not need the clip.
Quote off
I differ a little with the authors on this last point because a clip was NEEDED as otherwise LHO would have had to HAND-LOAD the weapon allegedly and there is NO way he could have done this and still hoped to kill President Kennedy. The article mentions that LHO did NOT purchase a clip and that he could have had one for free with a ammunition purchase from Klein’s.
Quote on
The clip was offered free with the purchase of 108 rounds of ammunition which cost $7.50. The carbine with scope was $19.95, plus $1.50 for postage and handling. The money order was in the amount of $21.45. The order form sent to Klein's Sporting Goods was for only item C20-T750 ("Carbine with brand new good quality 4X scope"). The Klein's shipping order itemized only "1 ITALIAN CARBINE 6.5 W/4X SCOPE...19.95...PP-1.50." No ammunition was ordered or purchased, and no clip was ordered or purchased.(R 555 ("commonly available"). R 120 ("paperwork"). Martha Moyer, "Ordering the Rifle," Assassination Chronicles, March 1996, pp. 25-35 ("conflicting evidence"). 17H (CE 773) 635. 21H (Waldman Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8) 703, 704 ("purchase order" and "shipping order"). 17H (CE 788) 677 ("money order").
After showing the clip inside the rifle in a photograph (CE 541) on page 83, the Warren Report first mentions it on page 555 at the end of the section called "The Rifle." Here the reader learns that "As long as there is ammunition in the clip, one need only work the bolt and pull the trigger to fire the rifle." The next, and last, paragraph of this section is entirely about the clip. While this section tells how it is inserted into the rifle, no mention is made of the unique way it is ejected. Of course, if they did that they would have to open a can of threatening worms and explain why the rifle "contained a clip." FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier did testify about the ejection mechanism but said nothing about the clip remaining stuck in the weapon. (3H 397-98.)
The clip is not mentioned again. Even on pages 565-566, it is not mentioned as one of the "Objects in the Texas School Book Depository Building" dusted for prints. This section comes close when discussing "faint ridge formations" on the metal magazine housing in front of the trigger. (An identifiable fingerprint of Oswald's, according to the PBS Frontline television broadcast, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald," first aired on Nov. 16, 1993.) It comes close again when saying "No prints were developed on the cartridge found in the rifle or on the three expended cartridge cases." This statement's sources (R 855 n.132.) are FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona,(4H 23. ) Lt. Carl Day,(4H 253-258) and CE 2011, pp. 1, 5.
Quote off
Here are pages 565-566 in the report.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295a.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0295b.gif
The bottom line is this—NO clip is mentioned by the personnel on the scene, NO clip is inventoried, NO clip was dusted for prints, and NO clip is photographed in situ in the TSBD when the rifle was found.
John McAdams uses the same kind of language as the WC as he wrote this on his website about the clip issue.
Quote on
Thus, while the paper trail may be less than complete, there simply is no doubt that the clip was in the rifle when it was recovered in the Depository, and no reason to doubt that it was in the rifle while Oswald was shooting it.
www.jfk-assassination.net/factoid6.htm
Quote off
This is what is known as hyperbole folks. He is making FALSE claims and acting like they are the truth! Less than complete is totally false as there is NO PAPER TRAIL to the clip. NONE. In his biased mind there may be “no doubt” that the clip was in the rifle when it was found, but to most of us there is a ton of doubt since it was NOT photographed, seen, inventoried or fingerprinted! The last part is just ridiculous to the extreme as NO evidence shows us LHO was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting so he could NOT be firing the rifle at all. The WC defenders, like the WC, live on denial, speculation, faith, and biased opinions.
Sadly for them, their OWN evidence SINKS their conclusion!