Re: Right Before Roger Craig's 'Suicide'
John McAdams
>Not that Roger Craig didn't commit suicide, but maybe who wouldn't if
>one was shot at and beaten, and ran off the road in different episodes
>prior which many surmize may have been from his staunch, unwavering
>testimony that flew in the face of 'the desired result'.
>
>But could have this the impetus that could have put him over the edge?
>This is from an excerpt from Anson's book on page 77, "They've Killed
>The President". Confirmation that the rifle was indeed a Mauser later
>came from Deputy Roger D. Craig, who was present on the sixth floor
>during the search. In a March 17, 1975 letter written to Edward Tatro,
>a Commission critic living in Massachusetts, Craig said: "Deputy
>Eugene Boone and I found the rifle, which I might add was a 7.65
>Mauser, so stamped on the barrel." In another letter to Tatro, dated
>April 9, 1975, Craig added another piece of interesting news: "As to
>the photograph of the shells, they were in uniform [position] lying on
>the floor no more than two inches apart all facing the same direction
>when I found them." If Craig was telling the truth, the implications
>of his story are ominous. Shell casings lined up neatly in a row
>suggest a plant. Moreover, police photographs of the scene show the
>shell casings to be scattered around the floor, as they would have been
>naturally if ejected form a bolt-action rifle.
>
Don't you guys understand that, when you uncritically collect factoids
like this, you are just setting up a huge target for me to knock over.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig_death.htm
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtj...@webtv.net
And how many rifles were seen in the TSBD the week of the
assassination?
And why was Army Intelligence allowed to be in the find of the rifle
and cartridges when nobody else from the public was allowed to enter
the sealed off TSBD?
Gary Combs
John McAdams writes (excerpt),
"Don't you guys understand that, when you uncritically collect
factoids like this, you are just setting up a huge target for me to knock
over."
Yes I understand your being the PHD, spin control Geo-Polictical Science
Professor. However, IMO, the links and post creates more questions than
answers. Many more.
Not being a college student, I would not be making this post if I were.
Seriously.
gc
curtj...@webtv.net
When you find out that Mrs. Paine's car was not a Chevy (read Byrd's,
Planes, and an Automobile by Richard Bartholomew), and it was in Dealey
Plaza and traceable to prominent Texans in the assassination, then you
will tend to believe more of Mr. Craig. When one sees the FBI and WC's MO
of dealing with evidence selectively with a purpose to lay the sole blame
on Oswald, then you can see why his testimony of what Oswald said inside
Dallas Police was taken out. When one looks into the MC that Oswald
supposedly ordered from Klein's Sporting Goods to what was found in the
TSBD, then one can start to melt from your frozen conclusions that you
have drawn and wish to portray as unfactoids.
CJ
Bud
Sure, if you try hard enough, you can find all kinds of justification
for thinking all kinds of stupid things. All you need is the desire. What
do you have that you think should supplant what the WC concluded about the
rifle? Perferably something feasible that doesn`t read like a bad Mission
Impossible episode.
> CJ
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1127269069....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There were FOUR (4) DPD Officers who stated it was a 7.85 Mauser.
ALL in the Presence of Captain Fritz AND Lt. Day.
It's all in the testimony.
mikesm...@hotmail.com
Mauser. "
It's easy to demonstrate that this is false.
Denis
Anthony Marsh
I don't remember ANY officer who stated it was 7.85 mm caliber. Please
cite and quote any.
> ALL in the Presence of Captain Fritz AND Lt. Day.
>
> It's all in the testimony.
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Bud
So, the plan *they* had in mind was to shoot at the President with a
Mauser, and then switch it with Oz`s rifle after 6 Dallas policemen
already examined it? *They* knew who would be in the room, and that no
newsmen would snap a picture of this "Mauser", and everything just went
according to plan, they made the switch, and the rest is history. And to
think, people will listen to the WC version over yours.
> It's all in the testimony.
Sure it is. It would be nice if the CT could, instead of shouting out
factoids they find suspicious, put all these suspicious things into a
coherent package, and present it. Surely the result would knock the WC
report out of contention. If Oz was given preferential treatment and aid
in his travels in Europe, don`t just say "this is suspicious", document it
and include it in a theory. If Oz didn`t get that rifle from Klein`s, show
where it came from and why, and who doctored the pictures the photos of Oz
holding the rifle, and why. Get your ducks in a row, they are all over the
place, with their infernal quacking. Connect the dots between these
suspicious events, and show the big picture. Or are you waiting for the
hundredth anniversary before unveiling this theory?
tomnln
Please post your Official Source.
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127366020.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
FINDING THE RIFLE.
The Warren Report tell us on page 645:
Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy
Constable Seymour Weitzman.
Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that
the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon.
Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range.
He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a
German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano.
Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly
identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.
Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I Told you earlier the WR consists
of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and
Exhibits. And they were very selective in what they based their
conclusions on. As stated above: Wietzman simply made a mistake.
Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Wietzman's actual written statement dated
11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)
"Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and
Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards
Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me
and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a
northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots
came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old
Texas Building. I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started
looking inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the
sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of
the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the
northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted
the rifle about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION
EQUIPED WITH A 4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The
rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was
found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one
live round from the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.
Seymour Weitzman
(EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT WEITZMAN
ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that description sound like
nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?
2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS
FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
A WHILE.
3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
(Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
the rifle they reportedly found?)
4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
helpful.
OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
"Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
the Depository Building?"
"Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who
was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons
who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark
FINDING THE
RIFLE.
The Warren Report tell us on page 645:
Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy
Constable Seymour Weitzman.
Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that
the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon.
Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range.
He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a
German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano.
Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly
identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.
Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I Told you earlier the WR consists
of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and
Exhibits. And they were very selective in what they based their
conclusions on. As stated above: Wietzman simply made a mistake.
Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Wietzman's actual written statement dated
11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)
"Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and
Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards
Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me
and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a
northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots
came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas
Building. I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking
inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth
floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the
Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest
corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle
about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPED WITH A
4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was
between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22
pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from
the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.
Seymour Weitzman
(EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT
WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that description
sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?
2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING
THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A
SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S
AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be
a 7.65 Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what
appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."
(Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)
4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A
TELESCOPIC SITE."
5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF
DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought
it was a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it
was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when
Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to
photograph it. We were just discussng it back and forth. And he said it
looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
helpful.
OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
"Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
the Depository Building?"
"Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A. Hidell.
(Who was the Tipster?)
On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides.
Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who was the
third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons who
stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack Ruby!
(see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of the
book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
By tomnln
Lane)
The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of the
book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
By tomnln
tomnln
Please post your Official Source.
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127366020.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
FINDING THE RIFLE.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:dbzYe.13060$iv5.12569@trndny03...
tomnln
>> There were FOUR (4) DPD Officers who stated it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>>
>> ALL in the Presence of Captain Fritz AND Lt. Day.
>
> So, the plan *they* had in mind was to shoot at the President with a
> Mauser, and then switch it with Oz`s rifle after 6 Dallas policemen
> already examined it? *They* knew who would be in the room, and that no
> newsmen would snap a picture of this "Mauser", and everything just went
> according to plan, they made the switch, and the rest is history. And to
> think, people will listen to the WC version over yours.
>
>> It's all in the testimony.
>
> Sure it is. It would be nice if the CT could, instead of shouting out
> factoids they find suspicious, put all these suspicious things into a
> coherent package, and present it. Surely the result would knock the WC
> report out of contention. If Oz was given preferential treatment and aid
> in his travels in Europe, don`t just say "this is suspicious", document it
> and include it in a theory. If Oz didn`t get that rifle from Klein`s, show
> where it came from and why, and who doctored the pictures the photos of Oz
> holding the rifle, and why. Get your ducks in a row, they are all over the
> place, with their infernal quacking. Connect the dots between these
> suspicious events, and show the big picture. Or are you waiting for the
> hundredth anniversary before unveiling this theory?
=============================================================================
"ASK and You Shall Receive"
mikesm...@hotmail.com
prove your claim wrong!
tomnln
What do you think of the information in the Official record that I posted?
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127440390.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
What do you think of the information in the Official record that I posted?
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127440390.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
What do you think of the information in the Official record that I posted?
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127440390.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> NOW THAT YOU KNOW IT WAS JUST A TYPO....
>
> What do you think of the information in the Official record that I posted?
>
>
Junk. Just being official does not make it a fact.
>
>
> <mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127440390.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Got ya, Tom! You had the wrong caliber! That's why it is so easy to
>>prove your claim wrong!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Got ya, Tom! You had the wrong caliber! That's why it is so easy to
> prove your claim wrong!
>
>
Shh! You're no fun, letting the cat out of the bag. This could have gone
on for months and months, with his becoming confused and saying that I
denied that anyone had ever said it was a Mauser. And then I could have
challenged him to even produce one reference in a gun book mentioning a
7.85 caliber anything. And he could have been running around like a
chicken with its head cut off until he accidentally stumbled onto some
unrelated information that he never knew about which explained some
mysteries to him. Serendipity. He might even have gone to a library and
picked up a book. ;]>
Anthony Marsh
> Sorry for the typo. (should read 7.65)
>
No problem.
mikesm...@hotmail.com
A Mauser and a Carcanno looks very much the same. It's easy to confuse
both. Some people even say that a Carcanno is part of the Mauser category.
A good test would have been to show these policemen a Mauser and a
Carcanno and ask them which is which. Nonetheless, the rifle was
photographed and filmed on the 6th floor. Do you think those films show a
Mauser?
Anthony Marsh
Not my theory, but there are others who have a theory that both a Mauser
and a Mannlicher-Carcano were found in the TSBD.
>>It's all in the testimony.
>
>
> Sure it is. It would be nice if the CT could, instead of shouting out
> factoids they find suspicious, put all these suspicious things into a
> coherent package, and present it. Surely the result would knock the WC
> report out of contention. If Oz was given preferential treatment and aid
> in his travels in Europe, don`t just say "this is suspicious", document it
> and include it in a theory. If Oz didn`t get that rifle from Klein`s, show
> where it came from and why, and who doctored the pictures the photos of Oz
> holding the rifle, and why. Get your ducks in a row, they are all over the
> place, with their infernal quacking. Connect the dots between these
> suspicious events, and show the big picture. Or are you waiting for the
> hundredth anniversary before unveiling this theory?
>
>
tomnln
1 side for the right.
1 side for the wrong.
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:rfZYe.1065$L15.248@trndny01...
tomnln
They also messed with the configuration of boxes before they were
photographed.
Along with the 3 shells before they were photographed.
Put this together with multiple examples of destroying evidence & you
have......
"Lucy, you got some splainin to do"
<mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127511304....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
mikesm...@hotmail.com
someone else. I may as well be the next victim...
Anthony Marsh
> Thats why GOD always made two sides tony.
>
> 1 side for the right.
> 1 side for the wrong.
>
>
The world is not that simple and God is not that simple minded.
Anthony Marsh
> Not only you make typos, but you double your messages...
>
Double your pleasure, double your fun . . .
> A Mauser and a Carcanno looks very much the same. It's easy to confuse
Yes.
> both. Some people even say that a Carcanno is part of the Mauser category.
Or family. Or type. Or style.
> A good test would have been to show these policemen a Mauser and a
> Carcanno and ask them which is which. Nonetheless, the rifle was
> photographed and filmed on the 6th floor. Do you think those films show a
> Mauser?
>
I have absolutely no problem with Weitzman admitting that he made an
honest mistake. I doubt if the Dallas cops had the resources to know it
was a Mannlicher-Carcano so quickly.
tomnln
For those of us who study, It is Indeed simple.
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:mOeZe.1207$gi4.327@trndny04...
William Yates
mikesm...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Sorry, Anthony. I'm sure we'll get another chance later with Tom or
> someone else. I may as well be the next victim...
>
>
You could always try this one.
A.D.
>
> I have absolutely no problem with Weitzman admitting that he made an
> honest mistake. I doubt if the Dallas cops had the resources to know it
> was a Mannlicher-Carcano so quickly.
Good. So, based on the evidence, was the M-C Oswald's ?
Or, based on the evidence, can it be traced to someone else?
AD
tomnln
Weitzman previously owned a Sporting Goods Store including the sales of
Guns.
In 1963 Dallas was the 14th Largest City in the USA.
There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who ID'd the rifle as a "Mauser". ALL in
the Presence of CVapt.Fritz & Lt. Day.
At the Veery "Minimum" we have "Reasonable Doubt"
Unless of course you do NOT adhere (support/condone/accept) to the
American Justice System.
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:d1fZe.588$j_3.565@trndny07...
Bud
Says "little more than a glimpse", which isn`t saying he had a
glimpse, but something more, if only by a little.
> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS
> FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
> A WHILE.
The WC was looking into feasible explainations for the occurances in
this case. That a human being made a mistake is slightly more feasible
than the murder weapon being switched.
> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
> (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
> Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
> brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
> the rifle they reportedly found?)
Did Boone ever claim the rifle in evidence isn`t the rifle he found?
> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
> SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
Seems he thought he had found a 7.65 Mauser. Did he Tomnln?
> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
> BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>
> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
> rifle as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
> thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
> what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
> the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
> back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Thank you.
>
> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
> helpful.
So they found a rifle that some felt looked like a certain make of
rifle. So what? It says they "were getting ready to photograph it". What
did that photo show?
> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
I makes it easier to dismiss CT objections. Should the WC concluded a
Mauser was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD by what you presented?
> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
> Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>
> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
> the Depository Building?"
>
> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
Maybe they anticipated CT penchant for filling in blanks.
> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
Wasn`t me. Should not having this information have prevented them
from submitting their findings?
> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
> of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who
> was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons
> who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
> Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
I don`t read conspiracy books.
> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
> the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
>
> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
> TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
> match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
> WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
Are you saying they should have submitting any findings in this case
until the owner of that fingerprint was identified? Do you have any
particular reason to believe the fingerprint belongs to someone involved
in the assassination?
tomnln
Please point me to an Official Retraction from Weitzman that he died NOT
observe a Mauser?
Is America no longer a Country that requires PROOF of "Claims"?
"A.D." <agne...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:20050924191719.891$6...@newsreader.com...
tomnln
I don't wanna be like the WCR & be accused of leaving anything OUT.
===================
Read between THESE
===================
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1127607993.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
===================================================================
>BUD'S CONTRIBUTION Says "little more than a glimpse", which isn`t saying
>he had a
> glimpse, but something more, if only by a little.
tom's response Pretty Hard to Understand
====================================================================
>> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
>> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE
>> WAS
>> FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
>> A WHILE.
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> The WC was looking into feasible explainations for the occurances in
> this case. That a human being made a mistake is slightly more feasible
> than the murder weapon being switched.
TOM'S RESPONSE
Switching Evidence is NOT a "Mistake" It's A Felony.
======================================================================
>> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
>> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
>> (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
>> Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
>> brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
>> the rifle they reportedly found?)
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> Did Boone ever claim the rifle in evidence isn`t the rifle he found?
TOM'S RESPONSE
Boone/Mooney/Weitzman/Craig were NEVER asked that Question.
=========================================================================
>> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
>> SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> Seems he thought he had found a 7.65 Mauser. Did he Tomnln?
TOMS RESPONSE
Seems he TESTIFIED he found a Mauser,
=======================================================================
>> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
>> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
>> BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>>
>> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
>> rifle as a Mauser that day?
>>
>> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
>> thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>>
>> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
>>
>> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
>> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
>> what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
>> the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
>> back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
>>
>> BALL: Thank you.
>>
>> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
>> helpful.
===================================================================
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> So they found a rifle that some felt looked like a certain make of
> rifle. So what? It says they "were getting ready to photograph it". What
> did that photo show?
TOMS RESPONSE
not "some" ALL involved ID's it as a Mauser.
===================================================================
>> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
>> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> I makes it easier to dismiss CT objections. Should the WC concluded a
> Mauser was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD by what you presented?
TOM'S RESPONSE
Tom didn't "present it" It's the Official Record.
===============================================================
>> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
>> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
>> Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>>
>> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
>> the Depository Building?"
>>
>> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> Maybe they anticipated CT penchant for filling in blanks.
TOM'S RESPONSE
I Believe it's the "Investigators Responsibility" to fill in ALL the
Blanks.
=================================================================
>> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
>> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
>> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> Wasn`t me. Should not having this information have prevented them
> from submitting their findings?
TOM'S RESPONSE
Apparently they had NO Findings to report. ( are you SURE it wasn't you?)
Just ANOTHER avenue of Investigation they decided NOT to go down.
========================================================================
>> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the
>> murder
>> of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
>> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up)
>> Who
>> was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla
>> Clemmons
>> who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
>> Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> I don`t read conspiracy books.
TOM'S RESPONSE
Scripture ststes its Folly to come to a conclusion Before Gathering ALL
the facts.
=====================================================================
>> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
>> the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
>>
>> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
>> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
>> TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
>> match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
>> WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
BUDS CONTRIBUTION
> Are you saying they should have submitting any findings in this case
> until the owner of that fingerprint was identified? Do you have any
> particular reason to believe the fingerprint belongs to someone involved
> in the assassination?
TOM'S RESPONSE
ONLY if it was an Investigation.
However it turned out that that print belonged to Mac Wallace (an LBJ
Associate)
=======================================================================
In Conclusion Bud;
Have you ever read the GPO edition of the WCR w/the 26 Volumes???
Bud
OK, let me clarify it. You said "nothing more than a glimpse". The
WC said "little more than a glimpse".
> ====================================================================
> >> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
> >> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE
> >> WAS
> >> FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
> >> A WHILE.
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > The WC was looking into feasible explainations for the occurances in
> > this case. That a human being made a mistake is slightly more feasible
> > than the murder weapon being switched.
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> Switching Evidence is NOT a "Mistake" It's A Felony.
And it also didn`t happen, so there is no crime at all. Unless, after
a;; this time you can explain who, how and when Oz`s rifle was transported
in to the TSBD and switched with this Mauser. Where all these Dallas cops
part of the switch? If so, why did some put Mauser in their reports? If
not, how did conspirators accomplish a swithch without them knowing?
> ======================================================================
> >> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
> >> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
> >> (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
> >> Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
> >> brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
> >> the rifle they reportedly found?)
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > Did Boone ever claim the rifle in evidence isn`t the rifle he found?
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> Boone/Mooney/Weitzman/Craig were NEVER asked that Question.
They were probably never specifically asked whether they found any
assassins amongst the boxes, either. Did any of those guys ever say the
rifle in evidence is not the rifle they found? I`m sure conspiracy authors
must have tracked them down and asked them.
> =========================================================================
> >> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
> >> SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > Seems he thought he had found a 7.65 Mauser. Did he Tomnln?
> TOMS RESPONSE
> Seems he TESTIFIED he found a Mauser,
He testified before the WC that he had found a Mauser?
> =======================================================================
> >> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
> >> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
> >> BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
> >>
> >> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
> >> rifle as a Mauser that day?
> >>
> >> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
> >> thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
> >>
> >> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
> >>
> >> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
> >> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
> >> what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
> >> the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
> >> back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
> >>
> >> BALL: Thank you.
> >>
> >> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
> >> helpful.
> ===================================================================
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > So they found a rifle that some felt looked like a certain make of
> > rifle. So what? It says they "were getting ready to photograph it". What
> > did that photo show?
> TOMS RESPONSE
> not "some" ALL involved ID's it as a Mauser.
I asked you about the photographs taken at the same time these
events occurred. Do they show a Mauser?
> ===================================================================
> >> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
> >> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > I makes it easier to dismiss CT objections. Should the WC concluded a
> > Mauser was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD by what you presented?
>
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> Tom didn't "present it" It's the Official Record.
But I didn`t read it there, I read it here, after you presented it.
But, the question remains. Should the WC have concluded that a Mauser
was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
> ===============================================================
> >> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
> >> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
> >> Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
> >>
> >> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
> >> the Depository Building?"
> >>
> >> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > Maybe they anticipated CT penchant for filling in blanks.
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> I Believe it's the "Investigators Responsibility" to fill in ALL the
> Blanks.
And since that is impossible, you plan on complaining for 40 more
years?
> =================================================================
> >> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
> >> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
> >> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > Wasn`t me. Should not having this information have prevented them
> > from submitting their findings?
>
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> Apparently they had NO Findings to report. ( are you SURE it wasn't you?)
> Just ANOTHER avenue of Investigation they decided NOT to go down.
What stops the conspiracy folks from chasing down these red
herrings?
> ========================================================================
> >> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the
> >> murder
> >> of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
> >> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up)
> >> Who
> >> was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla
> >> Clemmons
> >> who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
> >> Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
>
> BUD'S CONTRIBUTION
> > I don`t read conspiracy books.
>
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> Scripture ststes its Folly to come to a conclusion Before Gathering ALL
> the facts.
Takes about 15 minutes to figure out what happened in this case. If
you can`t do it 15 minutes, 15 years won`t help you.
> =====================================================================
> >> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
> >> the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
> >>
> >> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
> >> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
> >> TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
> >> match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
> >> WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
>
> BUDS CONTRIBUTION
> > Are you saying they should have submitting any findings in this case
> > until the owner of that fingerprint was identified? Do you have any
> > particular reason to believe the fingerprint belongs to someone involved
> > in the assassination?
>
> TOM'S RESPONSE
> ONLY if it was an Investigation.
> However it turned out that that print belonged to Mac Wallace (an LBJ
> Associate)
What exactly is an LBJ associate?
> =======================================================================
>
> In Conclusion Bud;
> Have you ever read the GPO edition of the WCR w/the 26 Volumes???
There was no reason to even have the WCR, just as there was no
reason to investigate 9-11. What obviously happened is what actually
happened. These efforts don`t contribute anything constructive.
Anthony Marsh
> PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE
>
Please, please, please. Learn how to use Google Groups. I don't mind doing
your homework for you, but what if I am too busy for a few days to read
the newsgroup and I am not here to do all your homework for you? Search
for "Seymour Weitzman" Mauser Six Seconds Dallas.
> Please point me to an Official Retraction from Weitzman that he died NOT
> observe a Mauser?
>
No, never. You are free to ignore what he said. Because it was not part of
an OFFICIAL investigation in 1967. He was interviewed by Eddie Barker of
CBS. See Six Seconds in Dallas pages 220-221. Oh, I forgot, you don't have
Six Seconds in Dallas and have never read it and have never read the
messages where I quoted it. Well, then without me here to educate you, how
in the world would you ever know about his statement?
Barker: What kind of gun did you think it was? Weitzman: To my sorrow, I
looked at it, and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said
the wrong one because . . . just at a glance I saw the Mauser action, and,
I don't know, it just came out as a German Mauser, which it wasn't. It's
an Italian type gun. But from a glance it's hard to describe, and that's
all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken, and it was proven that my
statement was a mistake, but it was an honest mistake.
Now, go through some gyrations to deny this fact. Claim that it is not an
OFFICIAL statement because it was not under oath. Did you see me claim
that it was testimony under oath? Claim that this is not really what he
said. See if you can get away with that because you think that no one has
a copy of that old TV program from 1967. After all, maybe they didn't sell
it on videotape then and no one would have been recording it in 1967,
right? Well, what other excuse can you dream up?
> Is America no longer a Country that requires PROOF of "Claims"?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "A.D." <agne...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:20050924191719.891$6...@newsreader.com...
>
>>Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have absolutely no problem with Weitzman admitting that he made an
>>>honest mistake. I doubt if the Dallas cops had the resources to know it
>>>was a Mannlicher-Carcano so quickly.
>>
>>Good. So, based on the evidence, was the M-C Oswald's ?
>>
>>Or, based on the evidence, can it be traced to someone else?
>>
>>AD
>>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> STOP making "Excuses" for the DPD.
>
Accepting their incompetence is not making "excuses" for them.
> Weitzman previously owned a Sporting Goods Store including the sales of
> Guns.
>
Yeah, and so what?
> In 1963 Dallas was the 14th Largest City in the USA.
>
What the Hell does that have to do with anything?
> There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who ID'd the rifle as a "Mauser". ALL in
> the Presence of CVapt.Fritz & Lt. Day.
>
No. I have asked you to name and quote them, but you don't dare. Several
other cops just went along with Weitzman because they assumed he was the
expert.
> At the Veery "Minimum" we have "Reasonable Doubt"
>
No, there is no doubt whatsoever.
> Unless of course you do NOT adhere (support/condone/accept) to the
> American Justice System.
>
In this case it goes beyond the American Justice System, whatever you
think that means. It is historical fact.
Anthony Marsh
Based on the totality of the evidence, the rifle used and found was
Oswald's. I do not know if he had it that day and if he took it into the
TSBD.
tomnln
====================================
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zAAYe.50320$Cc5.34369@lakeread06...
> My Official Source is posted below.
>
> Please post your Official Source.
>
> <mikesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1127366020.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Tomln wrote: "There were FOUR (4) DPD Officers who stated it was a 7.85
>> Mauser. "
>>
>> It's easy to demonstrate that this is false.
>>
>> Denis
FINDING THE RIFLE
> (EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
>
> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS
> FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
> A WHILE.
> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
> (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
> Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
> brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
> the rifle they reportedly found?)
>
> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
> SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
>
> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
> BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>
> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
> rifle as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought
> it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
> what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
> the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
> back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Thank you.
>
> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
> helpful.
> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
> Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>
> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
> the Depository Building?"
>
> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
> of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who
> was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons
> who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
> Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark
>
tomnln
>
>> STOP making "Excuses" for the DPD.
>>
>
> Accepting their incompetence is not making "excuses" for them.
>
>> Weitzman previously owned a Sporting Goods Store including the sales of
>> Guns.
>>
>
> Yeah, and so what?
>> In 1963 Dallas was the 14th Largest City in the USA.
>>
>
> What the Hell does that have to do with anything?
=================================================================
>> There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who ID'd the rifle as a "Mauser". ALL in
>>
===============================================================
> other cops just went along with Weitzman because they assumed he was the
> expert.
FINDING THE RIFLE…
On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
===============================================================
Anthony Marsh
>
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com <mailto:ama...@quik.com>> wrote in
> message news:oRHZe.1007$j_3.620@trndny07...
> > tomnln wrote:
> >
> >> STOP making "Excuses" for the DPD.
> >>
> >
> > Accepting their incompetence is not making "excuses" for them.
> >
> >> Weitzman previously owned a Sporting Goods Store including the sales of
> >> Guns.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, and so what?
> =================================================================
> >> In 1963 Dallas was the 14th Largest City in the USA.
> >>
> >
> > What the Hell does that have to do with anything?
>
> It MEANS that Parkland handled an average of 1271 Gunshots Wounds per Year.
> I Believe THAT Qualifies them.
>
Qualifies them to do what? We are discussing the identification of the
RIFLE.
Yes, it does support the fact that Weitzman only had a glimpse. No closer
than a few feet. Not close enough to see the markings which clearly
identify it as a Mannlicher-Carcano made in Terni.
> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN
> IT NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108
> STATING THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE
> HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
>
>
>
Which means absolutely nothing. He was not familiar with the
Mannlicher-Carcano.
> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION
> FOR WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF
> BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs.
> 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a
> teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish,
> black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like the
> rifle they reportedly found?)
>
Don't use statements from others basing their accounts on what Weitzman
said as independent corroboration. That is a misuse of research method.
> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF
> THE SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH
> A TELESCOPIC SITE."
>
Which he got from Weitzman.
> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A
> 7.65 MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE
> TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>
> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to
> this rifle as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
> thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
> at it, and before he removed it, not knowing
> what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This
> is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
> the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
> We were just discussng it back and forth. And he said it
> looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Thank you.
>
> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
> helpful.
>
>
>
Sure, it DOES look like a Mauser. Fancy that. No one identified that it
really WAS a Mauser.
> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT
> OF WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
>
And honest mistake that anyone could make.
>
>
> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on
> pg. 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif
> Jesse Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>
> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor
> of the Depository Building?"
>
> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
>
>
It could be that another reporter shouted out a question and cut off the
answer.
>
> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
>
FBI.
>
>
> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the
> murder of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up)
> Who was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla
> Clemmons who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom
> resembled Jack Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
>
>
Please stick to the rifle. If you want to discuss the Tippit shooting,
read With Malice and then start a new thread.
>
> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
> the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
>
> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also
> found TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which
> they could match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO
> CONCERN WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
>
Maybe because they already knew to whom that other print belong. Like
maybe a klutzy Dallas investigator. You know, the type who would throw
down cigarette butts at a crime scene and step in the pools of blood.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> >> At the Veery "Minimum" we have "Reasonable Doubt"
> >>
> >
> > No, there is no doubt whatsoever.
> >
> >> Unless of course you do NOT adhere (support/condone/accept) to the
> >> American Justice System.
> >>
> >
> > In this case it goes beyond the American Justice System, whatever you
> > think that means. It is historical fact.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com <mailto:ama...@quik.com>> wrote in
Mitch Todd
> STOP making "Excuses" for the DPD.
>
> Weitzman previously owned a Sporting Goods Store including the sales of
> Guns.
Not quite. Weitzman only claimed that he was "in the sporting goods
business," but if you read the resume he spells out in his WC testomony
(you actually read that, right?), you'll find that he's referring to his
no-more-than-a-year stint as GM of a chain of discount stores. Before
that, Seymore spent fifteen years in the garment trade. He sold all sorts
of things besides sporting goods, and all sorts of sporting goods besides
guns. Hardly the background of a firearms expert!
In fact, on the weekend of the assassination, Weitzman told the FBI that
the rifle was fed by a clip. Everything I've seen and read about Mauer
bolt action rifles tells me that Paul Mauser's guns don't use clips. But
Carcanos do. Either Weitzman didn't really understand guns that well, or
he inadvertantly described something besides a Mauser rifle.
> In 1963 Dallas was the 14th Largest City in the USA.
>
> There were FOUR (4) DPD officers who ID'd the rifle as a "Mauser". ALL in
> the Presence of CVapt.Fritz & Lt. Day.
Four DPD officers? So far you've only identified Weitzman, Boone, Fritz,
and (possibly) Curry. Of these four, only Fritz and Curry were DPD
officers. Boone was a deputy Sherrif and Weitzman was a deputy Constable.
And of these four, only Weitzman ever claimed that he saw the rifle and
thought it to be a Mauser. Fritz and Boone both testified that they only
repeated what someone else (ie, Weitzman) said. Curry wasn't in the Book
Depository and likely also repeated what he'd been briefed by others.
> At the Veery "Minimum" we have "Reasonable Doubt"
We also have photographs of the rifle as it lay in the TSBD and as it was
removed from the building. The rifle in those photographs is a Carcano,
not a Mauser.
What it comes down to is that we have the word of an ex-dress peddler
against photography. Doesn't sound too much like a contest, does it?
MST
PS: Whassup it the LN contingent around here? This stuff ain't too hard to
look up and figure out, guys! Now I gotta come out of semi-retirement to
bat for ya'. ;-P Are you pining for the return of Jean Davidson, too?
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:Rh1_e.1226$j_3.81@trndny07...
> Yes, it does support the fact that Weitzman only had a glimpse. No closer
> than a few feet. Not close enough to see the markings which clearly
> identify it as a Mannlicher-Carcano made in Terni.
Read it. He described DETAILS. Proving More than a Glimpse.
====================================================================
>> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
>> NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING
>> THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A
>> SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
>>
>>
===================================================================
> Which means absolutely nothing. He was not familiar with the
> Mannlicher-Carcano.
ASSUMPTION on your part.
===================================================================
>> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
>> WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S
>> AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to
>> be a 7.65 Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what
>> appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."
>> (Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)
>>
====================================================================
> Don't use statements from others basing their accounts on what Weitzman
> said as independent corroboration. That is a misuse of research method.
Thats a Signed Legal Affidavit from a Professional Law Officer.
Since when is quoting Official Records considered "misuse"???
=====================================================================
>> 4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF
>> THE SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A
>> TELESCOPIC SITE."
>>
>
> Which he got from Weitzman.
WHERE does it say he got it from Weitzman??
=======================================================================
>> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
>> MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF
>> DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>>
>> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
>> rifle as a Mauser that day?
>>
>> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
>> thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>>
>> BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
>>
>> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
>> it, and before he removed it, not knowing what
>> it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is
>> when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready
>> to photograph it. We were just discussng it back
>> and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65
>> Mauser.
>>
>> BALL: Thank you.
>>
>> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
>> helpful.
>>
>>
=================================================================
> Sure, it DOES look like a Mauser. Fancy that. No one identified that it
> really WAS a Mauser.
>
>> OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
>> WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
>>
>
> And honest mistake that anyone could make.
Ommission of Testimony is NOT a "Mistake" It's a FELONY.
===================================================================
>> While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
>> 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif
>> Jesse Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>>
>> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
>> the Depository Building?"
>>
>> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
>>
>>
==========================================================
> It could be that another reporter shouted out a question and cut off the
> answer.
AGAIN...ASSUMPTION on Your Part.
==========================================================
>> On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
>> purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
>> Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
>>
========================================================
> FBI.
AGAIN AGAIN Your Assumption. (No wonder you believe the WCR.
Neither 1 of you Prove ANYTHING.
========================================================
>> On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the
>> murder of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
>> Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up)
>> Who was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla
>> Clemmons who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom
>> resembled Jack Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
>>
>>
>
> Please stick to the rifle. If you want to discuss the Tippit shooting,
> read With Malice and then start a new thread.
>
>>
>> The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
>> the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
>>
>> I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
>> area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
>> TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they
>> could match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
>> WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
>>
=================================================================
> Maybe because they already knew to whom that other print belong. Like
> maybe a klutzy Dallas investigator. You know, the type who would throw
> down cigarette butts at a crime scene and step in the pools of blood.
MAYBE? MAYBE? MAYBE?
Well, Maybe You are part of the Cover-Up !
>> ===============================================================
>> >> At the Veery "Minimum" we have "Reasonable Doubt"
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, there is no doubt whatsoever.
>> >
>> >> Unless of course you do NOT adhere (support/condone/accept) to the
>> >> American Justice System.
>> >>
================================================================
>> > In this case it goes beyond the American Justice System, whatever you
>> > think that means. It is historical fact.
What IS "Historical Fact" is that the Authorities "Lied, Witheld Evidence
and, Destroyed Evidence".
Do you condone those Felonies?
====================================================================
tomnln
But I'm sure a well read individual such as yourself is already aware of
him.
FINDING THE RIFLE.
Seymour Weitzman
(EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT
NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS
FAIRLY FAMILAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR
A WHILE.
3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBURATION FOR
WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT
(Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65
Mauser with a teloscopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a
brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like
the rifle they reportedly found?)
4. FOR MORE CORROBURATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE
SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65 MAUSER WITH A TELESCOPIC SITE."
5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65
MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY
BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Who refered to it as a Mauser that day?
BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at
it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is
what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is,
the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussng it
back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
BALL: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very
helpful.
OMMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF
WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
While we're on the subject of ommissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg.
754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Cheif Jesse
Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
"Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of
the Depository Building?"
"Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
On Pg. 761, Curry states that the Dallas Police got a "TIP" that Oswald
purchased the rifle through a mail-order house under the name of A.
Hidell. (Who was the Tipster?)
On pg. 766 Curry states that there were three (3) witnesses to the murder
of officer Tippitt. (The WC tells us of Helen Markham and Domingo
Benavides. Neither of which could pick Oswald out of a Police line_up) Who
was the third witness that the WC totally ignored? Was it Aquilla Clemmons
who stated that TWO (2) men killed Tippitt. One of whom resembled Jack
Ruby! (see Rush To Judgement by Mark Lane)
The Warren Report tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on one of
the book cartons used for the sniper's nest.
I don't find that at all amazing considering that Oswald worked in that
area all morning. .. What I DO find amazing is that they also found
TWENTY-FIVE (25) "other" prints. Only twenty-four of which they could
match with TSBD employees, Dallas P.D. and FBI. SHOWING NO CONCERN
WHATSOEVER OVER WHO THE 25th PRINT BELONGED TO! (WRpg.249)
"Mitch Todd" <mtodd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4338...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
to.
Let's boil it all down, shall we? At this point, here's what we have:
o Weitzman said that he thought the rifle was a Mauser 7.65 when he
saw it in the TSBD and told others so
o Boone said someone he thought to be Cpt Fritz called the weapon a
Mauser in the TSBD
o Fritz said that he absolutely did not ID the rifle as a Mauser to
anyone
Either Fritz is lying or Boone misidentified the originator of the "7.65
Mauser." So which is right? Well, to start off, I'm unaware of any
statement made by Fritz, written or otherwise, where he ever claimed that
the rifle was a Mauser, which supports his story. Boone's statement to the
WC fingering Fritz is itself equivocal --he didn't say that it absolutely
was Fritz, only that he "believe[d]" it to be Fritz. But it's Seymour
Weitzman who puts the icing on the cake by taking credit for the initial
Mauser 7.65mm ID in his testimony to the Commission. From this, it appears
that Boone was just mistaken, confusing Fritz and Weitzman in his later
testimony.
That leaves us with Weitzman being the originator of the 7.65 Mauser,
period. So, what kind of expertise did Weitzman have in regards to bolt
action military rifles? He told the Commission that he "was in the
sporting goods business" for a while, but that doesn't really tell us
much. What kind of sporting goods? How long did he ply the trade?
Fortuitously, Weitzman also gave the Warren Commission an accounting of
his employment history. He graduated from college in 1945, then spent
fifteen years in the dress business, which brings us to 1960. At this
time, he took a job as general manager of a chain of discount goods stores
headquartered in Corpus Christi. The position didn't last long -- Weitzman
shut down the stores and wound up the company by the end of the same year.
After that, Weitzman retired from business and took a job as a deputy
Constable in Dallas County. Dress shops aren't exactly known for their gun
collections, and Weitzman doesn't seem to have been a moonlighter, so his
stint in the sporting goods industry must be his tenure in the discount
goods business.
I have yet to see how a year in the GM's office makes a man a rifle
expert. Interestingly, M1891 Mauser rifles were flooding into the US from
Argentina (one of the very few nations to adopt 7.65mm ammunition) at the
time. The M1891 differs from the canonical, and far more common, M1898
design in one important respect -- the magazine housing extends below the
forestock just in front of the trigger guard. This sort of configuration
also just happens to be a feature of the Mannlicher- Carcano rifle, and
it's easy to see how someone casually familiar with a 7.65mm Mauser could
mistake a Carcano for one.
And, by the way, Ayela filmed the removal of the rifle from its hiding
spot on 11/22/63. That rifle is a Carcano. It's a hard film to argue with.
MST
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%%h_e.73414$Cc5.69619@lakeread06...
tomnln
I prefer to go by the "Official Records" posted Below.
"Mitch Todd" <mtodd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:433c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Mitch Todd
> Thanks for your "Opinion".
>
> I prefer to go by the "Official Records" posted Below.
Well, I'm glad you like the official record. My post was built from its
whole cloth, so it's a bit puzzling why you so quickly turn your back to
your own sacred writ the second it begins to sour and curdle in your
belly. A more concientious acolyte would attempt to harmonize the lumps
between the gospels, but you seem to prefer to fall back into the warm
motherly embrace of repeating catechisms over and over and over in hopes
of warding off the bogeymitch. But your mantras will convince no one but
yourself.
MST