JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The fact that Boone too signed an affidavit that it was a Mauser shows that Weitzman, who owned a gun shop, knew what he was talking about.

The only business that Weitzman said he owned made ladies garments.

Wietzman was then District Supervisor of Holly's Dress Shops for 15 years, then helped shut down the Lamont Corporation, a discount outfit, after which he joined the Dallas Police.

Weitzman also mentioned working in a sporting goods store, but not a full-fledged gun shop, and he never owned it. He doesn't mention when or for how long, but based pn the rest of his work history, Weitzman either worked in the sporting good store very briefly, or some time before 1945, nearly 2 decades before the JFK assassination.

[Fiver]

For the WC to be 100 per cent correct and Oswald according to many was the man who shot and killed both Kennedy and officer Tippit, required ever person who ever gave evidence direct to the contrary of this was of the opinion of the WC apologist

1 , A Liar
2 Was mistaken
3 DIdnt exist
4 Was an idiot and a moron.

What are the odds of that happening?

A list of these name has already been given,and its a biggggg list .

Oswald being a patsy requires every person who gave evidence to the contrary was part of a murderous Conspiracy to kill JFK, even though it would gain them nothing and they would have to live in fear of discovery for the rest of their lives.

And it's a lot longer list.

What are the odds of that happening?

[Fiver]

Plenty of important witnesses were not called by the Warren Commission.

If this is true, you should easily be able to list several of these important witnesses who weren't called by the WC.

[Fiver]

I don't need actually to do something I have already done!

Wade would not identify the policeman or policemen who had reported the rifle to be a Mauser.

Commission Counsel obligingly failed to ask him to identify them.

Weitzman obviously gave false testimony after having been instructed to change his story.

He testified that, based on merely glancing at the rifle, he had guessed it to be a Mauser, but that he had been wrong.

Having stated on the day of the assassination that the rifle WAS a Mauser, identifying the precise calibre of the rifle as well as the specification of its scope, and even describing its sling, he obviously had not merely glanced at the rifle.

Both the questioning and answering were tailored to make it look as though there was no credible evidence that the rifle found had been a Mauser.

The best evidence - that given on the day of the assassination and broadcast by several television and radio stations - is that the rifle found was a Mauser.

IF you've actually watched the video, then why do you keep saying things that the video proves are wrong?

Multiple sources repeating the same initial misidentification of the rifle is not evidence that the rifle was a Mauser.

TV news filmed the discovery of the rifle and showed that it was a Carcano. Weitzman, Wade, and everybody except Craig accepted that the rifle had initially been misidentified.

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out before, the HSCA noted that the witness descriptions of Oswald were nothing like him.

Duran said later that she was sure the man was not Oswald.

Lopez testified that the man could not be Oswald.

Diaz said that he did not pay the man much attention.

I do not see how, after quoting Lopez's description of the man he saw, you can continue to claim that he was Oswald.

I see you're still dodging the questions.

Why would the Conspiracy send an imposter to Mexico? The government hadn't even decided what cities JFK would be visiting, let alone the routes. Oswald hadn't applied anywhere in Dallas yet.

Why is there no evidence of Oswald being anywhere else at the time?

Why would a Conspiracy pedaling a single gunman theory forge evidence that Oswald had contacted both the Cuban and Soviet embassies? Why would they undermine their own theory that way?

[Fiver]

[SIZE=16px]‘’* Wade never mentioned a map.’’ {Fiver}

Except he did.

"Today Mr. Wade announced that authorities had also found a marked map, showing the course of the President's motorcade, in Oswald's rented room. 'It was a map tracing the location of the parade route,' the district attorney said, 'and this place [the Texas School Book Depository, a warehouse from which the fatal shots were fired] was marked with a straight line.' Mr. Wade said Oswald had marked the map at two other place, 'apparently places which he considered a possibility for an assassination.'" (New York Times, Nov. 25.) {1963}

I had thought you were referring to the Wade interview of the 24th.

The map mentioned on the 25th, if it truly did show a trace of the parade route, would be another point against Oswald. Was the map ever entered into evidence?

This heap of nonsense was quickly dropped but it is of a kind with the rest of Wade’s statements. Wade boasted that he had sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than he had against Oswald. It would be reassuring if this claim was a piece of self-important bombast typical of Wade, but the chilling possibility remains that on this occasion he was actually speaking the truth.

There was plenty of evidence against Oswald.

* The Caracano was Oswald's. We have his handwriting on the order form. We have photographs of Oswald with the Carcano that were taken by his wife using Oswald's camera. One photo had a note in Owald's handwriting on the back. Fibers from his shirt match those found on the rifle.
* Oswald's prints were on boxes at the sniper's nest, the paper bag, and the rifle itself.
* Fibers from the blanket that Oswald kept his Carcano in matched fibers found in the paper bag.
* Oswald's Carcano was the weapon used to kill JFK. The shell casings match the Carcano. The bullets and bullet fragments match the Carcano.

All of this forensic evidence was confirmed by police forensic experts and the FBI forensic experts.

* An eyewitness, Howard Brennan, saw a white man of Oswald's approximate weight and build firing from the snipers nest. When he saw a police lineup, Brennan said that Oswald looked like the man he saw, but could not positively identify him.
* Several other eyewitnesses saw a man in the snipers nest or a rifle extending from it, but none provided as good of a description.

* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his coworkers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.

Oswald's behavior was not that of an innocent man.
* When confronted by a police officer with a drawn gun on the second floor, he showed no curiousity as to why the police officer did that.
* He is the only Book Depository employee who left the building after the shooting.
* He had a taxi driver drop him several blocks from his house.
* When apprehended in the theater, Oswald tried to shoot the police with his pistol.
* In custody he lied repeatedly.

The case against Oswald in the killing of Officer Tippett is even stronger.
* Tippet asked the police dispatcher to repeat the description of JFK's killer just before he pulled over the man who killed him.
* Multiple witnesses who saw the killing of Officer Tippet or the killer fleeing the scene picked Oswald out of a police lineup.
* The discarded cartridge casings came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of two different brands of bullets.
* The bullets in Tippet's body came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of the same two brands of bullets.
* The jacket discarded by the killer was identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband.
* When apprehended at the theater, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers.
* The bullets found in Oswald's pistol and his pocket were the same two brands of shells.

The case against Oswald against trying to murder General Walker is the weakest.
* Marina Oswald testified that her husband tried to kill the general.
* On the night that Walker was shot at, Oswald left his wife a note on what to do if he was "alive and taken prisoner".
* The bullet was too badly damaged to get a ballistics match, but it was determined to be

[Fiver]

Do you think the assassin would be thinking that or would his main goal be to have his best option to kill a president ?

For me the latter is my preferred choice.


The shooters position could have been easy adjusted to make the shot on the corner without exposing himself any more than was required. Imo .

My statement is based on the idea the the assassin's main goal was to improve his chances of killing JFK. Which is why firing on JFK while he was approaching the Book Depository would be a bad idea.

Firing at JFK from the front would have been a great way to let every person in the motorcade see the assassin firing at JFK. Which means instead of spending time figuring out where the shots were coming from, the Secret Service would know and be able to take more effective actions, including returning fire on the assassin,

Firing while the limo was turning onto Elm would require leaning out the window, which would give the assassin's position away to everyone behind the Presidential limo in the motorcade. It would also mean the assassin giving up a braced position, which would greatly reduce accuracy.

Adjusting the shooter's position would not change any of this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Wade did say that in an earlier interview. He corrected himself in the interview given after Oswald's murder.

Which you would know if you actually watched and listened to the the Wade interview.

There's also Wade's testimony under oath.

I don't need actually to do something I have already done!

Wade would not identify the policeman or policemen who had reported the rifle to be a Mauser.

Commission Counsel obligingly failed to ask him to identify them.

Weitzman obviously gave false testimony after having been instructed to change his story.

He testified that, based on merely glancing at the rifle, he had guessed it to be a Mauser, but that he had been wrong.

Having stated on the day of the assassination that the rifle WAS a Mauser, identifying the precise calibre of the rifle as well as the specification of its scope, and even describing its sling, he obviously had not merely glanced at the rifle.

Both the questioning and answering were tailored to make it look as though there was no credible evidence that the rifle found had been a Mauser.

The best evidence - that given on the day of the assassination and broadcast by several television and radio stations - is that the rifle found was a Mauser.

[Fiver]

Q. What's the make of the rifle, sir?


Wade. It's a Mauser, I believe.


(Warren Commission Volume 14, Exhibit 2169, page 4)

Wade did say that in an earlier interview. He corrected himself in the interview given after Oswald's murder.

Which you would know if you actually watched and listened to the the Wade interview.

There's also Wade's testimony under oath.

Mr. RANKIN. In any of these press conferences that you have described did you ever say anything about the type of rifle that was thought to be involved in the killing of the President?
Mr. WADE. I think that was one of the inaccuracies that Sunday night on the thing.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about it?
Mr. WADE. I think I said I thought it was a Mauser or I thought--was one of those things I didn't know what it was. It was an Italian gun, I think and I really thought I was giving them Italian but Mauser is a German gun, isn't it?
But I think you have that--it was a situation, I don't contend I was right on that because it was a situation somebody asked me that and that is what I thought I was telling them and I never--all my information came from the police and actually somebody said originally it was a Mauser but it turned out it was not.
Mr. RANKIN. You learned it was not.
Mr. WADE. Oh, yes; there was no question, I am not contending whatever I said was so on that because I got it all secondhand from someone else.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn that the Mauser-type rifle was similar in the type of action to the gun that was involved. Did that ever come to your attention?
Mr. WADE. I think someone told me that but I am not an expert on guns. I don't believe I ever saw this gun except from a distance. I think that Saturday night--Friday night, the 22d when they were taking it to Washington, I saw somebody take it through homicide and give it to the FBI. and from a distance, I never did examine it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Silvia Duran described him as "blonde, short, dressed unelegantly and whose face turned red when angry." and also as "five feet six, with blonde hair, weighing about 125 pounds, and with very little hair". She identified a picture of Oswald as the man she saw.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.

Alfredo Mirabel Diaz did not provide a description, but identified a picture of Oswald as the man he saw.

As I have pointed out before, the HSCA noted that the witness descriptions of Oswald were nothing like him.

Duran said later that she was sure the man was not Oswald.

Lopez testified that the man could not be Oswald.

Diaz said that he did not pay the man much attention.

I do not see how, after quoting Lopez's description of the man he saw, you can continue to claim that he was Oswald.

[cobalt]

‘’* Wade never mentioned a map.’’ {Fiver}

Except he did.

"Today Mr. Wade announced that authorities had also found a marked map, showing the course of the President's motorcade, in Oswald's rented room. 'It was a map tracing the location of the parade route,' the district attorney said, 'and this place [the Texas School Book Depository, a warehouse from which the fatal shots were fired] was marked with a straight line.' Mr. Wade said Oswald had marked the map at two other place, 'apparently places which he considered a possibility for an assassination.'" (New York Times, Nov. 25.) {1963}

This heap of nonsense was quickly dropped but it is of a kind with the rest of Wade’s statements. Wade boasted that he had sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than he had against Oswald. It would be reassuring if this claim was a piece of self-important bombast typical of Wade, but the chilling possibility remains that on this occasion he was actually speaking the truth.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Wade did not say that the rifle was a Mauser

(Fiver)



It's a Mauser, I believe

(District Attorney Henry Wade)

Q. What's the make of the rifle, sir?


Wade. It's a Mauser, I believe.


(Warren Commission Volume 14, Exhibit 2169, page 4)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

* Wade did not say that the rifle was a Mauser. He referred to it as "a used gun of Italian make".

Q. What's the make of the rifle, sir?


Wade. It's a Mauser, I believe.


(Warren Commission Volume 14, Exhibit 2169, page 4)

[Fiver]

I didn't say that everything Frazier said must be true, but if he saw Oswald carrying a package and it fitted in between his chin and cup of hand, there is no room for error.

I have not yet been able to find his description of Oswald's hair colour in his testimony, but you quote him as mentioning three colours - blond, brown and red.

That doesn't seem like the blond hair described by the three Mexico City witnesses.

And they aged him ten years and knocked about four inches off his height.

Silvia Duran described him as "blonde, short, dressed unelegantly and whose face turned red when angry." and also as "five feet six, with blonde hair, weighing about 125 pounds, and with very little hair". She identified a picture of Oswald as the man she saw.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.

Alfredo Mirabel Diaz did not provide a description, but identified a picture of Oswald as the man he saw.

Buell Frazier, one of the people who knew him best, described Oswald as blonde. We know that wasn't an imposter. Which suggests Oswald had a lighter brown hair, or at least a hair that could look lighter in certain lighting.

LIkewise, Oswald's receding hairline could easily explain witnesses who overestimated his age.

The Mexican witnesses knock 2 to 3 inches off of his height. They weren't measuring him with a tape measure, so this is more easily explained by inaccurate estimates than an imposter.

The note about his face turned red when angry meshes well with Julia Postal, who saw Oswald at the theater, describing his complexion ad ruddy.

The questions for anyone thinking that the Mexico Oswald was an imposter are:

Why would the Conspiracy do this? The government hadn't even decided what cities JFK would be visiting, let alone the routes. Oswald hadn't applied anywhere in Dallas yet.

Why is there no evidence of Oswald being anywhere else at the time?

Why would a Conspiracy pedaling a single gunman theory forge evidence that Oswald had contacted both the Cuban and Soviet embassies? Why would they undermine their own theory that way?

[FISHY1118]

Firing at JFK from the front would have been a great way to let every person in the motorcade see him firing at JFK. Which means instead of spending time figuring out where the shots were coming from, the Secret Service would know and be able to take more effective actions, including returning fire on the assassin,



That would require leaning out he window, which would give the assassin's position away to everyone behind the Presidential limo in the motorcade. It would also mean the assassin giving up a braced position, which would greatly reduce accuracy.

Do you think the assassin would be thinking that or would his main goal be to have his best option to kill a president ?

For me the latter is my preferred choice.


The shooters position could have been easy adjusted to make the shot on the corner without exposing himself any more than was required. Imo .