JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The bag did not show creases or oil stains consistent with it having held the disassembled rifle.

A properly maintained rifle would not have left oil stains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were---that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142--whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?
Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes?
Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn't find any such markings.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth----
Mr. EISENBERG. I am not sure you understood a question I asked one or two questions ago.
I just want to make clear here if the gun was not wrapped in a cloth--let's assume hypothetically that the gun was not wrapped in a cloth and was, also hypothetically, inserted into this is paper bag. Is there any absence of marks which would lead you to believe that this hypothesis I just made couldn't be--that is, that it couldn't be inserted, without a covering, into the paper bag without leaving more markings than were present?
Mr. CADIGAN. No. The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know.

[Fiver]

Dallas police officers claimed to have discovered on the sixth floor a paper bag that was long enough to have contained the rifle, but the bag turned out to have had no association with either Oswald or the rifle:

That is incorrect. Oswald's fingerprint and palm print were found on the bag in a position matching the way Frazier and Randle testified Oswald was carrying the bag. Fibers were found on the bag consistent with, but not exclusive to the blanket that Oswald had kept his rifle in.

[Fiver]

Only three witnesses had seen Oswald prior to and during his arrival at work on 22 November 1963. All three testified that he had not carried a rifle. Buell Wesley Frazier, who had driven Oswald to work, and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle, at whose house Oswald had met Frazier that morning, both claimed that Oswald had been carrying a paper bag, but that the bag was much too short to have held the Mannlicher Carcano rifle that was discovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

If Oswald was framed, Frazier and Buell had to be part of the frameup. Again, you are claiming a grossly incompetent Conspiracy which can't even get their perjured witnesses to follow the script.

Jack Dougherty, a colleague of Oswald’s who saw him enter the TSBD, was adamant that he did not see anything in Oswald’s hands.

Dougherty said he didn't see anything, but he was not adamant.

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.

[Fiver]

13 Years after the Assassination!!!!!!! yer right . nice try.

If the bullets were faked, they were faked so well that they fooled improved testing made 13 years later.

In 1976, HSCA neutron activation tests showed CE 843 (from JFK's brain) and CE 567 (found on the front floorboard) were parts of the same bullet. CE 567 is the nose portion of a damaged 6.5-millimeter caliber full metal-jacketed, lead core bullet.

[Fiver]

Despite the Warren Commission desperately trying to identify these two weapons as being the same, and flat out stating that they were, “...a photograph taken in the yard of Oswald’s apartment showed him holding this rifle.” (referring to the MC found in the TSBD) their own FBI expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt (called upon to make that very comparison) refused to say that was the case - stating that he could not reach that conclusion. He wouldn't say categorically that they were different either, but...burden of proof, and so on...

Here is Shaneyfelt's testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "this point," you are pointing to the right side of the weapon, to a point approximately 14 to 15 inches in front of the bolt when the bolt is turned down--is that correct?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so testified.
Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the rifle.
However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also looks like a piece of rope, is that it?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it has that appearance.