CD87 p92 - SS tells us the rifle Kleins shipped to Hidell was a 91(T)roop (S)pecial carbine

[Drew Phipps]

David: I agree that you have demonstrated that c2766 could not be linked sufficiently to Oswald solely by virtue of the purchase orders that purportedly trace it. Add that to the fact that "2766" appears on multiple rifle(s). It is apparent that the government would need more proof if the case were to come to trial. The "more proof" I mention would have to take the form of fingerprint evidence, or backyard photos, to get to gun ownership. Bob and Albert are merely taking your work to the next set of issues of proof. Whether the gun in the TBD is the same gun as in the backyard photos (or not), and whether the backyard photos are "real" (or forgeries) is another quite essential element of the government's proof, more so if the chain of purchase doesn't get them there. A question that I'm still left with is the origin and provenance of the new strap (and/or strap mounts). Oswald was a notorious penny pincher, and wouldn't have needed the bother of carrying it, and spending time to affix it to the rifle, and then disposing of it (and worrying that as a bit of evidence it might link to him), if his plan all along was to assemble the rifle in the snipers nest and discard it at the scene.


Edit: You also have to attack the FBI fiber evidence from the butt of c2766 which claims that the fibers stuck in the gun match those of the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested, or prove that Oswald changed shirts after leaving work.


However, the work you have done doesn't exclude c2766 as the murder weapon. (Bob's ballistics work excludes it as the rifle that fired the magic bullet, and makes it highly unlikely to be the aassination weapon, but that still doesn't quite get us there.) Logically, Oswald could still be the shooter, even if he isn't the owner (although you are stuck with some sort of conspiracy at that point). Your work is essential but not sufficient. You would still have to attack Lt. Day's fingerprint work to reach your conclusion that the rifle is a plant. (Don't mistake me, I'm not defending Lt. Day; you just haven't gone quite far enough to reach your end point) Additionally, I would suggest that you fomulate some researchable theory about who "planted" the gun and when, to reach your conclusion. A post-assasination conspiracy to frame Oswald doesn't carry the same caliber of troubling conclusions as a pre-assasination frame-up does.

I also think that saying, "you can't prove otherwise" isn't a good stopping point. Everyone has a different level of satisfaction about proof and evidence, so that standard seems a bit too subjective to rest on. Our jury system (at last in Texas) means that the State has to meet 12/12 particular levels of satisfaction at the same time. Unfortunately, people still get wrongly convicted. Your work in this thread gets us past the "lone nut" but doesn't exclude Oswald as a conspirator or as a shooter.