Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy (92 page)

The possibility of a rifle substitution was even admitted by Dallas police
chief Jesse Curry in 1976. In an interview with The Detroit News, Curry
agreed "it's more than possible" the rifle originally found in the Depository could have been exchanged for the gun now in the National Archives.
Curry said anyone wanting to substitute one suspected murder weapon for
another "could have gotten away with it at the time" because no special
precautions were taken to isolate the weapon as historic evidence.

But even accepting that the Mannlicher-Carcano was the assassination
rifle, it is hard to envision a worse weapon. In testimony to the Warren
Commission-conveniently left out of its report-FBI reports quoted
firearms experts as calling the rifle "a cheap old weapon," "a very cheap
rifle [which] could have been purchased for $3 each in lots of 25," and a
"real cheap, common, real flimsy-looking [gun] . . . very easily knocked
out of adjustment."

The FBI also noted that the Carcano was part of a gun shipment that was
the subject of "a legal proceeding by the Carlo Riva Machine Shop to
collect payment for the shipment of rifles which Adam Consolidated
Industries, Inc., claims were defective."

A defective gun managed to strike two men with three shots at a range
of nearly two hundred feet within six seconds?

There are many other questions concerning the rifle and its purchase.

The Warren Commission published a "duplicate" of the ad from which
Oswald reportedly ordered the rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. of
Chicago on March 13, 1963. According to Klein's records, a rifle bearing
serial number C2766 was shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915,
Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963.

Why publish a duplicate ad? Why not publish the original ad? The order
form reportedly came from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman
magazine-yet the ad from that issue advertises a "36" overall" rifle.
Perhaps that is why the Commission chose to present a "duplicate" ad,
which depicts a forty-inch-long rifle-the same length of the weapon
identified as Oswald's.

Perhaps the discrepancy between rifle lengths had a logical explanation.
But the manner in which the Commission tried to conceal this problem
only furthers the suspicions of researchers that there was manipulation of
the evidence.

This problem is heightened by the fact that no record exists to show that
either Oswald or A. Hidell actually took possession of the rifle. Despite
postal regulations that Form 1039, which lists those persons with access to
a post office box, be kept a minimum of two years after a box is
closed-the Commission was told Oswald's form was thrown away. Likewise, there are no official records to show that Oswald signed for the .38
caliber pistol that reportedly was shipped to him by Railway Express.

In fact, according to Warren Commission documents, Oswald told Capt.
Will Fritz "he had bought [the pistol] several months before in Fort
Worth, Texas. "

The rifle experts employed by the Warren Commission made negative
comments regarding the capabilities of the Carcano rifle.

But the strongest evidence that the Mannlicher-Carcano was not the
assassination weapon came from Ronald Simmons, chief of the Infantry
Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the
Department of the Army, who headed the team evaluating the rifle. During
testimony to the Warren Commission, Simmons was asked if his team had
experienced any difficulties sighting in the rifle. He replied:

Well, they could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no
attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the
telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to
adjust the azimuth and one which adjusted an elevation.

Moments later, the Warren Commission attorney stated: "For the record, Mr. Chairman, these shims were given to me by the FBI who told
me that they removed them from the weapon after they had been placed
there by Mr. Simmons's laboratory."

What an astounding admission-the Oswald rifle needed metal shims
placed under the telescopic sight before the Army laboratory could test the
accuracy of it. And this evidence was known to both the FBI and the
Warren Commission, but never adaquately relayed to the public.

The experts also indicated that the telescopic sight was adjusted for
a left-handed shooter, yet both Oswald's wife and brother told the
Commission Oswald was right handed. Robert Oswald said: "I would say without qualification . . . He [Lee] was instinctively a right-handed
person."

Added to the inferior quality and the inaccuracy of the rifle is Oswald's
well-documented inability to achieve marksmanship standards while in the
Marines.

In its Report, the Warren Commission stated flatly: ". . . the number
C2766 is the serial number. This rifle is the only one of its type bearing
that serial number." Yet an FBI report dated April 30, 1964, and signed
by J. Edgar Hoover, stated:

.. . the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy from 1891
until 1941; however, in the 1930's Mussolini ordered all arms factories
to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were
manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on
weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter
prefix and some do not.

Plainly, there could be more Mannlicher-Carcanos around with the serial
number C2766-a fact that further weakens the case against Oswald.

Without going into minute details, it should be noted that the sling on
Oswald's rifle was not a standard rifle sling but instead seemed to come
from a musical instrument or a camera carrying strap. No attempt was
made to determine where this sling came from, although Commission
experts, after explaining that the purpose of such a strap is to steady the
aim, stated: "The sling on the rifle was too short to use in the normal
way ... "

Despite two massive federal investigations, no one bit of evidence has
been brought forward as to where or when Oswald might have purchased
ammunition or the ammunition clip for the rifle.

Bear in mind that no gun-cleaning oil or other materials, including
ammunition, were found in Oswald's belongings.

Another important piece of evidence involved a paraffin test made on
Oswald the day of the assassination. The results of this test presented
evidence that Oswald may not have fired a rifle that day, yet these results
were downplayed and even suppressed by the federal authorities.

In this test, layers of paraffin are applied to a suspect's skin and the
sticky warm wax opens the pores and then picks up any foreign material
that may be present on the skin. When the wax cools, it forms a hard cast
that is treated with chemicals that turn blue if nitrates are present. The idea
is that the skin of someone who has recently fired a weapon will bear
traces of nitrates. While the presence of nitrates is not conclusive evidence
that a gun was fired-tobacco, urine, cosmetics, matches, soil, and certain
drugs can cause a positive reaction-the absence of nitrates is compelling
evidence that the person has not fired a weapon.

Oswald's hands both reacted positively to the paraffin test, indicating the presence of nitrates. But a cast of his right cheek showed no reaction.
Any competent defense attorney would have pointed to this test as evidence that his client had not fired a rifle.

However in its report, the Warren Commission termed this routine
police test "completely unreliable," adding that an FBI agent fired three
rounds through the Oswald rifle in rapid succession and tested negative on
both his hands and face afterward.

The odd part of this issue is that in printing the Dallas police documents,
the Commission apparently deleted reference to the paraffin test at the
bottom of the police evidence sheet.

Why obscure this test result-which appeared to present evidence of
Oswald's innocence-if the test can be demonstrated to be faulty or
unreliable?

In all criminal cases, police always hope for that most important piece
of evidence linking the crime to the suspect-a fingerprint.

The sole piece of hard evidence linking Oswald to the MannlicherCarcano rifle was a palm print reportedly found on the underside of the
gun's barrel when the rifle was disassembled.

It seems strong evidence until inspected closely. To begin with, the
palm print would never have been admitted as evidence in any courtroom
trial because it totally lacked a chain of evidence-the unquestioned and
documented path from discovery to presentation in court.

Consider the chronology of events leading to the presentation of the
palm print as evidence: According to Dallas police lieutenant John Carl
Day, he discovered the palm print shortly before turning the rifle over to
the FBI about midnight on November 22, 1963. Yet he mentioned it to no
one and there is no record of his discovery. Day even admitted to the
Warren Commission that "it was his customary practice to photograph fingerprints in most instances prior to lifting them." Yet this was not done.

About midnight, the rifle was given to FBI agent Vincent Drain, who
flew with the gun to Washington in an Air Force plane.

Early on November 23, 1963, the rifle was turned over to the FBI
laboratory and examined for fingerprints. A report made that day and
signed by J. Edgar Hoover stated: "No latent prints of value were developed on Oswald's revolver, the cartridges cases, the unfired cartridge, the
clip in the rifle or the inner parts of the rifle."

The FBI had no indication of any useful print. Before the Warren
Commission, FBI expert Sebastian Latona stated:

We had no personal knowledge of any palm print having been developed on the rifle.... evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the
existence of such-even an attempt on the part of anyone to process the
rifle.

On the morning of November 24, Oswald was killed in the basement of
the Dallas Police Station and that afternoon the rifle was flown back to
Dallas by an FBI agent.

The next day after autopsy, Oswald's body was lying in Miller Funeral
Home in Fort Worth when, according to a local newspaper: "An FBI
team, with a camera and a crime lab kit, spent a long time in the morgue."

Miller Funeral Home director Paul Groody told this author that the FBI
fingerprinted Oswald's corpse. Groody said: "I had a heck of time getting
the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."

In 1978, FBI agent Richard Harrison confirmed to researcher Gary
Mack that he had personally driven another Bureau agent and the "Oswald"
rifle to the Miller Funeral Home. Harrison said at the time he understood
that the other agent intended to place Oswald's palm print on the rifle "for
comparison purposes."

Oswald had been fingerprinted three times while alive and in Dallas
police custody. There has been no explanation for this postmortem
fingerprinting.

On Monday, while talking to reporters, District Attorney Wade casually
mentioned: "Let's see ... his fingerprints were found on the gun. Have I
said that?" It was the first mention of any prints being found.

By Monday evening, the news was all over the media. The Dallas
Times Herald proclaimed: OSWALD'S PRINTS REVEALED ON RIFLE KILLING
KENNEDY.

Asked about the strongest evidence of Oswald's guilt, Wade responded:
"If I had to single out any one thing, it would be the fingerprints found on
the rifle and the book cartons which [Oswald] used to prop the weapon on. "

On November 26, the rifle was again sent to Washington. But the
incriminating palm print did not arrive at the FBI lab until November 29,
three days after all other Dallas police evidence had been turned over to
the Bureau on orders from President Johnson.

This time FBI officials were able to confirm that the palm print matched
that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Today, Day still maintains he found the print and failed to mention it,
photograph it, or send it to the FBI quickly because he believed that
"sufficient traces of the print had been left on the rifle barrel." Day told
author Henry Hurt that he specifically pointed out the print to Agent Drain
when he gave him the rifle. However, Drain denied this. According to
Hurt, Drain told him:

I just don't believe there ever was a print. . . . All I can figure is that it
was some sort of cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You could take the print off Oswald's [arrest] card and
put it on the rifle. Something like that happened.

Considering the movements of the rifle, some researchers believe Oswald's
dead hand was placed directly on the rifle barrel. Others believe Oswald's
palm print was taken either from jail records or the book Depository and
superimposed over marks from the rifle barrel.

No serious researcher in the 1980s believes that Oswald's palm print
was legitimately lifted from the rifle barrel on November 22, 1963.

Even the Warren Commission found this piece of evidence hard to
swallow. An internal FBI memorandum made public in 1978 disclosed that
on August 28, 1964:

[Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee] Rankin advised because of
the circumstances that now exist there was a serious question in the
minds of the Commission as to whether or not the palm impression that
has been obtained from the Dallas Police Department is a legitimate
latent palm impression removed from the rifle barrel or whether it was
obtained from some other source and that for this reason this matter
needs to be resolved.

Commission fingerprint experts admitted: ". . . it was not possible to
estimate the time which elapsed between the placing of the print on the
rifle and the date of the lift."

The FBI then attempted to have Lieutenant Day certify a statement concerning his lifting of the palm print, but Day declined to
sign it.