Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

The chain of custody of the rifle is very puzzling. If Oswald had admitted killing the president or at least admitted to owning the rifle, perhaps the casual handling and examination of the alleged murder weapon might be understandable, but the fact that Oswald denied everything and in fact claimed he was being framed, would seem to dictate a great deal of care should be used in every aspect of the murder weapon.

And, lets face it professional pride of the people involved would dictate that a murder weapon be handled with the utmost care (especially one used to kill a president).

Others should take a look at this in the transcripts. Explanations may be found for some or all of this. The mystery, according the House Select Committee on Assassinations, revolves around the identity of the alleged second shooter, not whether Oswald was involved.

However, one can understand why some researchers believe that perhaps Oswald was "patsy." RPJ 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors simply revert evidence they don't like. This is improper.

One Contributor named "Gamaliel" continually reverts evidence that doesn not fit into his personal belief system. he rarely gives any reason except to say that what he doesn't like is not a "neutral point of view."

This appears to be one of the drawbacks of the Wikipedia system. Gamaliel rarely provides any research but seems to hit the revert button whenever the mood strikes him.

Unfortunately "Gamaliel" has gotten to be system operator for Wikipedia and has some minor but bothersome powers in that postion.

RPJ 19:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My position as an administrator has nothing to do with this. I have no control over article content and my administrative powers can only be used against vandals and people who break Wikipedia policy. I have not blocked any user I disagree with in this matter, nor have I locked any article in regards to this matter, so I'll thank you to refrain from implying that I am guilty of some sort of administrative abuse. Gamaliel 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text that was inserted by RPJ then removed by Gamaliel. I will suggest, per Wikipedia guidelines, if an editor is going to add atext dump, it's better to do it in the Talk section. Then other editors can hash it out try to get it NPOV.

The Warren Commission struggled with the rifle identification issue through throughout its hearings. On the one hand, Oswald claimed he did not own a rifle. But, he was murdered himself very soon after being arrested so he wasn't available to give his testimony. Also, the two officers who found a rifle came to what the Commission believed was a mistaken belief that the rifle was a Mauser, rather than the Carcano the Commission believed Oswald did own. And, finally, the Commission was surprised by the testimony that, in fact, a Mauser was taken into the building and seen two days before the shooting of Kennedy. The commission handled these problems in this manner. The officers who found the rifle, and believed it was a Mauser, testified before the Commission, but were not handed the Carcano (Exhibit 139)and asked whether that was the rifle they found. Nor were they handed the Mauser that was seen in the building two days before the murder and asked if that was the weapon they found. Instead, a third policeman (Lt. Day) was asked if Exhibit 139 was the weapon that the other policemen had found. Unfortunately the only picture Lt. Day took of the rifle that was found by the other two, is half concealed by boxes in an attempt to show its location, but the picture of the rifle in full view and with lighting wasn't taken at the of the alleged shooting but taken later back at Lt. Day's office.

Then the chain of custody of the rifle became confusing. Police Chief Jesse Curry testified that the was ordered to send the rifle and all other evidence to Washington to the FBI and the night of Kennedy's murder the rifle was taken by an FBI agent from Dallas named Vincent Drain who took it to Washington and gave to FBI agent Robert Frazier. He testified he kept in in their offices until November 27, 1963, when it sent back to Dallas and given back to someone at the Dallas Police Department for reasons unclear, and then, later it was sent back to FBI headquarters in Washington.

Therefore, the Commission was fortunate that the proceedings were not adversarial and that all this testimony was conducted in secret. Other wise’ someone may have asked whether such rifle was the rifle found near the Sniper’s Lair and if it was, why the history of the rifle was so ineptly documented, since this was the rifle that supposedly killed the president.

Does RPJ have a source for this statement? Who is speaking hear? It's going to take some work, if you want to make this section encyclopedic and non-point of view. Mytwocents 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel is now censoring the discussion pages

Contributor Gamaliel who is constantly reverting others work with dismissive one-liners has now started removing things written on the discussion page.

This has to stop.

Here is what Gamaliel says about himself on his page:

"What I'm proudest of and spent more time working on than anything else are my contributions to Lee Harvey Oswald. The Oswald entry is even mentioned in a newspaper article (broken link) on wikipedia. If you want to go insane, try monitoring these articles for conspiracy nonsense."

When this was pointed out on the discussion pages he reverted it out.

This conduct is quite annoying.

66.135.233.230 23:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The silent censor is back

This article is devoted to the rifle that allegedly was used to assassinate Kennedy.

Reader "Gamaliel" is convinced that Warren Commission correctly concluded the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano, and it was owned by Lee Oswald. Why? Because that is what the Warren Commission said.

Under the Neutral Point of View rule that governs this website, that theory, verifiable by a reference to the Warren Report's conclusion, has a right to be in this article.

But, there are other views of this and much evidence to establish that the Warren Commission's opinion was wrong. These verifiable views and verifiable evidence also have the right to be on this page. that is the very basic rule of the website: All significant views be presented and let the reader make up his or her own mind.

Here is what reader Gamaliel is improperly censoring out of the article now about the "Carcano" rifle without even a comment.

The Captain of the Dallas Homicide Squad, J.W. Fritz, did immediately handle the rifle that was found at the scene, and ejected a live round from it. Officer Boone, who was standing there when Captain Fritz was examining the rifle heard Captain Fritz identify it as a Mauser. [2]

Captain Fritz never testified that the rifle was a Carcano that Oswald allegedly owned. He did, at first, deny that he identified the rifle as a Mauser, but then on further questioning said, if he did say it, he wasn't postitive that it was a Mauser.

Captain Fritz: "If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself."[3]

Then, for reasons never explained, Captain Fritz did not initial the rifle to begin a chain of custody on the rifle suspected of shooting the president.

Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?

Captain FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir. [4]

The Carcano rifle allegedly owned by Oswald was later identified by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department as the weapon found on the 6th Floor of the Texas Book Depository. The Dallas Police nor anyone else ever tested the Carcano to deterine if it was fired that day. 66.135.233.230 06:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of discussion about this matter. Your attempts to insert the Mauser conspiracy theory into three different articles have been repeatedly rejected by all other editors. Gamaliel 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website rules prohibit removing views with which one disagrees

This website prohibits removing views with which one disagrees. The rule on this website is that all viewpoints are included and the reader can then make up his or her own mind.

Therefore, simply because a reader fervently believes that the Warren Commission correctly decided a rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano was found on the 6th floor of the building where accused assassin Lee Oswald worked, does not mean the fervent believer can cut out all the contrary evidence. The website rule demands different viewpoints be included to allow the reader to decide for him or her self. Therefore censoring out viewpoints is flatly against website policy.

In this situation, the self appointed censor cut out information about what brand name of rifle was found where oswald worked. The two law enforcement officers who found the rifle not only identified it as a Mauser, but one of them also heard the Captain of the Homicide that handled the rifle and ejected a live round identify the rifle as a Mauser. Also cut out was the failure of the Captain to put his initials on the rifle to start a chain of custody so that a rifle that appears much later can be identified as the rifle found on the 6th floor. The fervervent believer also cut ot the information that the police did not examine the rifle to determine whether it had been fired that day.

The fervent Warren Report believer cut all this contrary information out simply because he disagrees with it. But that is for the reader to decide, not some anonymous censor to decide. This is basic rule of this website.

72.234.117.64 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website also prohibits namecalling and incivility. Gamaliel 19:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the mis-identification of the Carcano rifle as a Mauser, show us in the talk section. Give the other editors a chance to see how much weight we should give it in the article. Please stop assuming bad faith.Mytwocents 00:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website rules are being seriously violated

A reader called Mytwocents (a member of that small and ever dwindling group of Warren Report believers) must read the rules of this website before chopping out any further information with which he doesn't agree.

The policy of this website is to provide a neutral point of view. This means all viewpoints are included (even minoritiy views such as held by Mytwocents) and let the reader decide for him or herself.

Mytwocents just can't understand this rule; or he won't understand this rule; or he is just deliberately violating this rule. Anything that Mytwocents doesn't like he just deletes-sometimes with a derogatory comment and sometimes not.

It involves the rifle found a Book depository. At the time the rifle was found, no one identified it as a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The law enforcement officials believed it was a brand name of a rifle called a Mauser. In fact a Mauser was also seen in the building just two days before the assassination.

Here is what this ferevent Warren Report believer chopped out recently about the rifle found in the building where Oswald worked. The sworn testimony shows that when the rifle was found it was identified as a Mauser, not a Carcano such as the Warren Commission believed Oswald owned.

Therefore, Mytwocents feels compelled to delete as much information about the Mauser being found as he can. He also doesn't want information included that shows the rifle did not have Oswald's fingerprints on it when the FBI got it. He also doesn't want the readers to know that no one tested the Carcano to determine whether it had been fired on the day that the president was shot.

Here is text cut out by Mytwocents in clear violation of this website:

Oswald claimed he did not own a rifle, and was being set up as a "patsy." The two officers who found a rifle, but did not handle it, intitially came to, what the Warren Commission concluded, was a mistaken belief that the rifle was a Mauser, rather than the Carcano the Commission concluded that Oswald owned.

The Captain of the Dallas Homicide Squad, J.W. Fritz, did immediately handle the rifle that was found at the scene, and ejected a live round from it. Officer Boone, who was standing there when Captain Fritz was examining the rifle heard Captain Fritz identify it as a Mauser. [1] Captain Fritz never testified that the rifle was a Carcano. He did, at first, deny that he identified the rifle as a Mauser, but then on further questioning said, if he did say it, he wasn't positive that it was a Mauser.

Captain Fritz: "If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself."[2]

Then, for reasons never explained, Captain Fritz did not initial the rifle to begin a chain of custody on the rifle suspected of shooting the president.

Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?

Captain FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir. [3]

The Dallas Police nor anyone else ever tested the Carcano to determine if it was fired that day.

Sebastian Latona, supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint section of the FBI’s identification Division (Warren Commission Report pg.123) testified that the palm print allegedly found on the barrel of the rifle belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. The FBI did not find the print on the rifle, but was told about it later by the Dallas Police.

One skeptic and researcher on the subject points out that Lt. J. C. Day, the police crime lab technician who said he found and lifted the Oswald print from the rifle, "failed to take a single photograph of it before he allegedly lifted it, in violation of both common sense and standard procedure."

Moreover, he points out the Dallas police said nothing about finding a palm print on the rifle until after Oswald was dead. When earlier, Lt. Day, handed the rifle over to FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain, Drain said Day didn't even mention the finding of a palm print on the weapon. Lt. Day said part of the palm print was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.

But the FBI fingerprint expert who examined the rifle a few hours later said there was no trace of a print on the barrel and that the barrel didn't even look like it had been processed for prints. [4]

These violations of website rules by Mytwocents are becoming quite serious.

RPJ 01:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other editors of violating "rules", when they edit out statements culled from conspiracy websites[5] is tiresome and non-productive. The questions are, why do you assume bad-faith in my (and other wikieditors) edits?; and why do you refer to other editors as "readers"? Mytwocents 01:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I have edited a few stylistic things. Judging by the comments on this page I thought I should point that out. I hold a neutral position about Oswald and do not like POVs, because they hurt (ouch...)

andreasegde 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]