Based on a comparison of test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and the two bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle. ( Warren Report, pg. 558 )
The Commission based this conclusion on the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier. ( 3 H 429 )
But what if that wasn’t true. What if the FBI lied ?
What if the evidence showed that the “stretcher bullet” ( CE 399 ) wasn’t fired from the CE 139 rifle ?
The HSCA test fires the Depository rifle
In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel test fired the CE 139 rifle in order to compare the bullets and shells they received from their test against the bullets and shells the FBI tested in 1963.
The Committee’s Firearms Panel examined CE 399 and the FBI test bullets ( CE 572 ) and found that they were fired from the same weapon. ( 1 HSCA 465 )
And since CE 399 had been fired from the same weapon as CE 572, it would be safe to assume that whatever results the Panel obtained from its comparsion between its test bullets and the FBI’s test bullets that were fired in 1963, would apply to CE 399 as well.
In his testimony, the Panel’s expert, John S. Bates, Jr. of the New York State Police Scientific Lab in Albany, was careful not to say that CE 399 and CE 572 had been fired from the CE 139 rifle, only to say that they were fired from the same “firearm barrel”. ( ibid.)
A careful and curious choice of words.
But there’s a reason why he worded it that way.
Because when they test fired the CE139 rifle, the HSCA Firearms Panel found that their test bullets did not match the test bullets fired by the FBI in 1963.
The testimony
Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139 ?
Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show ?
Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not detemine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.
Mr. MCDONALD. And would you please explain your answer ?
Mr. BATES. Based in the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual identifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets. ( 1 HSCA 463 )
The Panel issues an opinion
Mr. Bates testified that the difference in the individual characteristics was ( in the Panel’s opinion ) due to “deterioration in the barrel”. He gave 3 examples of how the markings in the barrel could have deteriorated.
Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panels tests with each other and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.
No.1, repeated test firing over the years causing extensive changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon.
No.2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon.
No.3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning and/or protective lubrication. ( 1 HSCA 464 )
This in and of itself is unbelieveable.
“Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first.”
www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm
See also:
Next, neither the 6.5 rifle nor its ammunition was considered “high velocity”. In his Warren Commission testimony, Frazier called both the rifle and the bullets “low velocity”. ( 3 H 422 )
In any other criminal case, the fact that the HSCA’s test bullets did not match the bullets fired by the FBI in 1963 would be proof that, although the bullets in evidence ( CE 399 and CE 572 ) matched each other, none of the 1963 bullets were fired from the alleged murder weapon. And to understand that, we must understand how firearms identification works.
Firearms identification
Firearms identification involves taking a “standard” ( the bullets you fire through a suspected murder weapon ) and comparing them with an “evidence” bullet from a source not known to you.
“Fired standards,…are examined first to determine if in fact the barrel is producing striated marks in a unique and consistent pattern. Once a consistently reoccurring pattern to the marks is identified on standards, the standards are compared to the evidence bullets to see if the same pattern of marks exists on the evidence.”
www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm
The “standards” are the ones you know to be true because you fired them through the weapon. The “evidence” are the bullets you did not fire yourself and are comparing to the “standards”.
The Committee’s verdict
By accepting the “deterioration in the barrel” excuse for why the bullets did not match, the Select Committee then accepted the “evidence” bullets from 1963 as if they had matched their own “standards” even though they hadn’t and assumed that all of the bullets from 1963 had been in fact fired from the CE 139 rifle.
Then the Committee, in its final report, said that its conclusion that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository was based in part because:
“The positive identifcation of firearms experts that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine.” ( HSCA final report, page 51 )
That was a lie.
As I’ve cited above, the Firearms Panel’s examination of the bullets made no such positive identification.
In fact, their experts avoided saying exactly that.
Although the Committee was willing to accept any or all three of its panel’s reasons for barrel deterioration, there was another reason why the bullets didn’t match. A reason that they never stated publicly: the differences in the individual identifying characteristics between CE 572 / CE 399 and the ones fired from CE 139 in 1978 proved that those 1963 bullets were not fired from CE 139.
They could have been fired from another 6.5 rifle and the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such weapon in their possession.
CE 542: the “replica” rifle
Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a “replica” rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein’s had mounted the scope. ( 3 H 396 )
Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle ( CE 542 ), they had to tell Klein’s where to position the scope. ( ibid. )
Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope ?
It’s like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.
It’s ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.
An alternative explanation for why the bullets didn’t match
Let me preface this by saying that I am offering my opinion for why CE 399 and the other bullets from 1963 did not match the bullets fired in 1978. Let me add to this that the “replica rifle” was an exact duplicate of the CE 139 rifle, right down to the threaded holes ( 3 H 397 ) meaning that their parts were interchangeable.
I believe that CE 399 was fired from another rifle, possibly the “replica” rifle, ( CE 542 ) then the bolt assembly, including the firing pin, were removed from that rifle and installed in rifle CE 139. As you can see from this picture of the 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano bolt, the bolt assembly includes the firing pin.
If my theory is correct, then any bullets fired from the CE 139 rifle after the bolt and firing pin were changed would contain different individual markings on the bullet ( because it had been fired through another barrel ) but the bolt face markings and the firing impressions would be the same on the shells.
The bolt assembly was easy to remove, as this video shows:
We know that the HSCA found that the individual markings on the bullets were different, but what did they find when they examined the test shells ?
The HSCA examines the shells
The Panel concluded that all three of the spent shells were fired from the CE 139 rifle based on matches they found in the markings left by the bolt face and the firing pin of the rifle. ( HSCA Report, Vol. 7, pg. 368 )
The HSCA never addressed the second set of follower markings on CE 545 that were made by a rifle other than CE 139.
Conclusion
When the HSCA test fired the CE 139 rifle in 1978, they found that the bullets did not match but the shell casings did. Their Firearms Panel opined that the cause was due to deterioration of the condition of the barrel due to wear and neglect.
But there was another reason that was possible that they did not consider: that CE 399 and the bullets from 1963 were fired from another rifle and that the bolt assembly was removed from that rifle and installed in CE 139.
They knew that the FBI had possessed a exact duplicate rifle ( CE 542 ) of the CE 139 rifle. But instead of test firing the “replica” rifle to determine if the bullets from 1963 were fired through that barrel, they simply accepted that the CE 139 rifle’s barrel had deteriorated.
This whole issue could be put to rest very simply by test firing the replica rifle and comparing its bullets to the bullets fired from 1963. But that’s never been done.
And that’s why questions still remain.
Remaining questions
Could the FBI have used the replica rifle to obtain the “bullet evidence” they needed ?
Were parts like the bolt and firing pin interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle ?
Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle ?
Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle’s bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance ?
Why did the Commission ask the FBI if the firing pin had been changed ? ( CE 2974 )
Why did the FBI repsond that they knew of no outlet that sold parts for the CE 139 rifle ( ibid. ) when all they had to do was to make a phone call to rifle reconditioner Fred Rupp ?
The HSCA Firearms Panel didn’t examine the replica rifle and test IT, if for no other reason, than to eliminate it as a possible source for those 1963 bullets, shells and fragments. Why not ?
The House Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.
But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored. They weren’t interested in opening doors or investgating the FBI.
So the questions remain.