GARY HOLT SAID:
The only way to “link” a fired bullet to any firearm is to match the marks on the bullet (from the lands and grooves of the rifling) to the rifling on the barrel of the weapon…and saying fragments were “consistent with having come from that gun” means nothing at all. I’d guess that the manufacturer of the ammunition was Norma...they made sporting/hunting loads for most all WWII rifles, and were about the only ones who did. So a fragment being “consistent” with the type of bullet that a 6.5 Italian rifle would fire would also be consistent to ANY Norma made Bullet…even one for a 30-06, a 8m/m, a 7.7 etc...the actual caliber would not even matter.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The fact still remains that there isn't ONE bullet or bullet fragment in this case that can be said to have positively NOT come from Oswald's rifle. Period. All bullets and fragments in this case either definitely came from MC rifle #C2766 or were consistent with having come from that gun.
And the FBI's firearms expert Robert Frazier did, indeed, testify that the smaller bullet fragments in evidence in this case were "consistent with" bullets that are known to have come from the Carcano rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. Here's just one example of such testimony from Frazier (at 5 H 72):
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842 [a metal fragment removed from the wrist of Governor Connally], will you describe that fragment for us, please?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet."
MR. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."
MR. SPECTER -- "Are they consistent with that fragment identified as Commission Exhibit No. 842, as having come from fragment identified as Commission Exhibit 567 [one of the front-seat bullet fragments fired from Oswald's rifle]? ....
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."
MR. SPECTER -- "Were the characteristics of the fragment identified as Commission Exhibit 842 consistent with having come from the fragment heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 569 [the other front-seat bullet fragment fired from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle]?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
---------------
So, we can see via the above expert testimony from Bob Frazier that the largest Connally wrist fragment was considered to be "consistent with" other bullets and fragments that were positively fired from Lee Oswald's rifle.
And just how likely would it be for fragments from OTHER non-Oswald guns to have shown up in the evidence pile in this murder case, and yet have ONLY TINY FRAGMENTS from those "other" guns show up (vs. any fragments that were large enough to be compared with test bullets from LHO's gun in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as a candidate for having fired all of the bullets that struck any of the limo occupants in Dealey Plaza)?
What do you suppose the odds were of those "other" assassins getting THAT LUCKY?
GARY HOLT SAID:
I seriously doubt that any fragments would make a sound audible over the surrounding noise of the motorcade. Even a bullet making a direct hit on the metal body of the car would not have come even close to the description of a sonic boom.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Don't conspiracy theorists find the following terminology utilized by Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman interesting? Doesn't this testimony sound a lot like the explanation I was talking about earlier concerning Kellerman hearing the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments from the head shot striking the limo's interior?:
"A flurry of shells come [sic] into the car."
Yes, it's true that Kellerman only used the term "flurry of shells" one time during his Warren Commission testimony (vs. "flurry of shots" on other occasions during his testimony).
But when you come to think of it, those two words ("shells" vs. "shots") are certainly not consistent with each other. A "shell" coming "into the car" is not the same thing as hearing a "flurry of shots".
Yes, you can attack me for possibly nitpicking this issue to death regarding "shells" vs. "shots", but Mr. Kellerman's precise words are quite interesting, IMO, in the sense that it would seem as though Mr. Kellerman actually HEARD the physical "shells" (i.e., bullet fragments) coming "INTO THE CAR" (which were his exact words).
And what OTHER "shells" (bullet fragments) could he possibly have been talking about if not CE567 and CE569 (the two largest bullet fragments from Oswald's gun that were found very near Kellerman's seat in the limousine)?
YMMV. But for my money (and considering the sum total of all the evidence), Roy H. Kellerman heard CE567/569 striking the limousine when he said "a flurry of shells come into the car".
David Von Pein
December 6, 2009
