golf clap
I think (memory here, so may be faulty) no notes were taken, or they were destroyed. I sure don’t remember seeing any.
The sheer number of documents that never existed, were destroyed, lost, kept under seal, etc. in this case is one of the many factors that fail to pass the smell test.
What, you think people were lax because no one thought at the time that this case might be some sort of big deal, historically?
Do you have a cite for that, please?
For my memory? I’ll need to run a search on that.
A rifle is a rifle, after all, and Oswald’s kill shot was at short range for a rifle. A 5.56 fired from 90 yards closer wouldn’t have been substantially more powerful.
The reason I don’t think this happened is because, well, literally every single iota of actual evidence says Oswald shot Kennedy.
People who are unfamiliar with rifles and have not fired them don’t realize, perhaps, who amazingly accurate they are and how easy to use. “A hundred yards” sounds like a long way. It’s the other end of a football field. It’s remarkable how preposterouly easy it is to hit something with a rifle at that distance.
I had never fired a firearm of any kind before joining the Army; not once, ever, on any range shoot did I ever miss the very-small-man sized target. (The accuracy standard was not merely hitting the target, but keeping your shots within a 6-inch-diameter circle.)
Yes, I believe that was correct as to Captain Fritz. However, others were present, and in fact one of the reasons that Oswald’s transfer to the jail was delayed (allowing Ruby time to show up) was because a U.S. Postal Inspector showed up to ask him questions (it appears to me that one of the early leads they had confirming they had their man was the fact that Oswald had an ID for A. Hidell, and that name tracked to a PO Box to which a rifle matching the one found on the 6th floor had been mailed).
Recall that at that time there was no federal law against killing the president. It was a Texas state crime. And so it was technically up to the local police department to investigate. However, the place was a madhouse, and so others (like the secret service) were also present.
Here’s a description of what the Warren Commission found.
Well, it was run like a madhouse. It boggles the mind to think they had him in an interrogation room, they had stenographers up the yin-yang, almost certainly had recording equipment, understood that this interrogation might contain valuable and useful evidence in prosecuting a crime of some national and historical importance, and no one thought “Maybe we oughta take notes, here, Bubba, whatayu say, huh?”
How To Fuck Up An Investigation, Course #101, Dallas Police Academy.
I’m just speculating here, but my guess is the traditional interrogation is intended to soften up the suspect, get them talking. That’s hard to do when you have a stenographer taking dictation.
Of course, this was not at all typical. What are you gonna do?
Incidentally, here’s more about the interrogation
The practice of electronic recording of police interrogations wasn’t a standard practice anywhere until the 1980s, and wasn’t required by state statutes in the anywhere United States until 2003 (Illinois), largely as a measure to document that confessions weren’t unduly coerced. The Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t require recording of interviews until 2014.
The Warren Commission Report, Appendix 11 lists interrogation reports from Capt. J. W. Fritz,(Dallas Police Department) on pages 599–611, FBI agents on pages 612–625, Inspector Thomas J. Kelley (U.S. Secret Service) on pages 626-632, and U.S. Postal Inspector H. D. Holmes, pages 632–636.
Any more easily fact-checked false assertions about missing, destroyed, or lost reports and evidence, chief?
Stranger
So, per that appendix, Fritz writes that he “couldn’t” make a recording. There were lots of agents and officers, and the room was small and not private. Plus, he said he had to leave frequently to get information from others that he could use. And Oswald was brought out for “show ups” - lots of witnesses verified that he was the person they saw fleeing the scene.
Also, in one of the postal inspector reports, he says that Oswald blew up at Fritz when he asked about his Hidell ID:
“I told you all I’m going to about that card. You took notes, just read them for yourself if you want to refresh your memory.”
So notes were taken.
Well, fourth conspiracy item that does not pass the smell test. Notes were taken.
By 1997 these, and others from an FBI agent, had been released.
Let’s clear this up:
No school shootings have used ‘automatic weapons’. The AR-15 is actually semi-automatic, like many sporting guns. It’s not particularly deadly as rifles go. The cartridge is not thought to be powerful enough for big game, for example.
The .223 bullet that an AR-15 fires is a small high velocity bullet. It has nowhere near thr energy of a standard hunting round like a .308. The Carcano used a 6.5 x 52 cartridge, slightly larger than an AR-15’s .223 (or 5.56x45 NATO if it is designed for the pressure)
The Carcano has a muzzle energy of 2043 ft.lbs. The AR-15 has a muzzle energy about HALF of that.
The Carcano bullet has more energy left in it at 200 yards than the AR-15 has at the muzzle. And in comparison, a standard .308 hunting cartridge has over 2600 ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle, and a real high-powered round like .338 Lapua has 4351. A.50 BMG has over 12,500 ft.lbs of energy at the muzzle.
https://chuckhawks.com/rifle_ballistics_table.htm
Both the Carcano and the AR-15 would be considered medium-powered rifles suitable for game up White Tailed Deer. They are less deadly than the average hunting rifle. In terms of Kennedy’s wounds, the head wound would have been fatal from any rifle bigger than a .22. And if he hadn’t been shot in the head, there’s a decent chance he would have survived after being shot twice with the Carcano.
Oh, and Carcano bullets had a reputation for tumbling easily, which could explain why the bullet was flattened longitudinally and not at the tip.
Yes, let’s clear this up. The Colt ArmaLite AR-15 Model 01 in use by the Secret Service in 1963 was fully automatic. Here’s a picture of the exact weapon in question that conspiracists would like to believe caused the fatal shot:
The .223/5.56x45mm round is notorious for both tumbling and fragmenting on impact, causing a massive but shallow wound cavity. But this isn’t a gun control thread.
Nope. I only decided to post it because I thought the cartridge comparisons were useful in the context of Oswald’s gun. It’s an unusual cartridge and even gun enthusiasts may not know where it fits in the power hoerarchy. I had to look it up myself.
And I did not know there was a full auto AR-15. I thought The M-16 was the designation for a selective fire version of the AR-15. Or was AR-15 just the civilian designation, regardless of Selective Fire or not? Was that a small production special version for law enforcement, secret service, etc?
The M16 is the military designation for what was originally the AR-15 Model 603. The AR-15 Model 601 (also referred to as the “Model 01” as indicated by stamp on the lower receiver, which is confusing because Armalite also produced a “Model 01” that was somewhat different, and in fact there were some evolutionary differences in the 601 and 602 as limited production went on, notably a change in buffer spring strength and buffer mass. Colt later went on to designate a line of semi-automatic rifles intended for the civilian and law enforcement markets as “AR-15”. The use of the term “automatic” is confusing because semi-automatic rifles are often referred to as “automatic” even in formal literature and markings, but the AR-15 Model 01 carried by Secret Service agents was capable of selective (fully automatic) fire.
The 5.56x45mm NATO round is well-known for its destructive capacity in terminal ballistics because of its tendency to tumble almost immediately upon entry. This is irrespective of muzzle energy and has to do with a transition from stable to unstable dynamics when the round enters a hydraulic medium (i.e. a body). The wound produced by the 5.56 would be quite distinct from that of the much heavier and slower moving 6.5x52mm Carcano in all loadings.
Stranger
Agreed on all counts. Still… would you rather get shot with a .223 or a .308?
So, you agree that the wound from a 5.56x45mm to the back of the head would be very distinct from that of a .308, that this is due to the 5.56x45mm notoriously tumbling and fragmenting on impact causing devastating but shallow wound cavities, meaning there wouldn’t be much left of JFK’s brain in a form readily identifiable as a brain, that @Moriarty is correct about the mutilation that such a weapon would cause, you were unaware of the actual lineage of the AR-15 but still felt compelled to ‘correct’ @Moriarty by spreading misinformation about it - and yet still have to ask which one would prefer to be shot in the head by, a 5.56x45mm NATO or a .308 round?
So, in other words, you agree with everything said by @Stranger_On_A_Train and I, but for some reason are clinging to your initial and quite erroneous statement that:
After having it shown to you that the 5.56x45mm round from the AR-15 family is extremely deadly and devastating as far as rifles go. There’s a reason the US military has used it as its standard rifle round for nearing 60 years, and it most certainly is not because it “isn’t particularly deadly.”
- Abraham Lincoln (1865): Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, a well-known actor and Confederate sympathizer, on April 14, 1865, at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. The assassination occurred just days after the Confederate surrender, effectively ending the American Civil War. Booth believed that killing Lincoln would aid the Southern cause and avenge the South’s defeat.
- James A. Garfield (1881): Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881, by Charles J. Guiteau. The attack occurred at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, D.C. Guiteau was a disgruntled office seeker who had failed to secure an appointment from the Garfield administration. His motive was largely attributed to his belief that Garfield’s assassination would lead to a political upheaval favoring his own political faction.
- William McKinley (1901): McKinley was shot on September 6, 1901, by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, during the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. McKinley died eight days later from gangrene caused by the gunshot wounds. Czolgosz claimed that he had killed McKinley because he was the leader of a corrupt government and believed his actions would help the anarchist movement.
- John F. Kennedy (1963): Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, by Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the Warren Commission’s findings. The motivations behind Kennedy’s assassination have been the subject of extensive debate and speculation. Oswald was believed to hold Marxist beliefs and had previously defected to the Soviet Union. However, the exact motives for his actions remain unclear and are a topic of numerous conspiracy theories.
Above is ChatGPT’s list for the reasons behind the four assassinations of US Presidents (not sure if they contain errors). Is JFK’s assassination the only one without a consensus reason? Did LHO do it purely for self aggrandizement or to further a political goal?
Whence does this flat categorical statement derive, please? Also NB: I did not limit my claim to “electronic” recording. I wrote that they had stenographers up the yin-yang, but chose not to employ them on that occasion. Aside from dispensing with the need for various notations like “LHO was silently beaten for the next 8 minutes” I’d imagine questions were asked of Oswald that Fritz preferred to have no record of.
So where are these notes today?
Well, let’s see:
While the law enforcement community was initially skeptical about electronic recording, over time procedures were developed to accommodate this new practice. A 2004 survey of investigators from the states of Alaska and Minnesota, which require that all custodial interviews and interrogations be electronically recorded, found that most investigators had favorable experiences with electronic recording. Recognizing these benefits, many law enforcement agencies have taken the initiative to create their own internal policies requiring electronic recording of interviews and interrogations. A recent survey found that 238 of departments in the United States electronically record interviews and interrogations.
Despite the impressive numbers cited in the Sullivan survey, the fact remains that most law enforcement agencies do not electronically record interviews or interrogations. Recent trends across the United States suggest that an increasing number of states will require electronic recording of interviews and interrogations.
— “Electronic Recording of Interviews and Interrogations”, Reid, Jun 01, 2005
Since 2003, the number of states requiring law enforcement officers to electronically record some or all interviews conducted with suspects in their custody has grown from two to at least twenty-two.1 Until recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has resisted this trend; under its previous policy, the DOJ’s three chief investigative agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) — rarely recorded custodial interviews.2 However, on May 22, 2014, the DOJ announced a substantial change in its policy, creating a presumption that FBI, DEA, ATF, and United States Marshals Service (USMS) agents will electronically record3 custodial interviews.4
This reform will not only reduce the number of false confessions police elicit and thus reduce their role in wrongful convictions, but will also improve the investigative process generally. The electronic recording of police interrogations benefits all parties who value accurate and lawful fact-finding and more informed decisionmaking. Still, many police departments continue to resist the electronic recording of interrogations. Their arguments are that it inhibits suspects from talking and thus lowers the confession rate, that it is too costly, and that it is not feasible. The argument that recording interrogations prevents suspects from making incriminating statements has never been supported by research. On the contrary, several studies have concluded that electronic recording does not cause suspects to refuse to talk or stop making admissions.
So it looks like well into the 2000s many law enforcement departments were not legally required to and did not have internal policies for electronic recording of interrogations.
I have never heard of the practice of having court reporters or stenographers sit on on an police interrogation, nor do I know whether the Dallas Police Department had “stenographers up the yin-yang” but you appear to be imagining whatever you please to buffer baseless insinuations of conspiracy and coverup instead of any actual evidence or testimony.
Stranger