On Mar 8, 7:22=C2=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Raymond wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 12:13=EF=BF=BDpm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wr=
ote:
> >> Raymond wrote:
> >>> MC Ammo, Clips and Primers
> >>> After WWII, Albania was the only European nation to go Communist
> >>> without having been invaded by the Soviet Union. It was also
Europe's
> >>> poorest country and the only one with a Muslim majority. As a
result,
> >>> it became part of the American policy to assist Italy in the
> >>> destruction of the Albanian government. Italy had occupied Albania
> >>> throughout WWII.
> >>> On March 23, 1964, Mr.R.W. Botts, District Manager,
Winchester-Western=
> >>> Division of Olin, told the FBI that the Western Cartridge Company
had
> >>> manufactured a quantity of 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition for
> >>> the Italian Government during WWII." At the end of the war the
Italian=
> >> That is not correct. The Winchester-Western Division manufactured the
> >> ammo in response to a DoD contract in 1954, after the war.
>
> >>> Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type ammunition, was
> >>> sold to the United States =EF=BF=BDgun brokers and
> >>> dealers and was eventually distributed by direct sales to
wholesalers,=
> >>> retailers, and individual purchasers." (CE.No.2694)
> >> No telling? Wrong. About half of the 4 million round production lots.
>
> >>> By the time that the US decided to overthrow the Hoxha government,
> >>> there was very little Italian ammo for MC's left in Italy, so
Western
> >>> was contracted to supply the necessary ammo. When the attempt
failed,
> >>> the ammo was put into storage . It reappeared when the plans were in
> >>> progress to invade Cuba. Both the surplus rifles and Italian ammo
were=
> >>> used as well as some of the Western ammo.
> >> The contract was not issued until 1954.
>
> > THE WCC PRODUCTION LOTS
>
> > 1. Dr. Guinn felt he could make his assertions about the nature of
> > Mannlicher bullets with certainty because he believed he had examined
> > bullets from every production lot manufactured by Western Cartridge
> > Company.
>
> > WOLF. Did you examine bullets from every lot produced by the Western
> > Cartridge Company?
>
> > GUINN. Yes. The Western Cartridge Company re****tedly made 1 million
> > rounds of each of 4 production runs, lots 6000. 6001, 6002, and 6003.
> > They were made at different times in 1954, and re****tedly those were
> > the only lots they ever produced, and we had boxes from each of those
> > lots. (HSCA, I, p. 494)
>
> > 2. But Guinn was again IN ERROR. His assumptions were false. Western
> > Cartridge Company had produced ammunition for the 6.5 Mannlicher-
> > Carcano BEFORE 1954 and this ammunition had found its way into the
> > mainstream of sellers and distributors. This had been told to the
> > Warren Commission FOURTEEN YEARS before Guinn testified:
>
> No, you are in error. Western did not produce that ammunition during
WWII.=
>
> > "on March 23, 1964, Mr. R. W. Botts (District Manager, Winchester-
> > Western) advised the Western Cartridge Company ... manufactured a
> > quantity of 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the Italian
> > government DURING =C2=A0World War II. At the end of the war, the
Italian=
> > Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type of ammunition was
> > sold to the United States gun brokers and dealers and subsequently was
> > distributed by direct sales to wholesalers, retailers and individual
> > purchasers." (WC Exhibit 2694, Vol XXVI, p. 62)
>
> > 3. The purpose of Mr. Wolf's question and Dr. Guinn's answer was
> > clearly to establish the comprehensiveness of the work at Guinn's
> > laboratory and to insure that no kind of 6.5 Mannlicher ammunition had
> > evaded his testing. Once again, Dr. Guinn's answer is at variance with
> > known facts.
>
> But in fact Guinn never bothered to do the controls that I have said are
> essential. There were several other brands of 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.
> Guinn didn't even do the same analysis on SMI bullets.
>
> > CONCLUSIONS
>
> > 1. It is troubling that Dr. Guinn made blanket statements about the
> > characteristics of WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets while unaware of the
> > existence of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition from production lots he had
> > never tested.
>
> You think Guinn was never aware of SMI ammo?
Marsh Wrote:
"No, you are in error. Western did not produce that ammunition during
WWII."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
Electronic Assassinations Newsletter
Issue #2 "New Discoveries in the Recently Released Assassination
Files"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----
READ
Blakey's "Linchpin":
Dr. Guinn, Neutron Activation Analysis, And The Single Bullet Theory
Part 2
by
Wallace Milam
GUINN'S TESTIMONY AND THE KENNEDY MATERIALS
http://www.assassinationweb.com/linchpin2.htm
1. On September 8, 1978, Dr. Guinn told HSCA his tests showed that
only 2 bullets struck Governor Connally and President Kennedy. "There
is not evidence for three bullets, for four bullets or anything more
than two, but there is clear evidence that there were two." (HSCA, I,
p. 504)
2. Guinn found that the two fragments removed from Kennedy's brain and
fragments from the interior of the limousine were parts of the same
bullet. He based this conclusion on the claimed homogeneity of their
antimony content-621 ppm for the brain fragments and 638 ppm, 647 ppm,
and 602 ppm for the pieces of metal from the car. (HSCA, I, p. 538)
3. Alleged homogeneity of antimony content was also the basis of
Guinn's statement that the fragments removed from Governor Connally's
wrist matched drillings taken from the lead core of CE 399, the famous
bullet allegedly found in a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. The three
wrist fragments contained 797 ppm of antimony, while the stretcher
bullet showed 833 ppm. [The 797 ppm measurement given for the three
wrist fragments is puzzling. Guinn's tables show that he took 2
samples from CE 842 for testing but these 2 samples were really 3
separate specimens. He identified a "single larger specimen" of 16.4
milligrams and "two tiny specimens" of 1.3 milligrams. He gives only
one antimony measurement for CE 842-797 ppm. Yet, as we shall see, the
likelihood of 3 pieces of metal from any bit of Mannlicher lead having
the precise amounts of antimony present is extremely dubious.]
4. Thus, the evidence Dr. Guinn presented to the committee reinforced
the previous findings of the Warren Commission and provided a
"scientific" basis for the later findings of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations:
a. The finding that only two bullets struck the car and its occupants
is consistent with both the earlier Warren Commission conclusions and
the later HSCA re****t.
b. The finding that all bullet leads involved were of WCC Mannlicher-
Carcano manufacture tied the fragments to evidence on the sixth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository.
c. The finding that fragments from Connally's wrists were from the
stretcher bullet made the single-bullet theory scientifically possible
and elevated the stretcher bullet, once called the "bastard bullet,"
to the status of key and legitimate evidence.
d. Dr. Cyril Wecht had testified before the committee earlier in the
same afternoon as Guinn. Wecht had raised many objections to the
single-bullet theory, one being that the bullet involved would have to
have been more deformed. Counsel Wolf asked Guinn about Wecht's
belief.
WOLF. Dr. Guinn, on the basis of your scientific analysis, do you
believe Dr. Wecht to have been correct?
GUINN. Well, I think that is his opinion, but like many opinions and
many theories, sometimes they don't agree with the facts. (HSCA, Vol.
I, p. 505)
5. Dr. Guinn had apparently brought the committee "the facts."
THE CRUCIAL QUESTION OF HOMOGENEITY
1. But what is the evidentiary basis for Dr. Guinn's "facts"? He
clearly based his entire neutron activation analysis in this case on
the proposition that Western Cartridge Company Mannlicher-Carcano
ammunition varied greatly from bullet to bullet but showed homogeneity
within a given Mannlicher bullet. This turns out to be contradicted by
the results of Dr. Guinn's own tests.
2. As Mr. Wolf prepared Dr. Guinn for the coup de gras by having him
state his finding that it was "highly probable" that the fragments
found in Connally's wrist came from CE 399, Dr. Guinn made these
remarks:
"One can only show what information we have, and that is that you
simply do not find a wide variation in composition within individual
WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets, but you do find wide composition
differences from bullet to bullet, for this kind of bullet
lead." (HSCA, Vol. I, p. 505. Emphasis added.)
3. But a study of "what information we have" shows (a) that Dr. Guinn
had very little information on which to base any conclusion about
intra-bullet homogeneity, (b) that tests performed in his own
laboratory revealed great variations, some of over 100%, in the
antimony content of test fragments taken from a single Mannlicher
bullet, bringing into question the data on which Dr. Guinn based all
his im****tant findings given to HSCA; and (c) that Dr. Guinn had given
a quite different interpretation of homogeneity within individual
Mannlicher bullets in a paper he had recently written.
4. During the years 1973-75, Dr. Guinn performed tests on bullet
samples from the 4 production lots of Western Cartridge Company
Mannlicher bullets made available to him by Dr. Nichols. In addition
to testing bullets from different lots, Guinn, on one occasion took
one bullet each from lots 6001, 6002 and 6003, then broke each of the
chosen bullets into 4 fragments. NAA tests for composition of
antimony, silver, and copper were then run on the bullet fragments.
5. The results are printed on page 549 of Volume I of the HSCA
Hearings and they are astoni****ng,, especially in the light of Dr.
Guinn's subsequent statement that "you simply do not find a wide
variation in composition within individual WCC Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets."
a. The 4 fragments from one bullet from lot #6002 showed the following
antimony composition: 358 ppm, 983 ppm, 869 ppm, and 882 ppm. This
represents a variation of 625 parts-per-million between two of the
fragments.
b. The 4 fragments from one bullet from lot #6003 showed the following
antimony composition: 667 ppm, 395 ppm, 363 ppm, 441 ppm. This
represents a variation of 304 parts-per-million between two of the
fragments.
c. The 4 fragments from one bullet from lot #6001 showed the following
antimony composition: 1139 ppm, 1062 ppm, 1235 ppm, and 1156 ppm This
represents a variation of 173 parts-per-million between two of the
fragments.
6. It appears that on the day Dr. Guinn told HSCA that "you simply do
not find a wide variation in composition within individual WCC
Mannlicher-Carcano bullets," the entire database on which he relied
consisted of three broken WCC Mannlicher bullets, one of which showed
an intra-bullet variation of 175%, one of which showed an intra-bullet
variation of 84%, and a third which showed an intra-bullet variation
of 16%. [See Appendix B for Guinn's test charts, as well as a
comparison of intra-bullet variations with lot variations in his
tests.] It is reasonable to assume that if Dr. Guinn had performed
other tests of fragments from single Mannlicher bullets and they had
shown greater homogeneity, he would have included them in his test
results. Further, the fact that he worked with only 14 bullets limited
the number he had available for fragmenting and testing.
7. It is shocking to learn that the basis for Dr. Guinn's
authoritative statements about homogeneity rests on such narrow and
contradictory testing. What significance can be given to the presence
of ANY given amount of antimony in ANY Mannlicher samples from WCC-
whether from Connally's wrist, a hospital stetcher, or Guinn's reactor-
when it is realized that another piece of the same lead core, located
a millimeter or a centimeter away along the length of the bullet, may
vary in its antimony content by as much as 600 ppm, may have half as
much or twice as much antimony?
8. What Dr. Guinn really found is that Mannlicher-Carcano bullets
cannot be differentiated by NAA. The answer may well lie in the
process of their manufacture. The use of recycled lead brings together
a potentially very heterogeneous collection of bullet lead. This is
shown in the wide variations which Guinn obtained between bullets from
different lots and bullets from within the same box. What would be the
basis for expecting that unmeasured, heterogeneous, recycled lead
could come together homogeneously in a given bullet? If the bullet
lead went into the manufacturing process in a heterogeneous form, by
what manufacturing step would it be made homogeneous? (Recall that NAA
on non-Mannlicher ammunition had yielded homogeneity throughout the
analytical process-within bullet makes, within boxes of bullets, and
within individual bullets.)
9. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that Doctor Guinn held
the opinion that fragments from an individual Mannlicher bullet were,
in fact, HETEROGENEOUS in antimony content instead of homogeneous, as
his conclusions required. on the same day that he told Wolf, the HSCA,
and the world that "...you simply do not find a wide variation in
composition within individual WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets," Dr.
Guinn submitted a paper said to sup****t that conclusion. In his
bibliography he included an article he had co-authored ("Neutron
Activation Analysis of Bullet-Lead Specimens: The President Kennedy
Assassination," Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 28
(1978), p. 92-93.) In that article, the same man who told HSCA that
variations are not found in WCC Mannlicher bullets wrote, "In the U.
C. Irvine INAA [Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis] background
studies of the Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, it was found that this
bullet lead is remarkably HETEROGENEOUS ... SOMEWHAT WITHIN A GIVEN
BULLET... (Emphasis added).
10. It is difficult to find a more shocking statement. Homogeneity
within a bullet is the key to Guinn's entire interpretation! He swore
that there are not wide variations "within individual Mannlicher-
Carcano bullets", but he had recently written that there was
heterogeneity-not homogeneity-"within a given bullet." When I first
discovered this statement, I was overwhelmed by the misuse and
perversion of science it implied. Conclusions are inescapable:
a. Tests in Guinn's own lab indicated that fragments from WCC
Mannlicher bullets showed more intra-bullet heterogeneity than
homogeneity.
b. Nonetheless, Guinn testified that one did not find heterogeneity
within individual bullets.
c. Guinn was well aware that his tests indicated heterogeneity instead
of the publicly-stated homogeneity.
11. And there is more. In the same article from Transactions of the
American Nuclear Society, Guinn quoted results from the FBI's 1964 NAA
tests, tests which he insists actually were conclusive, not
inconclusive as the FBI re****ted. [In his HSCA testimony, Guinn told
Congressman Fithian that the FBI's scientists had the correct test
results back in 1964, but had not made the proper interpretations.]
Referring to the FBI tests, Guinn wrote, "....the 17 values obtained
for various ****tions of the 'Connally stretcher' bullet averaged 837
ppm Sb [antimony], but ranged all the way from 636 to 1125 ppm."
a. Amazing. So much for homogeneity within a given bullet. Guinn took
one 10.7 mg sample from CE 399, the "stretcher bullet," and found it
contained 833 ppm of antimony. This led him to match it with CE 842,
the alleged Connally wrist fragments, which contained 797 ppm. That
"match" is the scientific underpinning for the single-bullet theory.
b. But Guinn knew the FBI had taken numerous ****tions from this same
bullet and had found no homogeneity among the ****tions! He had their
data before him. Guinn's finding of 833 ppm in a given piece of CE 399
has no meaning because, according to the FBI tests (which Guinn thinks
gave accurate data), an adjoining piece of the same bullet had
anywhere from 636 ppm to 1125 ppm! Guinn was forewarned of the obvious
heterogeneity in CE 399, a heterogeneity he never found because he
never took multiple samples.
c. Consider for a moment the ranges the FBI did find in CE 399. A
glance at Guinn's charts shows that the piece of CE 399 which had 636
ppm would have most closely matched the fragments alleged to be from
the floor of the limousine--not the Connally wrist fragments, while
the piece which had 1125 ppm would not fall within 300 ppm of the
Connally wrist fragment or any of the other fragments said to be
associated with the car or its occupants. The FBI got a lot of things
wrong in the Kennedy investigation, but the Bureau was right on target
when it called its NAA tests "inconclusive."
12. Dr. Guinn submitted his paper, "A Re****t to the House of
Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations on the subject of
1977 Neutron Activation Analysis Measurements on Bullet-Lead Specimens
Involved in the 1963 Assassination of President John F. Kennedy," when
he testified on September 8, 1978. Not only did the bibliography
contain the disturbing references noted above, the body of his paper
included opinions about homogeneity in 6.5 Mannlicher bullets which
are both revealing and inconsistent with his sworn testimony:
a. Guinn stated to the committee that "you simply do not find a wide
variation in composition within individual WCC Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets." His accompanying monograph says "...individual bullets were
found to be fairly homogeneous in their Sb and Ag concentrations ...
(HSCA, Vol. I, p. 511. Emphasis added)
b. In describing the results of taking 4 pieces of bullet lead from
each of 3 Mannlicher bullets [see page 12 and also Appendix C for
findings], Guinn stated that the bullet from lot 6001 "is fairly
homogeneous for all three elements; one (6002) is fairly homogeneous
in Ag and Cu but not so homogeneous in Sb; and one (6003A) is fairly
homogeneous in Cu but not homogeneous in Sb and Ag." (HSCA, Vol I, p.
545. Emphasis added) Note that by his own admission, 2 of the 3
bullets were "not homogeneous" and "not so homogeneous" in antimony
content, which he had called the most significant from an analytical
standpoint.
c. In his conclusion, Guinn wrote, "....the UCI [University of
California Irvine] study of MC bullet lead indicates a wide range of
Sb values from bullet to bullet, but reasonable homogeneity within an
individual bullet." (HSCA, Vol. I, p. 546. Emphasis added.)
d. Is this finally a "battle of adjectives"? Do the terms "fairly
homogeneous," "not so homogeneous," and "reasonable homogeneity"
justify a scientist stating that "you simply do not find a wide
variation" in this type of bullet?
e. No, indeed. There is no battle of adjectives. The facts are clear.
Guinn had tested 4 particles each from three bullets and the average
range of antimony concentration in the particles from these 3 bullets
was 93%! When Guinn stated that "you simply do not find a wide
variation in composition within individual WCC Mannlicher-Carcano
bullets," he had just completed finding those "wide variations" in his
own laboratory. What justification can be found for saying that the 4
fragments from bullet 6002, containing antimony measurements of 358
ppm, 983 ppm, 869 ppm, and 882 ppm, don't have "wide variations"? Or
that bullet 6003, containing antimony measurements of 667 ppm, 395
ppm, 441 ppm, and 363 ppm, has "reasonable homogeneity"? [SEE
APPENDICES D AND E FOR MORE ON GUINN'S TESTS]
13. From Dr. Guinn's work and the literature available, a new picture
of the cores of Western Cartridge Company's Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm
bullets emerges. The cylinders were actually composed of hybrids of
lead from a variety of sources. Due to recycling, a given bullet could
have contained, in one area, recycled hardened lead, with high parts-
per-million measurements of antimony. Alongside it, there might have
been recycled virgin bullet lead, with very low antimony measurements.
And alongside these could have been lead which was the result of "re-
recyling," that is, bullet lead which had been a part of bullets or
other leaded objects in which no effort had been made to precisely
measure the amounts of trace elements present. The nature of the
production process eliminated any chance for homogeneity. Dr. Guinn
was actually acknowledging this when he wrote in his re****t to HSCA:
"Intermediate Sb levels (between about 10 ppm and perhaps 1500 ppm are
encountered in unhardened bullet lead in which some recycled lead is
used, along with virgin lead, but in which no Sb has been deliberately
added for hardening." (JFK Exhibit F-331, pp. 3-4, published in HSCA
Hearings, Volume I, p. 509-510) What Guinn referred to as
"deliberately added" would actually mean "measured and added."
Predicatably, when all the Sb measurements Guinn submitted to HSCA are
reviewed,the range of Sb measurements is from 80 to 1235 p.m.,
indicating an amalgam of recycled and virgin lead--with no hint of
homogeneity at any level--not among bullets of the same production
lot, bullets from the same box, or fragments from within the same
bullet.
14. Knowing these things enables us to understand why Guinn's
measurement of 833 p.m. of antimony in his core sample from CE 399
(the "stretcher bullet")-and his subsequent matching of the bullet to
the Connally wrist fragments with their 797 ppm count-are meaningless
conclusions. We know (and Guinn knew when he gave his testimony) that
the FBI had already taken 17 other bits of metal from that same
"stretcher bullet" --with antimony ranges from 636 to 1125 ppm. The
lead cylinder at the core of CE 399 is a heterogeneous mixture of
recycled leads. Based on the antimony levels found by both the FBI and
Guinn, CE 399 was almost certainly composed of recycled lead. Guinn
treated it as if it were a uniform cylinder of lead with a constant
antimony content throughout, even though he knew the cylinder contains
lead areas with a wide range of antimony content. Guinn's work is
analogous to the police examining a crime scene, finding 4
fingerprints (in this case actually many more "bullet fingerprints"
than that), lifting one set of prints, ignoring the others, then
announcing that all the fingerprints are the same and the crime was
committed by identical quadruplets!
15. The best which can be said of Guinn's performance is:
a. He proved that neutron activation analysis cannot be used with
Mannlicher-Carcano bullets or any other bullets not with carefully-
measured ****tions of lead.
b. He raised serious questions about his own integrity.
THE WCC PRODUCTION LOTS
1. Dr. Guinn felt he could make his assertions about the nature of
Mannlicher bullets with certainty because he believed he had examined
bullets from every production lot manufactured by Western Cartridge
Company.
WOLF. Did you examine bullets from every lot produced by the Western
Cartridge Company?
GUINN. Yes. The Western Cartridge Company re****tedly made 1 million
rounds of each of 4 production runs, lots 6000. 6001, 6002, and 6003.
They were made at different times in 1954, and re****tedly those were
the only lots they ever produced, and we had boxes from each of those
lots. (HSCA, I, p. 494)
2. But Guinn was again in error. His assumptions were false. Western
Cartridge Company had produced ammunition for the 6.5 Mannlicher-
Carcano before 1954 and this ammunition had found its way into the
mainstream of sellers and distributors. This had been told to the
Warren Commission fourteen years before Guinn testified:
"on March 23, 1964, Mr. R. W. Botts (District Manager, Winchester-
Western) advised the Western Cartridge Company ... manufactured a
quantity of 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the Italian
government during World War II. At the end of the war, the Italian
Carcano rifle, and no telling how much of this type of ammunition was
sold to the United States gun brokers and dealers and subsequently was
distributed by direct sales to wholesalers, retailers and individual
purchasers." (WC Exhibit 2694, Vol XXVI, p. 62)
3. The purpose of Mr. Wolf's question and Dr. Guinn's answer was
clearly to establish the comprehensiveness of the work at Guinn's
laboratory and to insure that no kind of 6.5 Mannlicher ammunition had
evaded his testing. Once again, Dr. Guinn's answer is at variance with
known facts.
CONCLUSIONS
1. It is troubling that Dr. Guinn made blanket statements about the
characteristics of WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullets while unaware of the
existence of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition from production lots he had
never tested.
2. But these facts should not detract from two other points which go
the heart of the findings of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations;
a. By his own admission, Dr. Guinn did not examine ANY of the same
fragments the FBI had tested earlier, even though the fragments he
received for testing bore the same exhibit numbers as those analyzed
in 1964, and even though the type of testing done by the FBI would not
have destroyed any parts of those fragments. HSCA's explanation for
the failure of the samples to match in weight or count is both
unsatisfactory and contradicted by Dr. Guinn himself. The purpose of
individual exhibit numbers is to lend specificity to the sample. "CE
842" or "CE 567" or any of the other numbers refer to a single entity-
or at least they are supposed to do so. In this case, they do NOT,
thus throwing into serious question the source and nature of the
materials provided Dr. Guinn.
b. From an evidentiary point of view, it wouldn't have mattered which
fragments were given to Guinn. The tests he performed, no matter what
materials were used, were meaningless. Guinn presented no evidence to
sup****t his claim that WCC Mannlicher ammunition could be identified
and differentiated by neutron activation analysis; in fact, his own
tests and his own earlier interpretation of those tests indicated the
opposite. MANY WILL FIND IT SHOCKING THAT KEY FINDINGS IN A 2-YEAR
GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE ASSASSINATION WERE BASED ON
CONTRADICTORY DATA OBTAINED FROM THREE FRAGMENTED BULLETS AND RE****TED
IN A PAPER WHICH WOULD SURELY HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY ANY REPUTABLE
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.
3. To understand this last statement, it is necessary to return to
some points made earlier.
*The first is Guinn's unwillingness to place a numerical probability
on his test conclusions. When Wolf tried to get him to do so, the
following exchange occurred:
WOLF. What is the degree of confidence and certainty with which you
can state this conclusion?
GUINN. I wish I could put a number on it, as we often can do, that is,
calculate a probability, but we really don't have the background
information to make a numerical calculation in this case...
When Wolf pressed for a more precise answer, he got this response:
GUINN. I would state it is highly probable, yes. I would not want to
state how high, whether it was 99 percent or 90 percent, or 99.9
percent.
=46rom a scientific standpoint, this renders Guinn's tests worthless.
The principles of scientific research require statements of numerical
probability. Without them, test results are devoid of validity.
*The second point is closely related: Guinn failed to perform multiple
tests on the same samples, to assure and to do***ent the hypothesis
upon which his entire work was based: that the Mannlicher-Carcano
bullet really is a homogeneous cylinder of lead, with the amounts of
key elements such as antimony and silver being distributed equally
throughout. Had he performed such tests and received the same results
he had gotten from his 3 previous intra-bullet tests (and that the FBI
had gotten in 1964), he would have been forced to conclude that there
was no homogeneity within a given Mannlicher-Carcano core, and thus
there was no possibility that NAA could do with Mannlicher bullets
what NAA could not do with any other bullet leads-assign given
fragments to a particular bullet. The failure to do multiple tests on
each fragment also served another "useful" function: it allowed Guinn
to assign six standard deviations to his measurements, resulting in
statistically meaningless conclusions.
4. In fact, Guinn, in his testimony, tended to exaggerate the amount
of testing he had done. Even though the paper he submitted made it
clear that he worked with only 14 Western Cartridge Company Mannlicher-
Carcano bullets (HSCA, Vol. 1, p. 540), 4 each from lots 6001, 6002,
and 6003, and 2 from lot 6000, his testimony created the impression
that an extensive study was made of the ammunition. Under oath, he
described to HSCA counsel Wolf how he discovered that there was no
homogeneity among bullets found within a given box or lot: "...when we
would take a box of cartridges all from a given production lot, take 1
cartridge out and then another and then another and then another, all
out of the same box, boxes of 20, these were, and analyze them, they
all in general look different and widely different, particularly in
their antimony content." The truth is, "we" (whoever that is) never
had a box of 20, never took "one cartridge and then another and then
another and then another" from any box, and never took an entire box
of cartridges from a given production lot. His own Table II-A,
reproduced on page 547 of HSCA's Volume 1, confirms that he tested
only a total of 14 bullets from the three production lots.
5. Guinn did do a reproducibility test, in which he took Mannlicher
fragments (not from the JFK case) and subjected them to 4 tests in his
counter. He found a high degree of reproducibility. (These results are
re****ted in page 548 of HSCA's Volume One.) Of course, it must be
understood that here Guinn was testing his equipment, and its ability
to reproduce results, not the nature of the metal fragments being
tested. Finally, it must be repeated that there is no evidence that
Guinn ever sought any evidence by experimentation to prove his
statement that Mannlicher cores were "remarkably homogeneous," the
very hypothesis on which all his conclusions were based. Indeed, all
previous laboratory testing told him quite the opposite.
Go to appendix A
Go to appendix B
Go to appendix C
Go to appendix D
Go to appendix E
Go to appendix F
Go to appendix G
TESTIMONY OF DR. VINCENT P. GUINN
Mr. FITHIAN - Now, then; did you test exactly the same particles that
the FBI tested in 1964?
Dr. GUINN - Well, it turns out I did not, for reasons I don't know,
because as they did the analysis, they did not destroy the samples
either.
Mr. FITHIAN - So?
Dr. GUINN - The particular little pieces that they analyzed, I could
just as well have analyzed over again, but the pieces that were
brought out from the Archives--which re****tedly, according to Mr.
Gear, were the only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present
in the Archives--did not include any of the specific little pieces
that the FBI had analyzed. Presumably those are in existence
somewhere, I am sure nobody threw them out, but where they are, I have
no idea.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscaguin.htm
---------------------------------
> >http://www.assassinationweb.com/linchpin2.htm
>
> >>> John Masen, owner of Masen's Gun Shop, in Dallas, bought 10 boxes of
> >>> Western ammo from John Brinegar, owner of The Gun Shop, also in
> >>> Dallas. He sold the 10 boxes to individuals. All of this ammo had a
> >>> military load. Later, in the summer of 1963, he bought 10 more boxes
> >>> of Western from Brinegar. Since this ammo was used mostly for deer
> >>> hunting, he "pulled" the bullets in the last batch and reloaded it
> >>> with a hunting type bullet (lead nose).Brinegar testified that "the
> >>> 6.5 mm rifle was rather common in the Dallas area and he felt that
the=
> >>> larger gun dealers, pawn shops, s****ting goods, and H.L.Green
Company
> >>> Stores would have handled the 6.5 mm MC Western ammo, as he recalled
> >>> seeing ads for this 6.5 western ammo."( CE Ex.
> >>> No. 2694.)
> >> Yes, the WWC ammo was available locally and via mail order. No one
know=
s
> >> where Oswald bought his.
>
> >>> Al Yeargan, who was manager of the fourth floor Gun Dept. , at
> >>> Green's , testified that he sold both the rifle and the Italian
ammo,
> >>> but never did sell any of the Western ammo.
> >>> Some researchers wondered why LHO did not buy his ammo from Klein's.
> >>> It could be that Klein's policy warned buyers that "Hand gun orders,
> >>> and orders with ammo , are ****pped express, charges collect. "
> >>> Surely , Lee knew that he could get ammo in Dallas without the
express=
> >>> ****pping and the charges. Also. I'm sure that Lee knew about the
aging=
> >>> Italian ammo and the misfires, and also knew about the better
Western
> >>> ammo.
> >> Most likely, but there is no absolute proof.
>
> >>> The Italian ammo was all military loaded and not desired by hunters,
> >>> so many dealers reloaded the shells with soft point projectiles.
> >> OK.
>
> >>> The MC ammo came in preloaded clips. This ammo quickly disappeared
and=
> >>> these casings could not be reloaded because all ammo, other than
> >>> American, used the Berdan primer. All Western had =EF=BF=BDthe
America=
n Boxer
> >> I've heard of people reloading it, but it requires too much work to
be
> >> practical and the cartridge brass is suspect.
>
> >>> primer. Because so many MCs were sold in America, there was a need
for=
> >>> Carcano rounds, and since none was being manufactured, a company in
> >>> Sweden, NORMA by name, began selling 6.5 mm ammo to Carcano owners.
> >> Yes, much more reliable.
>
> >>> The NORMA ammo contained a "soft-point" bullet and it used the Boxer
> >>> primer, so the consumer could do his own reloading. The round is
> >>> identifiable by the Norma name on the bottom of the shell rim, along
> >>> with the 6.5 mm marking
> >> Norma also made the FMJ military round. I have a box of them.
>
> >>> An article, written by Charles H.Yust,Jr. (Some Interesting Clips)
> >>> appeared in the June 1960 issue of American Rifleman. On P.47, a
photo=
> >>> and description of the clip operation appears. As follows:
> >>> =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD ITALY- Clip for Model 1891 6.5 mm.
Mannl=
icher Carcano rifle and
> >>> carbine employing Mannlicher-type magazine. Holds 6 cartridges. Made
> >>> of brass and tinned blued Parkerized and cadmium - plated steel,
clip
> >>> is held in magazine until last round is used, and then PUSHED OUT
> >>> BOTTOM of magazine when new clip is forced in from top. Clip was
also
> >>> used with Vetterli rifles and carbines altered during World War 1 to
> >>> 6.5 mm Mannlicher-type magazine. In 1938, when Italy increased
caliber=
> >>> of rifle and carbine to 7.35 mm.,same magazine and clip were
> >>> retained.
> >> Which is so supposed to prove what?
>
> >>> The original factory filled clip (SMI) should not fall out when last
> >>> round is chambered as re****ted. However, numerous clips were made to
> >>> accommodate surplus ammo when an original Italian clip was not
> >>> available. Some were even homemade. The Dallas clip was in the
weapon
> >>> when found. It was empty and a round was found in the chamber. The
> >>> clip did not fall out. It was an original Italian clip which had
been
> >>> emptied at some point and refilled with the Western ammo. Probably
> >>> because, by 1963, there were re****ts of misfires with the Italian
> >>> ammo. If you are on a mission to kill the most powerful man in the
> >>> world, I think it wise to use more reliable ammo.
> >> Oswald did not buy his rifle intending to shoot the President in
March
> >> 1963. Norma ammo is always more expensive.
>
> >>> =EF=BF=BDJ. Edgar Hoover sent J.Lee Rankin (W.Comm) a letter dated
=EF=
=BF=BDJune 2,
> >>> 1964, regarding the marks made =EF=BF=BDon the shell casings found
in =
the
> >>> TSBD, along with marks made on the live round in the weapon that was
> >>> found. All, except CE 543, the dented casing found on the floor with
> >>> the other two casings, had marks made by the MAGAZINE FOLLOWER,
> >>> indicating that they all had been loaded and extracted numerous
times
> >>> since a follower normally touches only the bottom round in the six
> >>> round clip. SEE CE No. 2968.
> >>> Hoover's reference to the magazine follower is confusing since the
> >>> magazine of the Carcano does not use a follower. It is one of the
few
> >>> rifles that uses an ELEVATOR instead of a follower. It is possible
> >>> that Hoover did not know the difference , but there is a distinct
> >> Why should Hoover know the difference?
>
> >>> difference.They both do the same operation of pu****ng the rounds up
> >>> through the clip, but an elevator would make entirely different
marks
> >>> than would a follower. The magazine of a MC is the projection
> >>> Mannlicher type, formed by a continuation forward of the trigger
> >>> guard. And, the elevator bears directly on the bottom cartridge in
the=
> >>> clip and does not carry a follower. This is possible
=EF=BF=BDbecause =
the
> >>> cartridge is rimless and permits the use of a straight clip. I don't
> >>> believe that C 6, also designated as CE 543 (the dented casing), was
> >>> fired from the M/C that
>
> ...
>
> read more =C2=BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
