Gil Jesus

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rear-head-wound.mp4

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/frontal-head-wound.mp4

Another reason why I don't believe this case was authentic: The pieces of evidence don't corroborate each other. In this example, the back-of-head photograph does not corroborate the autopsy report, which identifies a "large irregular defect" ( hole ). The report goes on to say in the next sentence that, "IN THIS REGION, THERE IS AN ACTUAL ABSENCE OF SCALP AND BONE producing a defect ( hole ) that measures approximately 13 cm ( 5.1" ) in greatest diameter." But there is no "absence of scalp" in that region depicted in the BOH photo. Maybe one of the Warren Commission apologists can explain why this is so ?

And yet, we have the Warren Commission apologists asking the question, "Do you really think the police would let the murderer of one of their own go free and frame someone innocent for a crime they didn't commit" ? The answer of course, is yes. And the proof is that that's exactly what they did at least 19 times. They charged 19 innocent people with crimes while they let 19 perps walk. In the case of James Lee Woodard — released in April 2008 after 27 years in prison for a murder DNA showed he didn't commit — Wade's office withheld from defense attorneys photographs of tire tracks at the crime scene that didn't match Woodard's car. Can you say, "prosecutory misconduct" ? Wade should have been disbarred and removed from office. And yet the whole case depends on the credibility of these people, the DA and the police, who history has shown were as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

Pamela, you've done a ton of research on the limo and when it comes to the limo, I hold your work in the highest regard. Because of that, I have a limo-related question that's bugging me and maybe you can help me with: The White House garage log shows that a representative of Capitol Cadillac ( M Herndon ) visted the garage on 11-26 and his contact person was a man named Ferguson, who was in charge of the windsheild replacement on the Presidential limo. The log indicates that he arrived while the windshield was being replaced and left at the same time as the installers. ( 1445/2:45 ) My question is why would a Cadillac rep be summoned to the garage at the same time the windshield was being replaced in the Presidential limo ? Was there any damage done to the "Queen Mary" follow-up car ( which was a 1955 Cadillac ) that you know of ? Do you know if that car was removed from the garage for repairs ? Thanks for your answer in advance.

The whole series is now posted on my website: https://gil-jesus.com/reasons-why-i-believe-the-warren-commissions-case-was-fraudulent/

Reason # 5. The Warren Conmmision's own tests proved that its conclusions were false The rifle tests proved that the rifle could not be the murder weapon. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-rifle-tests-gil-jesus-2022.mp4 The wounds ballistics testing proved that Commission Exhibit 399 could not have hit both victims. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/wounds-ballistics-test.mp4 Conclusion My experience in the criminal justice system allows me to see when a case is legitimate and when it is not. IMO, this case against Oswald was NOT legitimate. The Dallas prosecutorial system was known for framing innocent people for crimes they did not commit. This was revealed in 2005 when the Innocence Project of Texas successfully got the newly-elected Dallas DA to look at some convictions of Henry Wade's. It was found that Wade's office was more interested in convicting the person ARRESTED than the actual perpetrator of the crime. As a result, 19 of Wade's convictions were overturned on DNA evidence. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna25917791 That means that at least 19 people were framed by the Dallas Police and Dallas DA for crimes they did not commit. From the continued questioning of Oswald after he "lawyered up", to the unfair police lineups, to the lack of security for the prisoner after receiving death threats, the way the authorities handled Oswald was not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation would have been handled. It was, however, consistent with how you would handle a case if you were trying to convict an innocent man of a crime he did not commit. It also was consistent with keeping an innocent man from going to trial and guaranteeing that the "so-called evidence" that he warned his brother not to believe, would never be challenged in court. The FBI Coverup Once the FBI, who had no jurisdiction to investigate the crime, took it over, Hoover covered up the Dallas Police's false arrest and ensured that JFK would never get the justice he deserved. Hoover even ordered the Dallas FBI to NOT interview certain witnesses who had evidence of Oswald's innocence. The FBI also lied in their reports about what the witnesses said. When asked under oath, witnesses testified that they never said what the FBI reports said they said. That doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. All witness statements and affidavits are complete, concise and correct. The crime scenes were not secured and adequately processed. This doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. The crime scenes should have remained secured until their processing was complete. Evidence was not properly secured. This doesn't happen in a normal criminal investigation. Evidence placed in envelopes should have been sealed to avoid tampering and maintain the integrity of the evidence. And therein lies the smoking gun: the way the authorities handled the case is evidence that Oswald was not guilty. 1. The fact that the prosecutorial system in Dallas was corrupt. 2. The way the authorities handed the defendant ( Oswald ). 3. The way the authorities handled the evidence. 4. The way the authorities handled the witnesses. The actions of the authorities were simply not consistent with how a normal criminal investigation, which was expected to go to trial, would have been handled. PERIOD. All of the reasons I've noted add up to a murder case where the suspect is innocent and the evidence has been tampered with in order to frame him for a crime he did not commit. Oswald was a dead man the second he was arrested in the Texas Theater. The framing of him as President Kennedy's assassin and the mainstream media's acceptance of it continues to be a national disgrace. A final thought To its credit, the foreign press was the first to see and report the truth: this was a political murder and the motive was political. The assassination of President Kennedy returned the power of the Presidency to the right-wing power elite that controlled it prior to the 1960 election. This was a counter-coup designed to return the power of the Presidency to the elitists who had it prior to the 1960 election. There was only one organization with the power to pull it off. One organization with allies in the Secret Service, the US Military and the Dallas Police. One organization behind the training camps where Cuban gunmen could train. One organization whose track record included assassinations of heads of state. And an organization who had the power over the FBI via its blackmailing of Hoover. This was not a mafia killing. Jim Garrison was right. This murder was orchestrated by the CIA. I believe that the gunmen were Cuban exiles opposed to Kennedy's policies on Cuba. The CIA's allies in the Secret Service facilitated the killing by making last-minute changes in the motorcade at Love Field and it was sanctioned by the US Military. It's time to release the remaining files Over the last 60+ years, more and more evidence is released indicating that the CIA was behind the assassination. It's time to release the remaining CIA records and let us see if they reveal any connections between the CIA and persons in this case like Ruth Paine, Roy Truly, Warren Caster, Jack Ruby or others, including Oswald. Maybe then we can be able to unravel the truth and give the Kennedy family they closure they deserve.

In this 2013 interview, author/researcher David Lifton sums up the Kennedy assassination perfectly, describing it as a coup and the evidence against Oswald as fraudulent.

Witnesses describe how fear due to publication of the "strange deaths" caused them to hesitate to come forward with information that was contrary to the official narrative.

Mortician Paul Groody of the Miller's Funeral Home says that late night November 24th, "agents" came in and fingerprinted the dead body of Lee Harvey Oswald. Why did they need Oswald fingerprints when they were already on file with the Dallas Police ? Could this "fingerprinting" have been their excuse to access the body and place his palmprint and fingerprints on the rifle and other pieces of evidence ?

In this 1991 interview with researcher Mark Oakes, Dallas Police officer J.W. Foster says that he saw a bullet strike the manhole cover on the south side of Elm St.. Foster tells of an unidentified man who came up to the scene with Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers whose identity he did not challenge. Foster then says that he never saw the unidentified man pick up a bullet and put it in his pocket, although the photographic evidence shows him looking right at the man when this occurs.

Assassination witness Malcolm Summers tells what happened when he ran up the grassy knoll in this 1991 interview with researcher Mark Oakes.

In 2013, the Parkland doctors got together to share their views on the official autopsy photos. Did the photos reflect what they saw ?

According to Dr. Robert McClelland, at the end of the first press conference, Dr. Perry was warned by a man Dr. Perry assumed was Secret Service, to not repeat that the throat wound a wound of entry, "if you know what's good for you." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvDV0VoKf80

Reason # 4. The way the authorities handled the witnesses. Evidence of witness intimidation through harassment and threats One example of witness coercion comes from the testimony of W.W. Litchfield II, who told the FBI that he saw a man who looked like Oswald in the Carousel Club. He told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions: Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now? Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes. Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken? Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?” And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.” Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion— Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement. Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say. Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ? Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 ) This is proof that the FBI used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw, to make them appear less sure in the official record. This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald. This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes. They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses. These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning. Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup. But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not. The intimidation of Marina Oswald More evidence of FBI intimidation and threats of witnesses comes no less from Oswald’s brother Robert, who told the Commission that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them. Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. They were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there–if I might state–with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.–we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee’s attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia. ( 1 H 410 ) The FBI even brought an agent from the Immigration and Naturalization Service all the way from New York into the Inn at Six Flags ( where Marina was to be kept inccommunicado for two months ) to scare Marina and “advise her to help” the FBI: Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time ? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was ? Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office. Mr. RANKIN. By “that office” you mean the one at Dallas ? Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me. Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you ? Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them. Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you ? Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way. ( 1 H 80 ) Other evidence of witness coercion Litchfield and Marina Oswald were not the only witnesses who revealed that they had been coerced by authorities. Richard Randolph Carr witnessed a man who he claimed he saw in the sixth floor window, "walking very fast" on Houston St. after the shooting. He said that he saw the man get into a "grey 61 or 62 Rambler station wagon which was parked just north of Commerce near Record St.". He added that, "the station wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young negro man, drove off northerly direction." ( Oswald 201 file, Sec. 25, pg. 70 ) During the Clay Shaw trial, Carr testified that as a result of talking to the FBI, "I done as I was instructed. I shut my mouth." ( Carr testimony in Shaw trial, pg. 20 ) Intimidation was not the only tactic used by the FBI in this case. There is at least one example of where the FBI threatened to kill a witness if the witness testified to the Warren Commission a certain way. Evidence of death threats against witnesses Orest Pena was the owner of the Habana Bar in New Orleans. His bar was a social point for anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the city. Pena was also a "confidential source" for the New Orleans FBI office. ( NARA # 124-10371-10192 ) Pena had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in his bar with an FBI agent named Warren C. DeBrueys. DeBrueys found out that Pena was to be called to give testimony to the Warren Commission. Pena testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that DeBrueys told him, "about a week or ten days more or less before I went to testify to the Warren Commission that if I talk about him he will get rid of my ass." ( Orest Pena HSCA testimony, 6.23.78, pg. 10 ) Pena told the HSCA that he tried to tell the Warren Commission of this and DeBruey's connection to the training camps but that, "Mr. Liebeler did not cooperate with me and let me talk." ( ibid., pg. 19 ) Frustrated that Commission counsel showed no interest in what he was saying, Pena decided that, "I might as well keep my mouth shut". ( ibid. ) Intimidation and threats were not the only tactics the authorities used to control the narrative. There is strong evidence that official reports and documents, including affidavits taken from witnesses, were falsified. Evidence of falsification of witness statements Subsequent investigations have revealed in testimony and in video that authorities altered witness statements and affdavits. In at least one case, an affidavit was signed by someone who was not the affiant. During their Warren Commission testimony, witnesses Robert Edwards, Buell Frazier, Michael Paine and James Worrell, were all asked by counsel about comments attributed to them in reports and affidavits. All testified that they never made the comments attributed to them. Witness B.M. Patterson swore in an affdavit that a report saying that he was shown a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and identified Oswald as the man he saw was in error. He testified that he was never shown a picture of Oswald and asked that the last paragraph of that report be stricken from the record. It was never stricken and remains part of the Commission's public record on the assassination as Patterson Exhibit A. www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0025a.htm In this video from 2010, I compare the statements on the public record from witnesses such as James L. Simmons, Richard C. Dodd and J.C. Price, to what they told Mark Lane they told authorities. During his investigation of Clay Shaw, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison showed witnesses their statements on the public record. Witnesses such as Jean Hill and Julia Ann Mercer said that those statements did not reflect what they told authorities. Hill told Garrison that she was berated by authorities when she tried to tell what she saw and that her testimony was a, "fabrication from beginning to end." Mercer went so far as to tell Garrison that the signature on the affidavit was not hers and that no notary public had been present when she gave her affidavit, a requirement by law. ( NARA # 180-10090-10219, pg. 5 ) Neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee on Assassinations ever looked into these multiple allegations of altered statements and affidavits. Their ignoring the possibility of criminal behavior by authorities in this case was not the only thing they ignored. The ignoring of key witnesses The Commission ignored important witnesses who HAD evidence to present. For example, the President’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, the only medical professional who was with the body BOTH in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital AND the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, was never called to give testimony. Why not ? Witnesses who claimed to see smoke come out from the trees near the picket fence up on the grassy knoll were among those whose accounts were either ignored or never called to testify. The ignoring of key witnesses in this case becomes more of a head shaker when one considers that the Commission wasted its time and the taxpayers' money by calling witnesses who had no evidence to contribute. The calling of witnesses who had no evidence to contribute 57,224 questions, or 52.05 % of the total questions asked, were asked of people with no direct knowledge of the crime. This included Ruth Paine, Curtis LaVerne Crafard, George Senator, Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald, John Edward Pic, Andrew Armstrong and George DeMohrenschildt. Witnesses Robert Oswald and John Pic, Oswald’s brother and half-brother, had not seen Lee Harvey in the year before the assassination. Yet they were called to give testimony. Only 2,065 questions of the 109,930 dealt with valuable data with regard to the killing of the President. This amounts to only 1.87 % of the Warren Commission’s “work”. The Commission asked more questions ( 104 ) of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and diplomat Llewellyn Thompson, neither of whom had any knowledge regarding the shooting at General Walker or killings of Kennedy, Tippit or Oswald than it asked autopsy doctor Boswell ( 14 ). The Commission asked more questions of Mahlon Tobias, Oswald's landlord in Dallas, about how the Oswalds lived ( 229 ), than it did of the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. james Humes ( 215 ). The Commission asked more questions of the emcee at Ruby’s strip joint, William D. Crowe, Jr. ( 342 ), than it did of the JFK autopsy doctors TOTAL . ( 304 ) The Commission asked more questions ( 70 ) of Mrs. Anne Boudreaux, who knew a woman who babysat Lee Harvey Oswald when he was 2 1/2 years old, than it asked Warren Caster ( 32 ) , the man who brought two rifles into the School Book Depository building just two days before the President's motorcade. Another reason why I believe that this case is BS, is because the Commission's own tests proved that the crime could not have happened the way it concluded it did. Coming in Part V: The Commission's own tests prove that its conclusions were wrong.

Good Point, Ron. Five of the seven agents in the follow-up car were never called. The only agents from the follow-up car called to testify were Hill and Roberts. Ready, McIntyre, Kinney, Hickey and Landis were never called. Only the motorcycle officers ( Hargis and Martin ) who were on Jackie's side of the limo were called. The officers on the President's side ( Chaney and Jackson ) were not. This 1975 FBI memo indicates that twelve years after the assassination, they realized that none of the motorcycle officers behind the limo were interviewed in 1963. Strange behavior IMO for an "investigation" indeed.

A Happy and a healthy New Year to you and your family as well. Be safe.

They never even called ANYONE from REA Express, who supposedly shipped the handgun used to kill Tippit. They never called anyone from REA or the Post Office to establish that it was Oswald who picked up the weapons. They never called the person who found the jacket under the car, hell, they never even identified him. But the Commission called Secretary of State Dean Rusk and diplomat Llewellyn Thompson, neither of whom had any knowledge regarding the shooting at General Walker or the killings of Kennedy, Tippit or Oswald. And it asked more questions ( 104 ) of them than it asked autopsy doctor Boswell ( 14 ). The Commission called Mahlon Tobias, Oswald's landlord in Dallas and asked him more questions about how the Oswald’s lived ( 229 ), than it did of the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. Humes ( 215 ). The Commission called the emcee at Ruby’s strip joint, William D. Crowe, Jr. and asked him more questions ( 342 ), than it did of the JFK autopsy doctors TOTAL . ( 304 ) The Commission called Mrs. Anne Boudreaux, who knew a woman who babysat Lee Harvey Oswald when he was 2 1/2 years old, and asked her more questions ( 70 ) about how the babysitter felt about the toddler Oswald than it asked Warren Caster ( 32 ) , the man who brought two rifles into the School Book Depository building just two days before the President's motorcade. The Commission even accepted as an exhibit, the dental records of Fanny Rubenstein, Jack Ruby's mother. ( 22 H 395 ) As Jim Garrison once said, "Even if Jack Ruby had intended to BITE Oswald to death, that would have been irrelevent." Don't let Mr. Brown or anybody else fool you, this so-called "investigation" was a joke.

A video montage of witnesses who were never called to testify before the Warren Commission. Why not ? ( I had to age restrict it because it shows the President's head blown apart )

A look at the November 1, 1963 threat to kill JFK in Chicago through the eyes of Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden and the price he paid for trying to bring this threat to the attention of the Warren Commission.

It's been amost 50 years since I was a cop. The guys I worked with are all either dead or retired. Likewise, any connections I had with the FBI, SS or State Police are long gone. My advice would be to connect with someone who is currently in law enforcement and see if they could find any record of the fingerprints. I'm pretty sure that a national database of fingerprints did not exist in 1963. If this Craford was fingerprinted, his prints may be on file with the FBI or the local police where he was arrested. If they are found, then you would have to have the fingerprints taken from the cruiser and his compared by an expert.

The point I'm trying to make is that all of these "mistakes" allowed them the opportunity to tamper with the evidence. By not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's, there was plenty of opportunity to substitute evidence. I disagree with the argument that these practices were not used in 1963. They knew enough to photograph the three shells as (allegedly) found on the sixth floor. Why didn't they photograph the gunsack ? Why didn't the photograph the jacket under the car ? Why did they dust the three shells TWICE for fingerprints ? Why did they dust two sets of curtain rods for fingerprints ? They knew enough to secure the crime scene on the sixth floor. Why didn't they secure the Tippit murder scene ? You're talking ranking officers at the scenes, Lieutenants and Captains, and they don't know what they're doing ? Sorry, I don't buy it.

TMWKK series was like the video version of Jim Marrs' "Crossfire" examining different theories. The last one, that LBJ and his Texas friends were involved, was banned. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TMWKK-Part-9-The-Guilty-Men.mp4

Reason # 3. The way the authorities handled the evidence. To prove someone guilty, a prosecutor must prove that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of an alleged crime. They must be able to show that the evidence was handled properly and was not contaminated or tampered with. If law enforcement does not properly handle evidence, the evidence can be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, that test results are faulty or inaccurate, or that evidence was planted at the scene of a crime. In a typical case, a police officer will collect evidence at the crime scene and give it to a forensics technician. The technician then analyzes the evidence, documenting any tests that were performed on the evidence. When he has finished testing the evidence, he turns it over to an evidence clerk, who stores the evidence until it is needed for another test or to be presented at trial. To prove chain of custody at trial, law enforcement must be able to identify, at all times in the chain of custody, a particular person who is in control of a piece of evidence. This is done through an evidence log. A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence. A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence. The log should also include signatures of the people who were in possession of the evidence, the date and time the evidence was transferred, the manner in which the evidence was transferred, and the security conditions while the evidence was being handled or stored. If there are any discrepancies in the chain of custody and law enforcement cannot prove who had the evidence at a particular time, the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the evidence declared inadmissible so that it cannot be used to try to convict the defendant. The chain of custody can be broken if a custody form is labeled incorrectly, if a transfer of evidence takes an unreasonable amount of time, or if there is reason to believe the evidence was tampered with. https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/ In this case, there's plenty of reason to believe that the evidence was tampered with. A. evidence logs were never implemented for ANY of the evidence in order to establish a chain of custody. From the weapons to the spent shells to the paper "gunsack" to the fingerprints to the jacket found in the parking lot, no evidence logs were ever implemented for any of the major evidence in this case. The lack of evidence logs leaves a void in the chain of custody at the point of discovery. For example, the chain of custody of the "magic bullet", CE 399, begins with the fifth person who allegedly handled it. The chain of custody of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene begins with the second or third person who allegedly handled them. On two of those shells, the initials "RD" appear, markings that do not correspond to anyone in the shells' alleged chain of custody. Another shell has the intitals "DO" or "DC", markings that also do not correspond to anyone in known the chain of custody for that shell. And the probability of evidence tampering becomes more evident when you take into account that the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from Off. Tippit's body. The three spent rifle shells recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository were allegedly removed from the scene by Det. Richard Sims, although he testified that he never took possession of them. ( 7 H 163 ) And the person who found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot was never identified. The discovery was attributed to police Capt. W.W. Westbrook, but he testified that he was NOT the one who found it. The evidence logs are significant because the normal procedure is for the first person who handles the evidence to initiate the log. The log is required to establish the chain of custody which may be challenged by the defense at trial. Since all of the physical evidence was collected on November 22nd, the evidence logs SHOULD have been filled out at that time. The fact that the case never went to trial is irrelevant to the existence of the evidence logs because the evidence log is filled out at the time the evidence is discovered, not during the trial. With the absence of evidence logs, the breaks in the chain of custody, and the inconsistencies in the evidence, there was an opportunity for authorities to tamper with that evidence. But there was one more thing that could prove the evidence authentic: if the persons who discovered the items were able to positively identify the items currently in evidence as the items they found. B. the items currently in the government's possession were never positively identified by witnesses as the items they found or handled. Much of the evidence against Oswald, from the rifle to the spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene, was found by someone other than the Dallas Police. One would expect that given the mandate of the Katzenbach memo that, "the evidence was such that he ( Oswald ) would have been convicted at trial", the authorities would have been particularly diligent in their handling of the evidence. This was not so. In fact, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone, who found the rifle on the sixth floor, could not identify CE 139 as the rifle he found. ( 3 H 294 ) Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, credited with finding the three spent rifle shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, never positively identified the shells currently in evidence as the shells he found. In fact, he testified that he never got close enough to the shells to see what caliber they were. ( 3 H 286 ) Four spent .38 shells found at the Tippit murder scene were found by witnesses, not police. And when shown the shells currently in evidence, NONE of those witnesses could identify those shells as the shells they found. ( CE 2011 ) Without the positive identification of the people who found them and combined with the lack of an evidence log, I cannot accept this "evidence" as being authentic. C. failing to secure the crime scenes and photographing evidence as found. Another shortcoming of the way police handled the evidence was that the crime scenes were not immediately secured and evidence they claimed to have found in their searches was never photographed in place. This is a common procedure at a crime scene: secure the scene and then start processing it. These crime scenes were never secured. The Press was allowed in the TSBD and there were people roaming all over the Tippit murder scene. A photograph taken after the assassination shows that traffic was allowed access to Elm St. just 10 minutes after the killing. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/traffic-on-elm-st.png How does that happen ? Who ordered Elm St. open to traffic ? Dealey Plaza was a crime scene and traffic should have been detoured away from Elm St. until police had an opportunity to fully process the scene. Police should have searched the plaza for missed bullets with metal detectors. If anything was found, it should have been photographed in place, marked and secured. The same goes with pieces of the President's skull. Precise measurements should have been taken to pinpoint the exact place where the evidence landed. Likewise, the Tippit murder scene was not secured. The proof of that is that witnesses found and even handled the spent shells. This never should have been allowed. Witnesses were allowed within a few feet of the Tippit cruiser. The failure to secure the crime scenes allowed them to become contaminated. Crime scene contamination was not the only problem this case had. Pieces of evidence which police claimed to have found were never photographed in place. Police claimed to have found a paper "gunsack" in the sixth floor "sniper's nest", but the crime scene photographs show no such thing. Police claimed to have found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene, but never photographed it as found. Not only did police not provide photographic proof of the evidence they said they found, once evidence was in their hands, they handled it in a most haphazard way. D. failing to secure the evidence collected. One example of how the Dallas Police mishandled evidence is with the three spent shells found on the sixth floor. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney was the one who found the shells. he told the Warren Commission that, "Capt. Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them." ( 3 H 289 ) This is highly irregular for anyone, a police captain included, to contaminate a crime scene. By picking those shells up before his ID Bureau had a chance to dust them for fingerprints, he ruined any chance they might have of retrieving prints from the shells. Lt. Day testified that after he had processed them at the scene, "the three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims ( Detective Richard Sims ) took possession of them." ( 4 H 253, 4 H 257 ) Day said that he put the three shells in an envelope and marked the envelope with his name and date. ( ibid. ) But Sims testified that he never took possession of the shells. ( 7 H 163 ) But later, he reverses that, saying he "didn't remember who brought the hulls to the city hall" when he testified earlier and that, "I talked to Capt. Fritz and E.L. Boyd my partner and refreshed my memory." ( 7 H 183 ) And just like that, Sims brought the shells from the TSBD to the police station. The envelope went from Det. Sims to Capt. Fritz to Det. Dhority to Lt. Day. But the shells were placed in an envelope that was never sealed. ( 4 H 254, 256 ) Lt. Day testified that he placed the shells in an envelope that was not sealed and when he got the envelope back that evening at 10pm, the envelope was still unsealed. ( 4 H 256 ) Oddly, although Day had dusted the shells for prints at the crime scene and found none, Fritz requested that he dust them again for prints when they were brought to him that evening. ( 7 H 401 ) Day testified that he did not mark the shells at the crime scene, ( 4 H 255 ) but marked them when they were returned to him at 10pm that evening before turning them over to FBI agent Vincent Drain. ( 4 H 257 ) On June 8, 1964 the three shells were returned to Dallas and lo and behold, Lt. Day swore in an affidavit that he found his mark on the shells. ( 7 H 402 ) Apparently, the lighting in Dallas was better than the lighting in Washington. In that same affidavit, Day "could not remember" if he marked the shells at the sixth floor window or in his office. ( ibid. ) But two of Capt. Fritz's stooges, R.L. Studebaker and R.M. Sims, "were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window." ( ibid. ) It's amazing how the weak memory of these police officers can be "refreshed" by speaking to other police officers. Suffice it to say that both Studebaker and Sims along with Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz, played major roles in the mishandling of the evidence. This series of events casts doubt on whether the shells currently in evidence are the same shells found on the sixth floor. Having been placed in an unsealed envelope that remained unsealed, offered an opportunity for police to tamper with the evidence by substituting 6.5 shells for the shells found on the sixth floor. And it would certainly explain why the shells would have been dusted twice for fingerprints---because they were two different sets of shells. The way the authorities handled the evidence gave them an opportunity to tamper with it. Any examination of the case against Oswald must include a close examination of the conduct of the authorities. The validity of a criminal case depends on the authentication of the evidence and the credibility of those bringing that case to trial. The fact that the prosecutorial system was corrupt, combined with the way the authorities handled Oswald and the way the authorities handled the evidence should be enough to give any reasonable and prudent person pause about the validity of the case against him. But there was more to it than that. There was also the way the authorities handled the witnesses. Coming in Part IV: REASON #4 -- The way the authorities handled the witnesses