Gil Jesus

Agreed. That's why I don't believe that Walker set Oswald up for either the assassination or the shooting at his house. Carrying your reasoning one step further, if Walker set up Oswald for his own shooting and the shot was made from the Depository rifle using the copper jacketed bullets, why would Walker say that CE 573 was not the bullet ? So I don't think that Walker was involved in setting Oswald up. I believe the DALLAS COPS were involved in setting Oswald up and the framing of Oswald ( albeit post-mortem ) was continued by the FBI.

No one's arguing against CE 573 being a Carcano bullet.

Martin, a lot of this kind of stuff went on during the hearings: stating FOR THE RECORD that something WAS evidence before it was proven that it was. The prosecution could never have gotten away with that during a trial. CE 1953 ( 23 H 758 ) says that Lt. Day said he marked "Day" on CE 573, but not until he took the bullet to Parkland. That was on April 25th, some two weeks after the shooting. Norvell said that he marked the bullet either "BN" or "N" on the base of the bullet. But Norvell was never called to testify for the Commission. One would think that given the importance of the evidence, the officer who found it woud have been required to identify it under oath by finding the mark he allegedly put on it. Absent that identification, no chain of custody can be established for this bullet. I also find it odd that Norvell's mark was either/or. Officers usually don't use two marks when marking evidence, lest they end up confusing their mark with someone else's. I also can't accept that the either/or was because of a failure of his memory. It wasn't like he handled a lot of bullets. I feel that his uncertainty which mark he used is evidence that "his mark" was put on the bullet by someone else and that not knowing how they marked it, led him to the either/or statement. CE 1953 goes on to explain what happened from Norvell's viewpoint: "....later he gave this bullet to Detective McELROY, of the Burglary and Theft Squad, and McELROY advised that he would take the bullet to the Dallas Police Department Criminal Laboratory for examination . NORVELL stated he did not observe McElroy mark the bullet for identification while in NORVELL's presence . NORVELL advised this was the last time he had seen this bullet . He stated the bullet was mutilated and mushroomed from impact, except for the base and a fraction of an inch from the base . Not only did McElroy not find the bullet, there's no evidence that he ever took the bullet to Parkland for identification. Destroying any notion that evidence tampering/substitution is nothing more than a "kook fantasy", we have a credible witness ( Walker ), who was present at the time the bullet was recovered, and who saw and handled the recovered bullet, saying that the bullet in evidence ( CE 573 ) was NOT the bullet that was recovered and is instead a susbtituted bullet. I'm not surprised the Warrenatti in this forum are staying away from this thread.

There's more problems with this piece of evidence. The bullet was also described as a 30.06. http://i39.tinypic.com/5v2n81.jpg And there are problems with the chain of custody. Commission Exhibit 1953 is the FBI report on the Walker shooting. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1953.pdf In that report, TWO DIFFERENT DETECTIVES CLAIMED TO HAVE FOUND THE BULLET !!!! ( McElroy and Norvell ) It also claims that Lt. Day received the bullet from Det. B.G. Brown and took it to the Dallas Police Crime Lab at Parkland Hospital for an idenntification. The bullet remained there from April 25th to December 2, 1963 at which time it as released back to Lt. Day. The FBI got the bullet on December 4th, but didn't turn it over to the Commission until March 21, 1964. The interesting thing in this document is the reference to the discrepancies in the police reports on page 18. B . G . NORVELL States, 'Officer B . G . NORVELL found the bullet. . . " and it was given to Det. B.G. BROWN, Crime Laboratory Division . Over a year later, on May 28, 1964, Detective DON MCELROY advised he found the bullet and turned it over to Officer BROWN . On the same date, Officer BROWN stated he obtained the bullet from officer NORVELL. Officer TUCKER, on June 2, 1964, and formar Officer NORVELL, on June 3, 1964, both stated NORVELL found the bullet and he, in turn, gave it to McELROY, who said he would take it or give it to the Dallas Police Department Crime Laboratory. So Norvell says he found the bullet and gave it to Brown. McElroy says he found the bullet and gave it to Brown. Then, a few days later, Norvell changes his mind and says that although he found the bullet, he gave it to McElroy. This version is backed by his partner, Tucker. But Brown is already on record as saying he received the bullet from Norvell. There's major problems with this chain of custody not to mention the fact that none of these officers were called to testify regarding the identification of CE 573 as the bullet they recovered.

Walker to FBI: "The bullet before your select committee called the Walker bullet is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963. The bullet you have was not gotten from me or taken out of my house by anyone at anytime." Walker then sends a mailogram to Blakey that the bullet recovered was nothing more than a hunk of lead that didn't even resemble a bullet: "The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. I saw the hunk of lead, picked up by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully. There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and taken out of my house." In a June,1979 letter to a deputy AG, Walker's attorney noted his client's experience with weapons and ammunition: "It is more probable than not that a person of this experience would know and recognize the bullet that was fired at him when he and the Dallas police retrieved and examined the spent bullet at the time of the attempted assassination on him. For these reasons I feel that it is of some weight that the Select Committee and the Department of Justice consider his opinions with respect to the possibility of substituted evidence in the House Committee investigation." http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

I am stunned and saddened by the loss of Doug Weldon. My condolences to his family and thse who were closest to him. He was always willing to help those of us who needed it. I am particularly indebted to him for his research on the limo windshield, shared with me through e-mails. RIP Doug.

They were so convinced that the shots came from above them that they ran to the west end of the building. ( 3 H 204 )

That musta have been one helluva heavy shell to hit the floor hard enough to cause dust to fall on someone's head a floor below.

Repetitive post deleted

That's mild. You should see what he calls you and me on his blog: "Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a certifiable kook when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/jim-garrison-and-oliver-stone.html TALK ABOUT LIBELLOUS

Priceless. Day appeared before the Commission and testified on this subject on April 22, 1964. The next day, he wrote the memo saying that Capt. Doughty didn't remember marking the shells. On June 8th, the shells arrive back in Dallas to be examined by the very men who may or may not have marked them and lo and behold THEIR MARKS ARE THERE !!! Finally, Day revises his story again, this time reporting that he can't remember if he marked the shells at the scene or at 10pm that night, but two detectives who were present with him at the scene say that he marked them there. Funny they never said it in testimony. They flew the shells back to Dallas to have their marks "identified" ? Of course, they would never have marked them on June 8th, would they ? Just the fact that Mooney's mark is not on the shells not only denies an established chain of custody, it disqualifies them as evidence. In addition, the absence of marks from Fritz, Sims and Studebaker and Day's confusion of when and where he marked them, indicates that the shells were not marked at the scene. That the shells were placed in an envelope unsealed that remained unsealed until it was turned over to the FBI is especially disturbing and leaves open the possibility that the shells were substituted. With all of these factors, it's difficult to imagine that these shells would have been admitted in court as evidence.

Jim, I believe what we have here is evidence that two different sets of rifle shells were dusted for prints. The first set was dusted after 1pm at the TSBD and the second set at 10pm at Dallas Police Headquarters as the evidence was being collected to be turned over to Vincent Drain. BTW, Day testified that the shell that homicide retained was CE 543, the dented shell: Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is? Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it. Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building? Mr. DAY. I think it is. Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is? Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under. Mr. BELIN. Was he there at the scene? Mr. DAY. No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that. Mr. BELIN. This was---- Mr. DAY. That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun. Mr. BELIN. You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that was retained in your possession for a while? Mr. DAY. It is the one that I did not see again. Mr. BELIN. It appears to be flattened out here. Do you know or have you any independent recollection as to whether or not it was flattened out at the small end when you saw it? Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't. ( 4 H 255 ) How does Doughty become the only mark on a shell found at a scene where he wasn't even present ? We may never know. Although this crucial part of the evidence contained his initials, Doughty was never called to testify before the Commission.

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Dallas Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney told the Commission that it was he who discovered the three spent shells in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the TSBD: Mr. MOONEY. IF I remember correctly, I went in there from this angle right here right through here. There could be a space. There is a space there I squeezed in between here, and that is when I got into the opening, because the minute I squeezed through there there lay the shells. ( 3 H 285 ) As the one who discovered the shells, Mooney should have marked them at the scene. In his testimony, he said that Capt. Fritz picked them up and examined them: "Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them....." ( 3 H 289 ) Captain Fritz should have also marked them at the scene. Lt. Day testified that he took the three shells and put them in an envelope, then gave the envelope to Det. Richard Sims: Mr. BELIN. All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification? Mr. DAY. At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them. ( 4 H 253 ) Both Day and Sims should have marked the shells at the scene. The shells should have been marked by 4 officers before they had even left the building, establishing a chain of custody. Day testified that when the envelope was returned to him at about 10:00 pm on the night of the assassination, there were only two shells in it and at that time he marked the two shells: "About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it." Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put any such initials, on the hull itself? Mr. DAY. At about 10 o'clock when I noticed it back in the identification bureau in this envelope. ( 4 H 254 ) Day was forced to admit that the envelope had not been sealed: Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed? Mr. DAY. No, sir. Mr. BELIN. Had it been sealed when you gave it to Mr. Sims? Mr. DAY. No, sir; no. ( ibid. ) Sims couldn't remember if he handed the envelope to Capt. Fritz or just put it on his desk: Mr. BELIN. Where were these hulls when you last saw them, or saw the envelope in which they were? Mr. SIMS. In Captain Fritz' office, I believe. Mr. BELIN. Were they just laying on his desk, or in his physical possession? Mr. SIMS. In this envelope. Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope on his desk? Mr. SIMS. I don't remember if I actually gave them to him or put them there on the desk in front of him. Mr. BELIN. But he was there when you left there? Mr. SIMS. Yes. Mr. BELIN. And that is the last time you saw them? Mr. SIMS. Yes. ( 7 H 186 ) When asked whether or not he marked the shells, Sims couldn't remember: Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not you ever initialed the hulls? Mr. SIMS. I don't know if I initialed the hulls or not. ( ibid. ) Sims was never shown the shells and asked to find his mark. Likewise, Mooney was never shown the shells and asked to identify them during his testimony. He was instead, shown a picture of shells lying on the floor ( CE 510 ) and identified them as the shells he found: Mr. BALL. We will get to that in a moment. Now, I show you 510. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 510 for identification.) Mr. BALL. Is that the empty shells you found? Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir.( 3 H 286 ) There's no way that Mooney could positively identify the shells in a photograph as the EXACT shells he found. In fact, there's no way Mooney could positively identify the shells he found without physically examining them for his mark. Another anormaly is exactly when the shells were dusted for fingerprints. Det. Sims testified that Lt. Day dusted the shells at the scene: Mr. SIMS. I was over there, I believe, when they finished up with the pictures, and I picked the three hulls up and laid them on what I believed to be a box of books there near the window, and Lieutenant Day dusted them for fingerprints. ( 7 H 183 ) But the affidait of C.N. Dhority ( 7 H 380 ) says the shells were dusted at the police station on the night of the 22nd: "The night of November 22, 1963 Captain J. W. Fritz gave me three 6.5 rifle hulls and told me to give them to Lt. J. C. Day in the Crime Lab. Captain J. W. Fritz told me to have Lt. Day to dust them for prints and return one of the 6.5 hulls to him. I took these three 6.5 rifle hulls to Lt. Day and gave them to him in an envelope which had been previously marked by Det. R. M. Sims. Lt. Day dusted the shells for prints and gave me one back. I returned this 6.5 shell back to Captain J. W. Fritz."

Of course he is being honest, he has produced a fact ( Shown Below ) that you simply don't like. No, he simply picks and chooses what he wants to believe. I've noticed that you LNers like to do that. You can have a witness who says the same thing 15 times, but if he says something different just once, you choose to believe the once and ignore the other 15. In your world, I guess that passes for honesty. For anybody who is interested, look at this 1988 video of Newman:

No. YOU'RE not being honest about his statements. Newman obviously erred in that 1986 video because two years later, IN 1988 he was interviewed again and guess where he said the shots came from ?

Two shots, one clearly hit Kennedy in the temple, fired from behind Newman.

Sarcasm and name calling. That's all you know. Grow up.

I also find it difficult to believe that Weatherford shot at the sixth floor window. I've been able to find no evidence that the Sheriff's Dept. was involved in security for the motorcade. There IS evidence, however, that Decker told his men NOT to provide security, to remain just spectators. But I do find interesting the removal of the window sill in light of the discovery of the spent rifle shell that was allegedly found in 1975 on the roof of the building that housed the Sheriff's Dept. ( County Records Bldg. ).

The recording room was right across the hall from the homicide office.

I stand corrected. There were actually TWO unidentified fingerprints found on box A. They are shown in CE 656. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0164b.htm Mr. MANDELLA. "Center impression No. 2 finger Oswald from Box A photo--latent on left unidentified Photo Nos. 25 and 27 identical--Negative with Oswald unidentified." Mr. EISENBERG. "Negative with Oswald," are you referring now to two of the three photographs--two of the three prints appearing on the photograph? Mr. MANDELLA. That is right, two prints, exactly, the one in the center, of course I am not in reference to the one in the center, which is his. The two on the right and left are unidentified. ( 4 H 52 ) "Negative with Oswald" tells me that the unidentified prints were legible enough for comparison. "Unidentified" tells me that no match could be found.

I think what you mean to say is that all of the identifiable fingerprints they found were identified. Because unidentifiable fingerprints WERE found on the boxes. ".....prints were developed which were considered as not identifiable, i.e., the quality of the print was too fragmentary to be of value for identification purposes......"( Report, pg. 249 ) There is no evidence that an identifiable fingerprint which could not be identified was found on any of the boxes. At least I haven't seen any. But FWIW, I've seen the "Wallace" print and the print from his arrest card and compared them and IMO, if that print actually came from the sixth floor, it's not Wallace's. The only identifiable print that they found and could not identify was on Box "B" and it was a PALMPRINT, not a fingerprint. "One identifiable palmprint was not identified." ( ibid. ) "One palmprint on Box B was unidentified." ( Report, pg. 566 ) John, there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about "explosive new evidence" that comes to the forefront of this case. My own experience tells me that when one of these new revelations becomes public and dies out quickly, there's probably not much to it. That's the reason why you don't see people talking about it much. Also, I'm leery of those who come forward to confess "I did it", because there is no statute of limitations on murder and I find it diffcult to believe that anyone with substantial proof of their own guilt would risk the death penalty.

Does it mention the rumor addressed by Allen Dulles that Tippit's murder may have been drug-related ? Mr. DULLES. A rumor reached me that Officer Tippit had been some way involved in some narcotic trouble, I don't know what the foundation of that is. Do you know anything about that at all? Mr. CURRY. Nothing whatsoever; no, sir. Representative FORD. You mean you know nothing about it or you checked it out and there is no validity? Mr. CURRY. This is the first I ever heard of it that he was involved in any narcotics. Representative FORD. But your records, so far as you know, would not indicate such? Mr. CURRY. No, sir. ( 4 H 177-178 )

I believe you are correct. The info I posted was from an old History Channel program that was inaccurate. You'd think that if they were posting HISTORY, they'd at least do some research into it before broadcasting it. Thank You for the correction.

My guess is that all of that may be on the video taken by Dave Powers in the followup car. Before he died, Powers made sure that his motorcade video would never be made public. I'll bet it has some interesting stuff on it.

In watching video of the motorcade from Love Field to Dealey Plaza and beyond, one thing sticks out like a sore thumb: The distance between the lead car and the Presidential limo and the distance between the SS follow-up car "Queen Mary " and the convertible carrying VP Johnson. In watching this video it appears that the JFK limo and the follow-up car are isolated, it looks like they're on an island all by themselves with nothing else around them. It makes me wonder if Herschel Jacks, Johnson's driver, knew or suspected that something was going to happen somewhere along the motorcade route and kept his distance from the limo as a result. I really get an eerie feeling watching this video.