Tom Neal

Considering the popularity of this alteration at the time I guess safety wasn't much of a factor. Did you see my comments in post #143? Considering the expansion of the cases I suspect they were not so easy to remove after firing. Yet LHO lingered at the murder scene long enough to remove them AND reload. Apparently this wasn't a dumb enough idea, so he also left his brass at the crime scene. IIRC, a civilian placed the spent brass in a cigarette package and turned it over to the police. Do we know the name of this helpful fellow? Or like the fellow who gave the description of the DP shooter, not one of these highly trained and experienced cops thought to ask him his name. Didn't LHO also leave his wallet at the crime scene? But he didn't stop to pick it up, because he STILL had one wallet on him when he was picked up, and had several more at various other locations...

PAT SPEER, on 17 MAY 2016 at 03:48 A.M. said: I've decided to go ahead and put some of the documents I received online. That way this stuff won't get lost forever. And while I'm at it, I've decided to put up a lot of the WC documents I downloaded from Howard Willens' site, which have been unavailable for quite some time now.

There are many warnings posted that this common alteration of the .38 SW is too dangerous to use. It may be the genesis of statements that "LHO's" gun wouldn't fire. Stories about bent firing pins etc, MAY be based on DPD's N.M. MacDonald's *story* that LHO tried to shoot him but the gun mis-fired. It would be nice to see an actual FBI Lab doc rather than testimony from people that are proven liars.

ERROR - POST DELETED

Dan Rather ridicules the statements of the workers standing at this precise spot, who observed a shot from the knoll, smoke, and counted 4 shots. Yet where does he choose to stand to show the best view of the shooting?

Considering the beating "Mrs. C" usually receives from the media, and on THIS website, this is an interesting quote from Mr. D.: “Hillary Clinton is so much different in person from what she projects on TV. In person, she’s a very personable personality. She relates to people very, very well. She listens; she’s a very good listener in person. She is also smart, very smart… She doesn’t project on television anywhere near what she projects in person.” Considering his evaluation of Trump and his comments about JFK's womanizing, I don't see any reason for him to state this, other than he actually believes it.

Bob, this makes perfect sense to me. What would be needed would be measurements of this gap, and cylinder temperature after firing multiple shots. The expanding cylinder would increase to a higher temperature following each shot, and the gap would decrease. This could decrease the amount of GSR expelled, or simply increase its exit velocity due to an increased pressure at the gap. This could affect either the amount of GSR, its dispersal pattern, or both. According to the WC, JDT was shot 3 times presumably as rapidly as possible, and after a brief pause, two additional shots were fired into his head. I'm guessing that the interval between shots 3 and 4 would not have allowed appreciable cooling. However, does this explain the erratic plus and minus variances in Mr. Speer's tables? As you say, if the time between shots was long enough for cooling and the intervals differed, then yes. But if the shots were fired at brief equal intervals as they should have been, then some other factors would be required. Were these revolvers 'used' and in typical used gun condition? How accurate was the indexing mechanism that locked the cylinder bores into alignment with the barrel? Was the cylinder face in proper condition? The rechambered .38s were popular around the date of Guinn's testing. One or more of these MAY been used. Comments on multiple gun sites state that the cylinder bores of these re-chambered 38s were frequently off-round and had high and low spots in the bore. Any of these factors, and especially combinations of them would, at least in my non-gunsmith opinion, produce erratic results in GSR quantity and dispersal. If re-chambered .38s were NOT included in Guinn's tests, then considering the number of off-standard features of "LHO's" gun, how closely would those results resemble Mr. Spears' proffered test results?

Yes, the Special AMMO is longer, but narrower than the non-Special AMMO. And yes, I do know that the casings in both are larger in diameter than the bullet. This is what I have maintained all along. If you believe I have thought otherwise, than we are misunderstanding each other. You are stating here that the NON re-chambered cylinder throat of a .38 S&W is .361", and the rechambered throat would be .379". If the rechambered throat MUST be drilled to the same .379 diameter of the Special's casing, then the original throat diameter MUST be equal to the .3855 diameter of the non-special casing. Yet, you are stating here that is is NOT .3855, but .361". Also, as I've stated in previous posts, the data I have gotten from multiple sources is that the above-mentioned throat diameter for the NON re-chambered .38 SW is .358, not .361. If you don't believe the .358 diameter is correct then we're at an impasse until we can find a manufacturer's spec. This is what I've been saying all along, and you've been saying that the narrower Special Ammo should fit without any boring. See your post #122 and the quote below from your post #125: "This is the part I don't understand, assuming they kept the original .38 Victory revolving chamber and modified it to accommodate the .38 Special cartridge. If the entire .38 S&W chamber was .3855 inches in diameter, and the .38 Special cartridge was a mere .379 inches in diameter, how could you bore the .38 S&W chamber out, if you needed to make it smaller?" EDIT the following test added: The issue with inserting the .38 Special ammunition into a .38 S&W is that the .379 diameter CASE of the Special is larger than the .361 diameter of the S&W BULLET, and the special case is LONGER than the S&W case. Thus, the Special ammo stops when the Special CASE encounters the area that the smaller diameter S&W BULLET is small enough to fit inside of. This is WHY as I stated earlier .38 Special ammo can NOT be fully inserted into a .38 S&W revolver that has NOT been rechambered. Tom

Tom, I'm interested in knowing things about the Tippit shooting that tends to exonerate Oswald. I thought that one of those things was that the bullet shells were identified as being ejected from an automatic. (That would really be semi-automatic, right?) Now I learn that the shells were later found not to have been ejected from an automatic. Is there an innocent explanation for this change? Sandy, You are correct regarding auto vs. semi-auto, but when referring to these cartridges, the term "auto" was used in the report. The ejector leaves a mark on the cartridge which was observed and reported by the officer who found them. The extant cartridges have no such mark. As far as I know, supporting documentation confirms this but I don't have it. Jim Garrison Playboy October 1967 Interview: " Of the four cartridges found at the scene, two were Winchesters and two were Remingtons — but of the four bullets found in Officer Tippit’s body, three were Winchesters and one was a Remington! The last time I looked, the Remington–Peters Manufacturing Company was not in the habit of slipping Winchester bullets into its cartridges, nor was the Winchester–Western Manufacturing Company putting Remington bullets into its cartridges." Tom

IF the throat diameter of the cylinder bore of a .38 SW actually is .379 per your statement above, then the .38 Special cartridge with its .379 diameter would fit ALL the way into the chamber despite its greater length. However, it does not. It only goes in about 2/3 of its length. The throat has to be increased in diameter with a reamer by the difference in length of the S v. the SW. I'll see if I can find a diagram, but subject to my memory the cylinder throat diameter is smaller than the bore diameter in both the SW and Special revolvers. EDIT: Quote: "I have taken a look at one of these converted Victories up close. I can see that the chambers were bored to the length of the special case, with the [length of the] extended bore in the diameter of the special. Therefore you can still see where the case of the .38 S&W would end, in other words two distinct diameters. I loaded it with dummy .38 specials and there was a little wiggle on some of the chambers but not much and none on some." Quote: Q: Is there a STANDARD SPEC for a .38 SPL cylinder THROAT? A: All of my S&W's in 357 and 38 are spot on at .358". That size works well with both cast and jacketed bullets. Tom

And this is why as I have requested, you should produce the document or at least the page. What's the problem here Mr. Spear? Just can't share your toys? Does it make you feel smarter than the rest of us, when you correct our assumptions based upon the limited info you provide? No, it is NOT beside the point. A revolver has 6 different chambers. Each shot would produce DIFFERENT characteristics. This would produce different GSR levels. The only question is how MUCH different. If the pattern repeated after a reload we would have an answer. As I've ALREADY pointed out, someone with a greater knowledge of guns may spot something you didn't know. e.g. Contrary to your reply, it DOES matter if they were all revolvers or not. You have chosen to limit your "gifts" to a degree that renders the information useless, and I have NO desire to beg you for info that you should have provided. Tom

Bob, In my earlier post I incorrectly stated the bullet diameter as the cylinder bore diameter, but I see you have used the correct dimensions. Still from memory, but I believe the cylinder throat diameter is only .358" so what they are doing is reaming out the throat to accommodate the .379" diameter .38 Special cartridge. The throat is long enough to allow full insertion of the longer bullet and still retain an adequate throat length. So the first 1/3 of the cartridge is inserted into the part of the cylinder bore that matches the diameter of a .38 Special revolver cylinder bore. I should have time tomorrow to check the throat diameter from my records which I made at least 3 years ago. Hopefully, I can find them...

Agreed, and despite multiple requests for this, we are still getting bits and pieces that generate more questions than answers. Bob P. would you like to see the entire document, also? ANYONE ELSE? MR. SPEER: The varying quantity of GSR deposits could be explained if we knew whether these five .38s were all revolvers or a mixture of revolvers and semi-automatics.

It would be interesting to see a photo of a .38 S&W re-chambered for .38 Special ammo. With that oversize bore and loose fit of the rear 2/3 of the bullet it would likely produce a bigger flash and more GSR...seems reasonable, anyway.

Bob, I still haven't had any time to research but I can elaborate on my earlier post regarding re-chambering: This is still from memory, so subject to verification - The smaller diameter, but longer .38 Special cartridge will only fit 2/3 of its length into the cylinder, so the chamber is bored at the smaller (.379) diameter until long enough to accept the entire cartridge. The first third of the cartridge fits into the correct diameter bore, but the remaining 2/3 thirds is a loose fit due to the larger .38 S&W bore diameter. A .38 Special cartridge fired in a re-chambered weapon produces a spent hull that has an expanded diameter at its end due to 2/3 of the cartridge residing in the oversize bore when it was fired. As I said earlier, the bullets in JDT's body could not be ballistically matched to "LHO's" .38 and IMO this re-chambering is the reason. As far as LHO shooting JDT: no ballistic comparison was possible There were no fingerprints on the cartridges At the murder scene they were identified as from an automatic but the cartridges in evidence were not ejected from an automatic The empty hulls were found on the ground at the crime scene - why would LHO empty the cylinder onto the ground leaving potentially incriminating evidence behind?

Bob, If memory serves, it was purchased in Quebec by Seaport Traders who sold this weapon to "Hidell." It was re-chambered for .38 special ammo and the barrel was shortened from its original 5" length to 2 1/4" but not replaced. And from my notes, the work was done by LM Johnson of Van Nuys, CA When I have time I can do some research on this and why the gun wouldn't fire, as I have heard two different stories... It's amazing to me that this has not been more thoroughly researched. Tom

In this particular chart, was the .38 fired with one hand or two? Did the same person fire all 5 weapons(this matters)? Was the easily obtained ammunition allegedly used by LHO used in these tests? This would be obvious if *as requested* you published the document or at least the entire page containing these tables... You could AT LEAST provide the TITLE of the document as well as how it was obtained so others with a "genuine interest" can view the ENTIRE document rather than selected bits with varying degrees of relevancy... What is the point of using 5 different guns when the only one that matters is "LHO's" .38? Given the variance above, we still have no idea the amount of GSR *IT* deposited. With FULL KNOWLEDGE that LHO either fired 5 shots or zero shots, why does the table stop at 3 shots? Five shots would have allowed a direct comparison of LHO's GSR to the chart. Also, The MORE shots fired with the same weapon, the more accurate the computation of the average amount of GSR deposited. It is the AVERAGE amount deposited with EACH successive firing that matters, not the difference between individual shots. Was "Melon" Alvarez involved in this "testing"? LHO's Smith & Wesson Victory snub nose .38 had been re-chambered from the original "S&W cartridge" to fire .38 Special cartridges. Despite what is constantly stated the re-chambering did NOT increase the diameter of the bore, it increased the length. Firing the SMALLER .357 diameter Specials through the .361 diameter bore would undoubtedly affect the emitted GSR. Surely the "reputable scientist" would have discovered this fact. Which one the five guns used in the tests was the re-chambered one? The purpose of this thread was to evaluate Mr. Speer's allegation that LHO was 'more likely to have fired a pistol than a rifle, so he could have murdered JDT.' Do not forget: 1. LHO's .38 could not be ballistically matched to the shots that killed Tippit IIRC correctly, firing a .357 bullet through a .360 bore did not leave sufficient markings 2. LHO's prints were NOT found on the weapon This morning I do not have the time to verify the above numbers, but I'm sure I have stated the overall issue correctly. Much more to add, but I'm out of time. Cue Robert P. our resident Gun-dude for any corrections to the above...

Given the fact that DPD, FBI and SS have clearly proven that they did not handle ANY (at least I can't think of any) of the evidence in this case properly. ALL have clearly lied about tests results, procedures, evaluation of test results, testimony, etc. ANY exculpatory evidence should be granted MUCH greater weight than any indication of his guilt by any of these agencies as well as the WC and many others.

We are talking about the NITRATE tests, and as usual you are mixing and matching the procedures, results, and tests to suit your needs. They are NOT the same test, and they are NOT testing for the same substances. That is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of what was said. So HOW MANY nitrates have to bunch together to make a "speck" so that it will show up? Where is the documentation that states any of this? It is pure nonsense, and you simply made it up. According to your illogic they are undetectable unless they "bunch up". This is a stretch even by YOUR standards. Then it also doesn't mean that there are. But you ignore this because it doesn't suit your belief. And yet they didn't. What does that tell you? This is pure speculation on your part, unless it is recorded on these documents you refer to that you have yet to produce. Again, pure speculation. Where is the documentation for this? The tests were ordered by a man who lied about the results and either ordered the actual analysis destroyed or not recorded. Hardly a "competent scientist." To state that it fits the pattern is meaningless. Where is the description of these patterns, and their location? Where is the Lab report that explains all this? The fact that this is NOT stated in any record indicates that there is no pattern typical of GSR. Without this documentation no judge would accept this as evidence, so why should we? Which are also present on his left hand in a greater or equal number. Of course in "PS World" there's "a chance" that he shot JDT three times with his right hand and twice with his left... Since they were "mostly concerned" with the webbing, then the fact that he had the same pattern on his non-shooting hand PROVES the nitrates were acquired elsewhere and he did NOT fire a pistol. Mr. Speer once again shoots himself in the foot!

Nice quote. Do you have a source, or is that NOT necessary... At WHAT point are they no longer linear... 2 shots? 5? 1000? GSR accumulates in the pores of the skin. Take a look at the drawings of the hands - does it appear to you that ALL the pores are full? Is there a "chance" LHO has only 20 pores on the back of hi hand?

Thanks, Jim! I heartily agree with all of the above. Another thing to consider is that either LHO fired 5 shots into JD Tippitt, or he fired ZERO shots. I'm still researching this, but every time he fired that pistol it blew "X" number of particles onto the same area of his hands. The total amount on his hands would be 5X. That means those drawings depict the amount 5X. For a single shot there would be 1/5 of the dots depicted on this diagram. At most I count 14 particles on the back of his right hand. 14/5=2.8 So 1 shot would have deposited 2.8 particles on the back of his hand. Kind of hard to believe that would be a "Positive"... Tom

Bob, I believe the 130 db and the statement that no one had ANY difficulty determining the origin of the test-shots came from Don Thomas' book which I mentioned in an earlier post on the "Paraffin" thread. I no longer have the book so I can't verify this. The 120 db threshold of pain that you cited came from a study I was part of, which was used to require ear protection be provided for the ramp workers at major airports serving large jets. It did NOT endear us to management, but interestingly enough we received letters of commendation from the USAF and Air National Guard. The accepted criteria at the time was the range of 120-140db was the danger zone with hearing protection required above 140 and "suggested" above 120. As you stated, 140 db is one hell of a lot louder that 120. Tom

Hi Jim, Thanks for the encouragement. I agree precisely with Tom Rossley. Do you have a source for him - I'd like to read it. According to Mark Lane's early reports including "Rush to Judgement" he states that the plywood floor that was being laid was "freshly painted". You can't get a more likely source of contamination than that. LHO has a VERY strong nitrate present on the inside of the fingers of his right hand. A likely source of this would be carrying a sheer of plywood held vertically and gripping the edge. The areas between his hand inside of his thumbs could be created by "pinching" between hand and thumb. If the raw data is present at Hood, I have at least so far been unable to find it. Rather than post the documents as he indicated, I imagine Mr. Speer will simply post whatever his interpretation of the contents happens to be. If so, I will purchase the CD that Mr. Speer mentions and ask for the source for permission to post the entire doc/ Tom BTW, I'm still looking for the Wallace Milam/ Margaret Henchliffe interview. I have found the law firm that Milam did the interview for and I'm hoping they will be allowed to send me a copy. I await their reply...

I posted this earlier, but it seems to have vanished... THE rifle, when fired as part of a re-enactment was recorded at 130 decibels. The typically accepted "level of physical pain" is considered to be 120-140db. Hi Tom When the muzzle blast of C2766 was recorded at 130 decibels, during the re-enactment, do you know where the person recording the sound was in relation to the muzzle of this rifle? In other words, was he behind the rifle, 90° to the side of the rifle, or within a 120° cone measured just forward of the muzzle? I cannot seem to find any information on this, and the placement of testing equipment in relation to the rifle's muzzle is quite critical, as there is a massive difference in subjective sound levels, measured in decibels, between being behind a rifle fired, 90° to the side of the muzzle or just slightly ahead of the muzzle and within 60° of the path of the bullet, as were the majority of onlookers on Elm St. I should add that 120 decibels is considered the "threshold of pain", and that every 10 decibel (dB) increase means a tenfold increase in sound. In other words, a 130 (dB) sound is 10 times louder than a 120 dB sound, and a 140 dB sound is 100 times louder than a 120 dB sound, etc. With its short barrel and cartridge designed for a long rifle, I would venture the recorded level of 130 dB for C2766 to be a bit low, unless the man recording the sound was nowhere near the muzzle of the rifle when it was fired. Bob, I just now responded to your other thread. I believe the 130 db and the statement that no one had ANY difficulty determining the origin of the test-shots came from Don Thomas' book which I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread. I no longer have the book so I can't verify this. The 120 db threshold of pain that you cited came from a study I was part of, which was used to require ear protection be provided for the ramp workers at major airports serving large jets. It did NOT endear us to management, but interestingly enough we received letters of commendation from the USAF and Air National Guard. The accepted criteria at the time was the range of 120-140db was the danger zone with hearing protection required above 140 and "suggested" above 120. As you stated, 140 db is one hell of a lot louder that 120. Tom