Steve Thomas

David, Thank you, but to my untrained eye, this looks like a higher quality resolution of CE510, not of CE 512. Steve Thomas

The shells have been moved, haven't they? Steve Thomas

Pat, I don't know. I've re-read Sawyer's WC testimony several times now, and I don't see where he says he came back down using the stairs. Is that somewhere else? Steve Thomas

Ron, That was why I included that reference. Day's and Fritz's stories are inconsistent. Something's wrong. Steve Thomas

Mostly I was was thinking about the idea that you've got a guy or two groups of guys saying, "I was up on the grassy knoll behind the fence". And one guys says, "I was there", and the other guys says, "No you weren't. I was." "Were not". "Was so." "Were not." "Was so." We can debate all we want, but it would have been interesting to sit them both down in the same room and have them look each other in the eye. I wonder what would have come out of that. As for myself, I don't believe Files for two reasons: 1) I worked in public service all my life and I learned not to trust somebody who talks too much and too fast. 99 times out of a hundred, they're trying to pull a fast one. 2) Both Lee Bowers and Ed Hoffman talk about seeing a couple of guys together up there. If Files says he was up there alone, I discount that. Steve Thomas

Wouldn't it have been interesting to sit these two down in the same room and have them swap war stories? Wonder how that would have turned out. Steve Thomas

Gary, Thanks. You're right. That zoom feature is pretty neat, isn't it? Steve Thomas

Ian, Thanks. I'll bet you're right about the WCC. As far as Mooney goes, he doesn't seem to know who these guys are either, which would be strange if they were fellow Deputies. Steve Thomas

Jim, Read pages 90-94 of Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason here (especially page 92): https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Bloody_Treason.pdf Here's a wild thought. Did Fritz take the live shell from the rifle and throw it on the floor with the spent shells? Steve Thomas

Okay. I found part of the answer. This looks like the receipt of the Crime Search Section turning over the live round to the FBI. DPD Archives Box 9, Folder# 4, Item# 32 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box9.htm CSS Section This is a handwritten note “1 live WCC 6.5 shell in barrel ready to fire of rifle# C2766 when rifle ready to fire on 6th floor” (I think WCC should be MCC) Date submitted 11/22/63 “about 2:15PM” written above that is 1:45. Submitted by J.C. Day and Captain Fritz. It doesn't say who in the lab this was originally turned over to Friday afternoon. It looks like this was turned over to Vincent Drain on 11/22/63 at 11:45 PM Steve Thomas

Compare this to: DPD Archives Box 6, Folder# 1, Item# 23 page 5 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box6.htm This is an index tab for the evidence in the DPD case file under “e” for evidence live round 6.5 3 6.5 spent rounds Found by Dep Sheriff Mooney. Picked up by Det. R.M. Sims. Notice how the wording about where that live round was discovered has changed. Steve Thomas

Jim, You may be interested in this. Look at the DPD Archives Box 5, Folder# 2, Item# 102 page 1 http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm This is an inventory of the evidence in the case. 1 live round 6.5 Recovered by Dep't Sheriff Luke Mooney at 411 Elm, 6th floor, in the southeast window. 6.5 spent rounds (3) Found by Deputy Sheriff Mooney; picked up by Det. R.M. Sims. No mention of the live round ejected from the rifle and retained by Fritz. Steve Thomas

Fritz did have a way of hanging on to things, didn't he? The old klepto. Steve Thomas

Jim, It's impossible to know really. He said that within seconds after the shots rang out, he ran across Houston, up the embankment, jumped the fence and ran into the railroad yards. (Mooney is another one of those witnesses who said the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second shots). He left the rail yards and went into the TSBD through the back door. He said there were already other officers in the rail yards checking the cars, so he didn't stay there very long. He said he was only there for a few seconds until he received orders from Decker, relayed by another officer, to cover the TSBD. I have a question for the general forum. Fritz said that he turned the unfired bullet over to the crime lab "later", before it went to the FBI. Has anyone seen a crime lab receipt for this unfired bullet being received from Captain Fritz? I can slog my way through the DPD Archives, but that's going to take a while. Steve Thomas

Jim, I have to admit that I have not worked out the exact timing, but from what I've read, aside from Baker and Truly, the first people to go into the Depository were Sheriff's Deputies. Surprising as it is being a City jurisdiction, aside from a couple of officers (like the two Smiths and Welcome Barnett) working traffic control, the Dallas City Police didn't seem to have much of a presence in the Elm and Houston area proper. There is a curious little passage in Deputy Sheriff, Luke Mooney's WC testimony: (He's the one who found the shells) WC testimony of Luke Mooney http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mooney1.htm "Mr. MOONEY - Mr. Webster and Mr. Vickery were there with me at the time that we received these orders from another deputy. Mr. BALL - They are deputy sheriffs? Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; they were plainclothes officers like myself, work in the same department,..." (After going into the TSBD)... "So I looked around their office there, just a short second or two, and then I went up the staircase myself. And I met some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs. They were coming down the staircase. " "I got out on the floor with these women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books." (Is it Vickery, or Victory?) I myself, have never seen any statements by Deputy Sheriff's Webster, or Vickery or Victory. Their statements might exist, it's just that I've never seen them, so I don't know what they might have seen or heard. It's interesting. Baker and Truly were supposed to have been about the earliest people around those top floors, but the two groups of people don't seem to have run into each other. Who were these plainclothed men coming down the stairs as Mooney was going up? Steve Thomas

Rick, I have long speculated that somebody screwed up and planted the wrong caliber bullets in the sniper's nest. The 6.5 caliber spent shells were found, photographed, dusted for prints, and placed in an envelope at 1:00 PM. They had already been entered into the chain of evidence. The rifle was discovered at 1:22 PM Read this WC reply by Will Fritz carefully when he was asked about the mention of a 7.65 caliber Mauser: "Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser? Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not. Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing? Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges." It's not the rifle he is concerned about. It's the caliber of the bullets. I can't think of any other reason why; when that live round was ejected and fell to the floor, that Fritz picked it up and stuck it in his pocket, rather than calling Studebaker and Sims to come over and put it in an evidence bag. My belief is, that he looked at it and realized that the caliber of the live shell did not match the caliber of the spent cartridges. Steve Thomas

I have been thinking about the physical process you go through to load bullets into a clip, and the fact that the live round in the rifle did not have any fingerprints on it. Don't you have to press down on the bullet with your thumb to get it into the clip? Even if the shooter wore gloves to load the clip, wouldn't the unfired bullet have at least Fritz's and Day's fingerprints on it? Both of them handled it. And why would Fritz have stuck this bullet in his pocket and not place it in an evidence bag and give it to Studebaker or Sims who were collecting evidence at the TSBD? The fired shells were placed in an envelope that was marked with the date and time. Why wasn't this done with the unfired round? Day's and Fritz's testimony are at odds as to when that bullet was dusted for prints. Mr. BELIN. What did you do with this after you put your name on it? Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz took possession of it. I retained possession of the rifle. Mr. BELIN. Did you process this live round at all for prints? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I did. I did not find any prints. Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then? Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle. Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to? Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI. Mr. McCLOY. Before Captain Fritz ejected the live cartridge, did you dust the rifle for fingerprints? Mr. DAY. Not before. Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder? Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle. Mr. McCLOY. Can I ask one question there, did you take any precautions as to fingerprints before you ejected this? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY. So in your opinion your fingerprints wouldn't show? Mr. FRITZ. He could have taken mine but I let him dust first before I ejected a shell. Steve Thomas

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes. Steve Thomas

Ron, Here's another one looking at it from a different angle: The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds. So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid. But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests? Well, no, you can't. The theory is valid, but not reliable. A theory has to be both valid and reliable. Steve Thomas

Paz, Sometimes, just the sheer number of theories that are out there, are used to dismiss all of them. Here is an example. This was on CNN on Tuesday, March 20, 2018... "5 things you may not know about JFK's assassination" https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/jfk-assassination-5-things/index.html "Whether you were alive at the time or not, you probably know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President, only to be fatally gunned down by Jack Ruby two days later. You probably also know there are hundreds of conspiracy theories about who was behind the assassination, and whether Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was another shooter on the infamous grassy knoll." One statement is a statement of fact. The other is just "hundreds of conspiracy theories." Steve Thomas

Ron, I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability. That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time. Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable. I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig... Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true." Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright. Steve Thomas

Lance, You also have to be logged in for the Ignore function to work. Steve Thomas

Dear Moderators, I think it would be very helpful to add a thread title to the opening page that contains instructions for members on how to use the ignore function. You could place it at the top alongside How to Donate to the Site, and Membership Behavior, etc. Put it up there and then lock it down. Michael Clark provided instructions, but I'm afraid those will get lost in time as newer posts come online. That way, you leave it up to the individual user to decide who he or she wants to interact with. Steve Thomas

Amen. Steve Thomas

I guess I had no idea. From the WC testimony of George Bouhe: Mr. BOUHE - For 9 1/2 years I was employed as a personal accountant of a very prominent Dallas geologist, and probably capitalist if you want to say it, Lewis W, MacNaughton, senior chairman of the board of the well-known geological and engineering firm of DeGolyer & MacNaughton, but I was MacNaughton's personal employee. From: Everette Lee Degolyer, 1886-1956: A Biographical Memoir, by A. Roger Dension. National Academy of Sciences, 1959. http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/degolyer-everette.pdf "He (DeGolyer) lived to be honored by the highest elective offices and to be awarded the highest decorations of the American Association ofPetroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. He was a lecturer much sought after, filled distinguished positions at three universities, and was awarded honorary degrees by six. Nine or more United States Government agencies,commissions, advisory boards, and committees called on him for service which he generously contributed.This combination logically made his advice much sought after in business, and he was for many years the world's leading oil consultant. The opinion of his firm, DeGolyer and MacNaughton, on an appraisal of the worth of a property or a company was accepted as final in financial and government circles the world around. This firm was at one time or another consultant to ten or more foreign governments on subjects ranging from organizing exploration programs to the proper price for oil F.O.B. tankers in the Persian Gulf." George Bouhe would play a prominent role in the life of Lee and Marina Oswald. Steve Thomas