Steve Roe

On 5/27/2023 at 11:33 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I hope your article will  approach the caliber of your rifle strap analysis and not your other work where all of your inferences favor or are viewed through the lens of one gunman advocate.         

Larry, my correspondence with you on the rifle strap mounts, you said you would show Brian Edwards that article. If you did, want did he say? 

Ben, yes everyone knows you believe there was a bullet switcheroo. I asked your writing partner, Tom, if he believed in the bullet swap out. He refused to give a direct answer. He's hedging, not committed to saying the CE573 was not the Walker bullet. Seems you guys have a big problem here, if you both can't agree whether or not CE573 was planted or swapped out. 

Ben, who do we believe here? You or Tom?

Why can't you guys get on the same page? Anyone reading this article will firmly get the impression that dark sinister forces swapped out the bullet. That's the message.

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Brian Edwards, a former police inspector, presented it in Oliver's film.  What Roe did with that is an utter and complete disgrace to anyone on either side, except maybe Litwin. 

Mr. DiEugenio, you may want to ask Larry Schnapf about this as he recently had some doubts about the rifle D-Mount straps theory by Mr. Edwards. 

11 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Why does my opinion matter? It doesn’t, even if I put it in bold letters. The FBI and WC both expressed doubts about the authenticity of the bullet, and had every opportunity imaginable to resolve those doubts for good. Instead, they tiptoed through a joke of an investigation that avoided potential conflict like it was monkey-pox.

At pretty much the exact same time the bullet arrived or was set to arrive in the FBI lab, William Sullivan called Dallas at 3 in the morning asking about the “alleged bullet” that was recovered from Walker’s home, and ordered agents to review newspaper articles about the shooting. 

Ira Van Cleave was sourced in one of these newspaper articles from 4/12/63 as saying that the bullet recovered was a .30-06. Van Cleave was also of course one of four different cops who said the bullet was steel jacketed in the initial police reports. 

Fast forward six months. The WC orders the FBI to conduct additional investigation into the Walker shooting. One of the reasons cited was the “conflicting stories about the nature of the bullet”, and Van Cleave and McElroy’s initial police report was mentioned specifically. 

The FBI subsequently interviewed every DPD employee involved in the Walker investigation…except for Ira Van Cleave. That’s bad enough, but during this inquiry, the FBI received a mess of conflicting reports about who initially handled the bullet, the most egregious of which was from Van Cleave’s partner.

Van Cleave was interviewed by the FBI in December about the Ruby shooting, and again a couple days later about a letter he received about Walker. However, during an investigation into the Walker incident with a specific focus on the recovered bullet, the FBI allegedly failed to interview the one guy who could have resolved all the major contradictions in the record, who also happened to be one of the first two detectives on the scene. Give me a break - and that’s just one example of many.

There is a reasonable doubt about the provenance of CE573. There is not enough evidence to prove that the bullet was switched, but the evidence generally cited as proof of authenticity is laughable. With so many unresolved conflicts in the record, and all the effort that went into keeping those conflicts unresolved, I think 50/50 is being generous.

EDIT: I think it’s plausible that the FBI and WC just wanted to keep the record as “clean” as they could, but this is so weirdly specific that it looks to me like the FBI was legitimately worried about something. The 3am Sullivan call about the “alleged bullet” seems to corroborate that idea - I’m still looking for the follow-up paperwork. 

Ok, noted. Thank you, Tom. 

14 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Also, even if we’re assuming that Oswald only had access to the MC, apparently there was steel jacketed MC hunting ammo available in the United States: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62263#relPageId=77

The FBI “investigation” into the Walker bullet ordeal has to be one of the hands down worst FBI sub-inquiries of the entire assassination investigation. The FBI avoided every imaginable opportunity to resolve conflicting stories about the bullet - even while under explicit orders from the WC to resolve conflicting stories about the bullet. The FBI allegedly failed to: 1) interview Ira Van Cleave about the bullet (this is a hell of a lot worse than it sounds); 2) show the actual bullet to anyone besides Norvell (this one’s the WC’s fault) 3) ask anyone besides Norvell for even a basic description of what they remembered; 4) ask any one of Norvell, Tucker, Van Cleave or McElroy why they described the bullet as steel-jacketed in their reports; 5) reinterview McElroy, Brown and Tucker to find out who actually handled the bullet and when - even after calling this out as an unresolved problem in their investigative report to the WC; 6) show the bullet to Day and ask him about his alleged “Day” and a cross marking; 7) ask Brown, Day, or anyone else in the CSSS why they (allegedly) never photographed the bullet…I could go on. 

Basically, the evidence very strongly suggests, if not outright proves, that there was a deliberate effort by the FBI to avoid putting on the record anything about the Walker bullet that could potentially cast doubt on Oswald’s guilt. I don’t think there’s any other way to spin it.

Tom let's set the record straight. Do you actually believe that CE573 is a switcheroo bullet? I'm assuming you agree with everything said in that article as proof. Ben said it was a switcheroo, do you? 

I'm not going to argue your article on EF, but only seeking for clarification on your position before I address this "article" later. I don't want to misquote or put words in your mouth. State your position clearly whether or not CE573 was, or was not, the bullet found in the Walker home. 

Thank you. 

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Tom, what do you mean, they didn't really prove anything? Were the arrest records faked, in that case?

Sorry Jonathan, arrest records are not proof here on EF. To the rest of people living in reality, they are. Stop being logical, it doesn't work here on EF. 

32 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here's my answer:

Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?

Reading through all that, all your disagreements with Myers and other stuff, you never reached any conclusion whether or not Oswald shot Tippit. Did I get that right?

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

in reply to that evasive, juvenile argument, I'll just say "see my previous three replies." 

Mr. Griffith, simple question. Did Lee Harvey Oswald murder Patrolman Tippit?

7 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Volkmar Schmidt came from Munich, Germany, to work full time for General Walker. How long did he work, and where was he on November 23, 1963, when Walker made the call to the same city the CUSA imports came from?

Lots of problems and mistakes with your post. Here's one of the most glaring. Volkmar Schmidt never worked full time for General Walker. Schmidt worked as a Petrologist for the Magnolia Oil (Socony Mobil). Schmidt despised General Walker. 

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

To answer Steve, I don’t know if the bullet was switched or not, but the WC’s failure to authenticate it combined with the other evidence gives us a non-zero probability of a switcheroo. A defense attorney would have eaten this stuff for breakfast. I know you feel like the government would never do such a thing, but think about it for a minute. What type of evidence would we expect to see if the bullet was switched in an attempt to pin the crime on Oswald? 

You don't know if the bullet was switched out? Isn't this a little silly Tom? It's either the real one or a substituted fake. You and Ben go through a whole bunch of excuses why CE573 wasn't authenticated, shown under oath, etc. Sounds like to me you really believe it's a switcheroo because it doesn't hold up to your standards. 

Walker saw the bullet; he never said it was a fake. In fact, nobody did. 

The bullet was in the City-County Crime lab for those dates. The FBI checked the log with that Lab at Parkland.....never been checked out by anyone Tom. 

So why don't you explain the logic behind why a bullet would be switched out, tampered with way before the assassination and before the DPD had any knowledge of Oswald?

A competent defense attorney would not challenge that bullet in evidence before a criminal judge. There's plenty of evidence on the movement of the bullet, initials, paperwork, police logs. 

You guys go ahead and question everything to your hearts' content, I'm sticking with the facts and reality. 

And that reality is CE573 is the real Walker bullet. 

Read Keuch's examination of CE573 when Walker wrote all those letters complaining about a "pristine bullet". Let me know if that meets your standards of proof.

ADMIN FOLDER-O1: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, HSC-A TICKLER VOLUME VI (maryferrell.org)

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I agree. Why didn’t the WC just ask the DPD officers who wrote the report? Robert Frazier said so though so it must be true… 

Steve also minimizes a legitimate concern about the chain of custody: there is none. The bullet was never authenticated under oath, by anyone. The only so-called “authentication” was performed by the FBI in an unsworn interview over a year after the Walker shooting on explicit orders from J. Lee Rankin to not establish a chain of custody and only trace the bullet to the first person who could provide a positive ID.  

Norvell supposedly identified the bullet and his initials, but this was fourteen months after the shooting and Norvell was no longer even a cop. Norvell’s unsworn, uncorroborated identification in CE2011 is beyond worthless, and I don’t think that’s even really debatable. 

Also, is there a better picture of the alleged “N” than that NIST photo in Steve’s article? I see the “N”, but it looks almost like bubble letters - a lot different than other chain of evidence markings I’ve seen.

However, the initials on the bullet are irrelevant. The problem is not a single person was asked to identify the bullet under oath as the same bullet recovered at the crime scene. A sole-source, uncorroborated, unsworn, belated identification by a guy who had either quit, retired, or been fired from the DPD is not the sort of evidence we should be accepting as gospel, folks. 

In other words, Ben is right. It is reasonable to have doubts about the provenance of the Walker bullet. Steve’s acceptance of Norvell’s belated, uncorroborated “ID” as proof reflects his bias, especially after making a statement such as this: 

“There was no chain of custody issue, the bullet and the evidence box were all initialed by DPD and FBI Lab examiners.” 

If that is true, why was the chain of custody never established by the WC? Why was not a single person asked to identify the bullet and their initials under oath? Initials being observed on the bullet fifteen years after the shooting does not establish a chain of custody. That was the WC’s job, so why didn’t they do it? 

Quite a list of doubts you got there Tom. 

So, Tom, let's do a gut check.

Do you actually believe the DPD or the FBI or a combination of both found a WCC bullet, fired it into some sort of hard surface to mushroom the rounded bullet nose, got everyone who was involved with the Walker shooting, re-initial the bullet?

In essence this is what you are saying, the bullet was switched out?

Correct?

18 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Whatever was used to conceal the rifle during transport (raincoat?) would also have helped protect it from the elements.

That's an excellent observation Mark, makes sense. He would have used that raincoat for transporting to and from, why not keep it with the rifle to protect it against the elements. 

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My story has not changed. 

Here is what I wrote:

"In all fairness, I think Walker's letter to the HSCA was in error, so to speak. 

For whatever reason, the HSCA, during hearings, broadcast some images of unfired steel-jacketed bullets, which were not copper-gilded.

It looked as though the HSCA was saying, "See, these are steel-jacketed bullets, like the one found in Walker's home." 

Walker then fired off a letter to the effect the bullet found in his home was badly mangled etc."

---30---

It has been a number of decades since the HSCA hearings, and that is about as much as I remember about this particular point.

IMHO, the HSCA was bungling matters, and besides that everyone had bad hairdos. 

If you remember Blakey himself holding up steel-jacketed bullets at the HSCA hearings, I do not contest that. I just do not remember that exact episode. 

Well, ok, so you were just speculating that Blakey held up a steel-jacketed pristine bullet. I accept that answer, now that you cleared it up. 

I went through all the Walker papers I could find regarding this protest of the HSCA hearing, and I could not find anything of Walker saying it was a "steel-jacketed" bullet. He was objecting to a pristine bullet held by Blakey in numerous letters stating it was damaged. 

This steel jacketed bullet description in the DPD case report was a question posed to Robert Frazier (FBI) by Eisenberg of the Warren Commission. 

Eisenberg: Is this a jacketed bullet?

Frazier: Yes, it is a copper-alloy jacketed bullet having a lead core.

Eisenberg: Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet? 

Frazier: No sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=447&search=steel_jacketed bullet

That is most likely the explanation as the DPD case report states a high-powered rifle, then steel-jacketed bullet. 

14 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Earth to Steve Roe: Where is your proof? You LN nuts are all the same - you demand material, empirical proof until you don't demand material, empirical proof, which is when YOU make an argument. And honestly, the concealment idea is the dumbest effing thing I have heard in the whole JFK LN fiasco. Yeah, he could have buried it, you might have helped him. Anything is possible in LN Land. Try again, we on the other side are not that dumb.

Mr. Lowe nice trying to make this into another LN vs. CT polarization game. 

Benjamin Cole wrote an article on DiEugenio's K&K stating he believed Oswald did fire at Walker.

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/walker-oswald-and-the-dog-that-didn-t-bark

DiEugenio said this about Ben's article:

Benjamin Cole reexamines the “Walker Incident” and offers a better explanation than the one provided in the Warren Report by accounting for all of the anomalies in the evidence and witness accounts.

DiEugenio said this in his book:

For they were now saying that it was a 6.5 caliber, copper-jacketed bullet. One compatible with the alleged rifle in evidence. Yet, this was not the bullet the police retrieved from Walker’s house that night and Walker had held in his hand. That bullet was a 30.06, steel jacketed bullet.129 As the reader can see, the combination of Ruth Paine with the FBI allowed the Warren Commission to manufacture a case that likely did not exist. As we will see, this will recur.

DiEugenio, James. Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (p. 202). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition. 

Problem here with Mr. DiEugenio's research is he misleads his readers. He cites (129) the DPD case report on the Walker shooting. Yes, the DPD case report did state the steel jacketed bullet, but nowhere in the case report did it describe the bullet as a 30.06. It clearly states the bullet was of unknown caliber. 

Lockstep with DiEugenio, Ben Cole states this in his article: 

But after the Kennedy murder, the DPD sent the steel-jacketed bullet—stated in police reports to be a 30.06 calibre—to the FBI. 

Again, there is no 30.06 caliber mentioned in the DPD case report from the investigating detectives. 

This is not the tired old LN vs. CT game: it's about getting the facts straight. 

Who is holding the baloney sandwich now? 

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If Blakey held up ungilded steel jacketed bullets on national TV...well, sad so say, I am not surprised. 

Ben, now your story is changing. You stated that the HSCA did show a steel-jacketed, non-copper gilded bullet. Which I assumed you did see the HSCA video of Blakey holding up that bullet. 

Now, you say if Blakey held up ungilded steel jacketed bullets on national TV. 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

The FBI examination detected no traces of dirt on the rifle.  Then what did Oswald use to wipe the rifle clean? Because there was no rifle cleaning solution found in his belongings. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p 108)

Hello Mr. DiEugenio, anyone home? The Walker shooting took place on April 10, 1963. Oswald's rifle was found on 11/22, that's almost 7 months. Rifle cleaning solution? What in the world are you talking about? If it was dirty 7 months ago on the exterior, of course Oswald would have cleaned it.  You wipe it off with a damp cloth and if you wanted you can lightly oil the metal, polish the wood stock and run a bristle brush down the barrel. 

And who said he buried it in the dirt? He could have buried in a brush pile up near the MKT RR tracks. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

For whatever reason, the HSCA, during hearings, broadcast some images of unfired steel-jacketed bullets, which were not copper-gilded.

Ben, so you have seen the actual HSCA tapes of Blakey holding up a steel-jacketed bullet? 

That's great, I've been on the hunt for that old video. Can you link me and everyone here to that video of Blakey holding the steel jacketed bullet?

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You do not think initials could have been applied to a false slug? 

Ben, I know you are joking, but seriously there are some "people" in this forum that might believe this "Switcheroo Theory". 

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The DPD arrives, they find the purported slug, and a detective IDs the slug as steel-jacketed, despite it being copper-colored. This is a very high-profile case at the case, the most prominent murder attempt in the city's history up to that time. Walker has been featured on the cover of national magazines (big stuff in those days). 

No one in the DPD ever re-examines the slug---very important evidence---and says, "You know, this slug is actually copper jacketed." 

The heavily cracked copper jacketing of the slug reveals it is a copper jacket, not merely copper-gilded. A steel jacketed slug, even if copper-gilded, reveals the steel-colored jacket when it cracks. 

All that doesn't matter, that slug is the one in the National Archives, with initials on it. Any speculation why the cops didn't correctly identify it as a copper jacket, is a nil point. 

21 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Steve, do we know or can we estimate the relative height of the window to the hole in the wall? If the bullet trajectory was noticeably downward from the window to the wall, that seems to imply a difference of at least a few inches. 

If the bullet travelled diagonally from the window to the wall a distance of 8.5 feet and was deflected downward at an angle of just 2 degrees, that’s a vertical drop of about 3.5 inches. If the initial trajectory of the bullet to the window was even slightly upward in such a scenario, an undeflected bullet would have passed inches above Walker’s head. 

This is all speculative of course, and a shorter distance to the wall and smaller deflection angle would significantly reduce the magnitude of the miss, plus the “right through his head” referenced by Surrey could be referring to the middle or lower portion of Walker’s head, but still. I think we need a little bit more info here to describe how badly the shooter actually missed. 

Tom, I can only guess without precision the height of the window strike. Since there are no recorded measurements, the only thing I can offer is CE1007. In that photo, Walker identified himself as the one pointing to the window hit. If that is indeed Walker with the cigarette, in a standing position, it appears to me that height of the window strike was around 5 feet. Just a guess. Walker was 6'3" tall. 

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0335b.htm

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 "All in all, Oswald missed by an inch or so"--SR

I have read the DPD reports, etc. 

Where does this estimate come from? 

If a slug has passed one inch from Walker's head...he would have thought "fireworks" outside of his home were a possible cause of the sound he heard? 

If Walker was missed by one inch...he only deduced he had been shot at after seeing a hole in the wall behind him? 

Would not Walker hear the thud or impact of the bullet in the wall right by his head, if it were a close shot? 

Something doesn't add up. 

I have never been able to nail down where on the wall the bullet entered--how high? How many feet from the floor? Is that recorded by the DPD? 

 

 

Ben, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't believe I fully explained what I meant by "missing by an inch or so". 

What I meant was the strike on the window sash, not the wall. As you can see another inch down, left or right, would have cleared the sash, and gone through just the screen unencumbered and maybe hitting Walker (who knows). That's what I meant. 

Regarding the height of the bullet hitting the lathe/plaster wall, Robert Surrey was questioned about that. 

Mr. JENNER. And plaster and that sort of thing would be quite apparent, would it, to anyone who saw it in his hair?
Mr. SURREY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. And you noticed it?
Mr. SURREY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. And you noticed him brushing plaster out of his hair?
Mr. SURREY. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Now, that leads me to ask you this, Mr. Surrey: That bullet hole is how high from the floor? I am showing you now Commission Exhibit No. 1009.
Mr. SURREY. You mean how high is the hole----
Mr. JENNER. From the floor.
Mr. SURREY. From the floor? Well, the police went into the next room and so did I, and sighted through the hole in the wall to the window.
Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.
Mr. SURREY. And when Walker sat down at his desk, it went right through his head.
Mr. JENNER. So he was seated on a chair substantially the height of the one you are seated on?
Mr. SURREY. Yes, and he is approximately a little taller than I am.
Mr. JENNER. He is a little taller than you are. So that would be about 4, 4 1/2 feet. Tell the Commission the distance from the wall, the point at which you have marked an "X" with a circle, and the place at which General Walker's chair was located.
Mr. SURREY. I would say 18 inches.
Mr. JENNER. He was that close?
Mr. SURREY. To the wall there; yes, sir.

Walker was 6'3, so it was probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 4-1/2 feet or a little more where the bullet struck the wall. 

Commission Exhibit 1014 is a crude diagram made by Robert Surrey of Walker's office, showing the window the shot came through (A), his desk and where he was sitting, and then a dark mark where the bullet crashed through the wall. Of course, it's not to scale, as Surrey estimated Walker was about 18" away from the wall where the bullet hit. Seated in that position it's clear why Walker got the shrapnel wounds to his right arm as the bullet began to splinter the jacket and hit him. Mark Ulrick posted a link about reporters mentioning the wound to the arm, including a 1/2" sliver dug out near his elbow. I verified that article, and it does state those facts (April 14, 1963, Dallas Morning News).

Hopefully that gives you a better picture of how it happened. No question in my mind that this wasn't staged, and Oswald was trying to kill Walker.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0338a.htm

On 3/22/2023 at 6:56 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

Good stuff. The published images are somewhat hard to interpret, but the same police report said the backyard was an upgrade to the alley, and I've "always" assumed that (a) the line of sight from the muzzle to the head of the seated Walker would be downward, and (b) nicking the upper edge of the glass would tend to deflect the bullet upward. Do you think Oswald's aim was wrong because he failed to consider that the scope was zeroed in at a much greater distance?

Mark, I had to review that DPD case report again, been a long time since I studied it. But yes, it does say the backyard was on an upgrade in 1963. That is correct. So, my contemporary observation is not correct. But I didn't see it being any big decline or incline either. 

Yes, you have to take into account of the rifle muzzle to the window frame where the shot hit. I can't say with any certainty if it would be on a straight line, or downward or upward. 

After studying that case report again, the Detectives determined the nick (or chipped portion) of the lattice fence was near the top of the fence, through one of the 8" wide openings. I'm not sure of the height of the lattice fence, but I would speculate it was 5-6 foot high. That means the shooter (Oswald) was in a standing position when he fired the shot. If the trajectory of the bullet from the fence line was on a downward course, then I can still see it deflecting off the screen frame-window sash on hitting the wall in a downward course. 

This distance was estimated to be 100-120 feet. Walker called it 40 steps (an old term) which equates to around 100 feet. Using that distance, the sighting of the Ordnance Scope is of no consequence, providing it was sighted in at 100 yards.

This gets into speculation land why he missed.

My best guess is he felt pressured and may have rushed the shot somewhat. There were the two guys walking around in the LDS parking lot, and he might have noticed or heard them and rushed the shot, even though he used the lattice opening as a gun rest. Walker had his own explanation that through the scope with a lighted room background, he may not have seen the window frame clearly. Can't rule that out either. All in all, Oswald missed by an inch or so. 

A quick check with a friend of mine that owns the same model Carcano and side mounted scope, says yes, a shooter can see through an 8" opening. In fact, he showed me how the barrel, stock and scope can easily go through a smaller 6" opening. So absolutely his line of sight with the scope would work with the lattice fence opening. I think Oswald carefully planned this out ahead of time, casing the property, taking pictures and planning his escape route. 

Also, it's possible that Oswald may have been wearing the same dark clothes as in the backyard photos for nighttime concealability. He could have ditched those clothes later before he came home. I haven't seen any mention of those dark clothes in his property lists. 

Any way you look at it, Oswald was making a fast getaway. He didn't bother to take a few seconds and observe whether or not he hit Walker. And of course, he didn't work the bolt for a second shot, leaving the cartridge in the chamber which suggests to me that he sensed he might have rushed it for fear of being discovered. 

As far as the tired old "Steel Jacket" bullet controversy goes, it falls apart as the bullet retrieved by the DPD is the same bullet in NARA. I explain all that here: https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/the-general-walker-bullet-real-or-fake

Why the cops described it that way, well some bullets are copper gilded on steel. 

Regarding this "downward trajectory" controversy over the years, people overlook the fact that Walker's had his window in the up position (was a warm day), and he was sitting down at his desk. If you look at CE1007 you can see the height of the window as relative to the man pointing to the hole.  https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0335b.htm

All the times I've been out there to the old Walker home, it appeared to me that there was a slight incline from the alley to the window, not much. 

The way that bullet hit the bottom of the window frame, I can see why it went on a downward trajectory. That's the way the cops described it in the case report. I have no reason to doubt their observation. 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

But now, how can it be known all those photos are of the same wood damage and same window, since they look different?

Greg, the color photo of Walker's window comes from the 1993 Frontline series, "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald". That's some 30 years before, so no doubt the damage does look different from the original damage photos.  At approximately the 1:03:00 mark in the video shows the color version. Also of interest to you is Coleman's account of the vehicles leaving the area, just after Walker's narrative. The '58 Chevy could have been the car that Walker saw driving off and turning left on Turtle Creek Blvd. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjwKxuie2o

4 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Really!

Surprised you never posted this before.

Did your mom ever share with you things she may have heard from those she knew and worked with at Parkland regarding their experience and thoughts and views about that day?

The only thing I can remember her saying was the President had the best doctors attending him. She knew them. Of course, there was nothing to they could do with the nature of his wounds. Parkland was a County Hospital, and many trauma victims (car crashes, stabbings, shootings) were transported there. I remember seeing many ambulances pull off Harry Hines into the Emergency bays, as we would pick her up from work at 11:00 at night. 

There was another thing she told me, some or one of the nurses working there tending to Governor Connolly after the assassination didn't like him or his attitude.

This is all trivial stuff, on my recollections as a kid during that time. It's really not all that important that's why I was reluctant to share it here. I don't have any conspiracy related stories to offer. 

I do have an original Dallas Times Herald first edition of the assassination that I picked up off our driveway after being released from school around 2:00 on that Friday.  

The 6FM has my oral history with Stephen Fagin (telephone interview during Covid).