Jump to content
The Education Forum

Day writes "All CSSS Evidence removed 11-22"


Recommended Posts

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

Armstrong covers this in H&L.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

Armstrong covers this in H&L.

Jack

Thanks Jack... as soon as I have a few hundred lying around I will get myself a copy... until then is it okay to post this and discuss it? B)

Can you paraphrase Armstrong for us? Is this the only mention of the FBI taking ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

David, Day wrote this report on 1-08. No earlier report has ever been uncovered, even though he was supposed to write a daily report on his ongoing investigations. While some would like to pretend his statement that all evidence was sent to the FBI means every little piece, this was clearly not the case. He didn't send the palm print, he didn't send the sniper's nest boxes, he didn't send the molding taken from the window, he didn't send the lunch bag, or the Dr. Pepper bottle, etc... He only sent two of the SN shells, and, if I recall, only one or two of the Tippit shells, and none of the slugs.

But you are correct. It stinks to high heaven that the DPD gave the most important evidence to the FBI, without making an itemized list and getting so much as a receipt. Some of these items--like the paper bag and paper samples--had not even been photographed by the DPD.

The closest thing to an itemized list is the FBI's report on the evidence. This matches more or less the telex sent from the Dallas FBI telling the crime lab what to expect. There are a number of errors in the telex that make me think it's legit, and not something made up later, such as its claiming the blanket found in the Paine's garage was found at the site of the shooting.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Lee, Pat... greatly appreciated...

Pat - why do you think these items were excluded?

Doesn't this one action basically make ALL THE EVIDENCE USELESS in a court of law...? Since we don't know what was taken or returned... and if useless in court... it's basically useless.. period.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper, Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask you if you are familiar with this object?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to determine its origin, possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

Now that I know what to look for... the bag is part of the Nov 26th inventory list given to Drain

Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?

Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----

Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.

Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the negative itself? Can you state of your own knowledge whether the negative itself is of the original?

Mr. CADIGAN. Only, insofar, that I know that on November 23, when the vast bulk of this material came in, that it was photographed. Some of these items I saw before they were photographed, and some afterward. But the exact sequence to select one item out of four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty, say I definitely recall seeing this before it was photographed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what the procedure is when a document came in involving the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23 of 1963 and this consisted of many, many items.

Mr. EISENBERG. 1963?

Mr. CADIGAN. November 23, 1963. It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in. There were several agent examiners available to evaluate this material. There were supervisory officials, there were representatives from our Internal Security Division, all of whom had an interest in this matter, and it was decided they wanted certain items treated for latent fingerprints. The basic rule is always that before an exhibit is treated for latent fingerprints it is photographed, and that is what was done in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Lee, Pat... greatly appreciated...

Pat - why do you think these items were excluded?

Doesn't this one action basically make ALL THE EVIDENCE USELESS in a court of law...? Since we don't know what was taken or returned... and if useless in court... it's basically useless.. period.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper, Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask you if you are familiar with this object?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to determine its origin, possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

Now that I know what to look for... the bag is part of the Nov 26th inventory list given to Drain

Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?

Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----

Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.

Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the negative itself? Can you state of your own knowledge whether the negative itself is of the original?

Mr. CADIGAN. Only, insofar, that I know that on November 23, when the vast bulk of this material came in, that it was photographed. Some of these items I saw before they were photographed, and some afterward. But the exact sequence to select one item out of four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty, say I definitely recall seeing this before it was photographed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what the procedure is when a document came in involving the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23 of 1963 and this consisted of many, many items.

Mr. EISENBERG. 1963?

Mr. CADIGAN. November 23, 1963. It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in. There were several agent examiners available to evaluate this material. There were supervisory officials, there were representatives from our Internal Security Division, all of whom had an interest in this matter, and it was decided they wanted certain items treated for latent fingerprints. The basic rule is always that before an exhibit is treated for latent fingerprints it is photographed, and that is what was done in this case.

First, Armstrong is incorrect to claim the evidence was photographed on the 22nd. No such photos exist. The only evidence photos in the Dallas Archives taken on the 22nd were the photographs of the crime scene, building, rifle and trigger guard. No photos of the bag and boxes. No photos even of the lunch bag.

The photos with all the evidence laid out on the floor were taken on the 26th, as the DPD prepared to send ALL the evidence back to Washington. (They, of course, forgot a few things.)

As far as Cadigan, David, you reminded me...

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

In 1992, a presumably unaltered transcript of the 4-30-64 testimony of FBI paper expert James Cadigan was released by the National Archives. As reported by Jim Marrs, this transcript revealed that, when asked if he knew why an identification card of Oswald's was damaged by silver nitrate, a chemical used to unveil hidden fingerprints, Cadigan responded "I could only speculate...It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent prints are developed they do not desilver it." Well, one can see how the FBI might find this embarrassing. But this was sworn testimony, supposedly taken to create a permanent record of the murder of a president and its aftermath. How can changing Cadigan's rambling answer to "No, this is a latent fingerprint issue", as was done, possibly be justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Lee, Pat... greatly appreciated...

Pat - why do you think these items were excluded?

Doesn't this one action basically make ALL THE EVIDENCE USELESS in a court of law...? Since we don't know what was taken or returned... and if useless in court... it's basically useless.. period.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I hand you an object made of paper, Commission Exhibit 142, also known as Commission Exhibit 626, and ask you if you are familiar with this object?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. And did you examine this object, this paper bag, to determine its origin, possible origin?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you conducted that examination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

I first saw this paper bag on November 23, 1963, in the FBI laboratory, along with the sample of paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository obtained November 22, 1963, which is FBI Exhibit D-1.

Now that I know what to look for... the bag is part of the Nov 26th inventory list given to Drain

Mr. DULLES. Obtained by whom, by the FBI?

Mr. CADIGAN. This was obtained by the Dallas police.

Mr. EISENBERG. And forwarded to you by the Dallas----

Mr. CADIGAN. By the Dallas police through our Dallas office.

Mr. DULLES. It was obtained after the assassination on that date?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes, sir; the night of November 22

Mr. EISENBERG. What about the negative itself? Can you state of your own knowledge whether the negative itself is of the original?

Mr. CADIGAN. Only, insofar, that I know that on November 23, when the vast bulk of this material came in, that it was photographed. Some of these items I saw before they were photographed, and some afterward. But the exact sequence to select one item out of four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty, say I definitely recall seeing this before it was photographed.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain what the procedure is when a document came in involving the assassination?

Mr. CADIGAN. Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought into the laboratory on November 23 of 1963 and this consisted of many, many items.

Mr. EISENBERG. 1963?

Mr. CADIGAN. November 23, 1963. It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought in. There were several agent examiners available to evaluate this material. There were supervisory officials, there were representatives from our Internal Security Division, all of whom had an interest in this matter, and it was decided they wanted certain items treated for latent fingerprints. The basic rule is always that before an exhibit is treated for latent fingerprints it is photographed, and that is what was done in this case.

First, Armstrong is incorrect to claim the evidence was photographed on the 22nd. No such photos exist. The only evidence photos in the Dallas Archives taken on the 22nd were the photographs of the crime scene, building, rifle and trigger guard. No photos of the bag and boxes. No photos even of the lunch bag.

The photos with all the evidence laid out on the floor were taken on the 26th, as the DPD prepared to send ALL the evidence back to Washington. (They, of course, forgot a few things.)

As far as Cadigan, David, you reminded me...

From patspeer.com, chapter 20:

In 1992, a presumably unaltered transcript of the 4-30-64 testimony of FBI paper expert James Cadigan was released by the National Archives. As reported by Jim Marrs, this transcript revealed that, when asked if he knew why an identification card of Oswald's was damaged by silver nitrate, a chemical used to unveil hidden fingerprints, Cadigan responded "I could only speculate...It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent prints are developed they do not desilver it." Well, one can see how the FBI might find this embarrassing. But this was sworn testimony, supposedly taken to create a permanent record of the murder of a president and its aftermath. How can changing Cadigan's rambling answer to "No, this is a latent fingerprint issue", as was done, possibly be justified?

This is false, as I recall. The police photographed all the evidence with a microfilm camera. John has the microfilm. He bought

a microfilm reader specifically to examine the DPD photos. I think this is covered in H&L.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

Armstrong covers this in H&L.

Jack

Thanks Jack... as soon as I have a few hundred lying around I will get myself a copy... until then is it okay to post this and discuss it? B)

Can you paraphrase Armstrong for us? Is this the only mention of the FBI taking ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that night?

I forwarded your posting to John. Here is his reply:

Now, this is from memory as I have not studied my research

materials in over 7 years.

"Oswald's possessions" were gathered, initialed, and dated

by DPD officers from the Paine's and from Beckley. A

handwritten inventory was made of items taken from the

Paine's which, when typed at DPD headquarters, later became

the Stoval A & B Exhibits. Items gathered from Beckley

were listed in the Turner #1 Exhibit.

These items (some 225 items ??) were taken to Washington DC

the evening of the assassination. These items were,

according to James Cadigan, photographed at FBI

headquarters. Some, but not all, of these items were

processed with fingerprint ink. But before FBI lab

technicians had time to "de-silver" the fingerprint ink

these items were returned to Dallas.

When in Dallas the FBI and DPD jointly photographed and

inventoried "Oswald's possessions." However, there were now

455 items of evidence (many more than the original 225 items

sent to FBI headquarters on 11/22).

While visiting the National Archives in the mid-1990's I

was allowed to view these items. I placed the DPD

inventories (225 items) on my left side and the joint

DPD/FBI inventory on my right side. As I examined each item,

in numerical sequence according to the joint DPD/FBI

inventory, I looked for the original handwritten initials

and dates by DPD officers. Each and every item listed on the

Stoval and Turner Exhibits had the initials of one or more

DPD officers and the date (about 225 items) and also the

initials of an FBI official who received these items in

Washington, DC. ALL OF THESE ORIGINAL 225 ITEMS WERE THEN LISTED ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE REMAINING 230 ITEMS LISTED (ITEMS THAT WERE ADDED IN WASHINGTON, DC) ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY HAD INITIALS OF THE DALLAS POLICE. THE ONLY INITIALS THAT APPEAR ON THESE 230 ITEMS WERE THOSE OF FBI OFFICIALS. THEREFORE, ORIGINAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE SHOW THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS; ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THE JOINT FBI/DPD INVENTORY THAT DO NOT HAVE THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS WERE THE ITEMS ADDED TO THE INVENTORY BY THE FBI.

Apparently, someone at the National Archives was bothered

or annoyed by my examination of Oswald's possessions. Now,

researchers are not allowed access to these items. They are

allowed only to view photographs of these items (which in

many cases show only the front view and not the back view

where most of the DPD initials and dates appear).

But the remaining 200 items listed on the joint FBI/DPD

inventory had not been initialed by DPD officers or dated

(only initials by FBI officials in Washington). It was these

items that were "added" to "Oswald's possessions" before

being returned to DPD headquarters. To me one of the most

significant items added were Oswald's w-2 forms allegedly

showing his employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR

Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab in 1955-56. Not a

single one of these items has the initials of DPD

officers--only initials of FBI officials in Washington, DC.

These items were added to help reconstruct the "official"

biographical history for one Lee Harvey Oswald.

After these items were photographed at DPD headquarters

they were taken by the FBI back to Washington, DC. The FBI

promised to give the Dallas Police photographs of the

evidence, which they did but with many photographs missing.

On 12/3/63 DPD Chief Jesse Curry wrote a letter to FBI agent

Gordon Shanklin and said that items (photographs) 164-360

were missing. The FBI responded by saying items 164-360 were

not photographically produced because of "faulty

technique."

A year or two after examining Oswald's possessions I made

my once a year trip to the Archives and asked to examine

some of the items, and was refused. Much to my dismay, I was

given photographs of these items to examine. And then I

asked to see all of the original photographs from the joint

DPD/FBI inventory. As I examined the photographs everything

was normal until I looked at item 164. Beginning with item

164 and continuing thru item 360 each item in the

photographs contained small to large amounts of what

appeared to be fingerprint ink. Then I remembered Cadigan

saying that these items had to be returned to Dallas and

they didn't have time to "de-silver" these items.

Now I understood why the FBI never returned photographs of

items 164-360 to the Dallas Police. These photographs showed

that, when taken by the FBI/DPD in Dallas a few days after

the assassination, these items had already been processed

for fingerprints at FBI headquarters. In other words, these

photographs showed clearly that Oswald's possessions had

been secretly taken to FBI headquarters within hours of the

assassination, examined, tested for fingerprints, and

secretly returned to Dallas. There was no "chain of custody"

and, as we have seen, the opportunity for the FBI to

manipulate any or all items of evidence.

Now, you may find it interesting that Cadigan (document

expert), English (head of Forensic Science Laboratory),

Kaylor (fingerprint expert), Belmont (Hoover's special

assistant to the WC), Nichols (#3 man in the FBI and laison

to the WC) all died in 1977. Sullivan (head of Div 59) died

in 1978.

All documents relating to the above, and in fact all

documents in my JFK collection, have been copied by Baylor

and should already be on-line soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armstrong says the Paine's and Beckley evidence yet Day's report talks of ALL OTHER CSSS evidence.. wouldn't that include items from the TSBD like the rifle and boxes... as well as the Tippit CSSS evidence?

Just curious... will need to find a copy of that book asap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a quick search but did not find what I wanted...

I remember reading that the FBI took all the evidence Friday night - secretly - and then returned it in time to be cataloged as evidence as being turned back over to Drain and the FBI on 11-26.

At the end of his report to Lumpkin Day admits giving all this evidence to Drain... yet I could not find an 11/22 document listing this evidence as given to Drain or any evidence of what was returned....

Is this the smoking gun that shows the FBI had "All Other Evidence", CSSS evidence, at least most of that weekend??

Thanks

DJ

Armstrong covers this in H&L.

Jack

Thanks Jack... as soon as I have a few hundred lying around I will get myself a copy... until then is it okay to post this and discuss it? B)

Can you paraphrase Armstrong for us? Is this the only mention of the FBI taking ALL OTHER EVIDENCE that night?

I forwarded your posting to John. Here is his reply:

Now, this is from memory as I have not studied my research

materials in over 7 years.

"Oswald's possessions" were gathered, initialed, and dated

by DPD officers from the Paine's and from Beckley. A

handwritten inventory was made of items taken from the

Paine's which, when typed at DPD headquarters, later became

the Stoval A & B Exhibits. Items gathered from Beckley

were listed in the Turner #1 Exhibit.

These items (some 225 items ??) were taken to Washington DC

the evening of the assassination. These items were,

according to James Cadigan, photographed at FBI

headquarters. Some, but not all, of these items were

processed with fingerprint ink. But before FBI lab

technicians had time to "de-silver" the fingerprint ink

these items were returned to Dallas.

When in Dallas the FBI and DPD jointly photographed and

inventoried "Oswald's possessions." However, there were now

455 items of evidence (many more than the original 225 items

sent to FBI headquarters on 11/22).

While visiting the National Archives in the mid-1990's I

was allowed to view these items. I placed the DPD

inventories (225 items) on my left side and the joint

DPD/FBI inventory on my right side. As I examined each item,

in numerical sequence according to the joint DPD/FBI

inventory, I looked for the original handwritten initials

and dates by DPD officers. Each and every item listed on the

Stoval and Turner Exhibits had the initials of one or more

DPD officers and the date (about 225 items) and also the

initials of an FBI official who received these items in

Washington, DC. ALL OF THESE ORIGINAL 225 ITEMS WERE THEN LISTED ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY, BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE REMAINING 230 ITEMS LISTED (ITEMS THAT WERE ADDED IN WASHINGTON, DC) ON THE JOINT DPD/FBI INVENTORY HAD INITIALS OF THE DALLAS POLICE. THE ONLY INITIALS THAT APPEAR ON THESE 230 ITEMS WERE THOSE OF FBI OFFICIALS. THEREFORE, ORIGINAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE SHOW THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS; ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THE JOINT FBI/DPD INVENTORY THAT DO NOT HAVE THE INITIALS AND DATES BY DPD OFFICERS WERE THE ITEMS ADDED TO THE INVENTORY BY THE FBI.

Apparently, someone at the National Archives was bothered

or annoyed by my examination of Oswald's possessions. Now,

researchers are not allowed access to these items. They are

allowed only to view photographs of these items (which in

many cases show only the front view and not the back view

where most of the DPD initials and dates appear).

But the remaining 200 items listed on the joint FBI/DPD

inventory had not been initialed by DPD officers or dated

(only initials by FBI officials in Washington). It was these

items that were "added" to "Oswald's possessions" before

being returned to DPD headquarters. To me one of the most

significant items added were Oswald's w-2 forms allegedly

showing his employment at Dolly Shoe, Tujague's, JR

Michaels, and the Pfisterer Dental Lab in 1955-56. Not a

single one of these items has the initials of DPD

officers--only initials of FBI officials in Washington, DC.

These items were added to help reconstruct the "official"

biographical history for one Lee Harvey Oswald.

After these items were photographed at DPD headquarters

they were taken by the FBI back to Washington, DC. The FBI

promised to give the Dallas Police photographs of the

evidence, which they did but with many photographs missing.

On 12/3/63 DPD Chief Jesse Curry wrote a letter to FBI agent

Gordon Shanklin and said that items (photographs) 164-360

were missing. The FBI responded by saying items 164-360 were

not photographically produced because of "faulty

technique."

A year or two after examining Oswald's possessions I made

my once a year trip to the Archives and asked to examine

some of the items, and was refused. Much to my dismay, I was

given photographs of these items to examine. And then I

asked to see all of the original photographs from the joint

DPD/FBI inventory. As I examined the photographs everything

was normal until I looked at item 164. Beginning with item

164 and continuing thru item 360 each item in the

photographs contained small to large amounts of what

appeared to be fingerprint ink. Then I remembered Cadigan

saying that these items had to be returned to Dallas and

they didn't have time to "de-silver" these items.

Now I understood why the FBI never returned photographs of

items 164-360 to the Dallas Police. These photographs showed

that, when taken by the FBI/DPD in Dallas a few days after

the assassination, these items had already been processed

for fingerprints at FBI headquarters. In other words, these

photographs showed clearly that Oswald's possessions had

been secretly taken to FBI headquarters within hours of the

assassination, examined, tested for fingerprints, and

secretly returned to Dallas. There was no "chain of custody"

and, as we have seen, the opportunity for the FBI to

manipulate any or all items of evidence.

Now, you may find it interesting that Cadigan (document

expert), English (head of Forensic Science Laboratory),

Kaylor (fingerprint expert), Belmont (Hoover's special

assistant to the WC), Nichols (#3 man in the FBI and laison

to the WC) all died in 1977. Sullivan (head of Div 59) died

in 1978.

All documents relating to the above, and in fact all

documents in my JFK collection, have been copied by Baylor

and should already be on-line soon.

Well, if Armstrong is right, and Cadigan wasn't confused when he said the evidence was all rushed out on the 22nd, instead of the 26th, it would help explain a thing or two.

When I looked into this a few years back I spotted something which just doesn't fly. All the early documents and reports indicate that the evidence sent out on the 22nd was picked up by FBI agent Vincent Drain between 11:30 and 11:45.

And YET one of the key items sent out--Oswald's shirt--was photographed...ON OSWALD during both the midnight press conference, and the late night booking of Oswald said to have taken place near 1:00 in the morning.

This makes no sense. If Drain picked up the rifle circa 11:45, why would he wait around for the shirt?

He wouldn't. Which makes me suspect the 11:45 pick-up time was a cover story...

Whatsupwiththat.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forwarded your posting to John. Here is his reply:

Now, this is from memory as I have not studied my research

materials in over 7 years.

"Oswald's possessions" were gathered, initialed, and dated

by DPD officers from the Paine's and from Beckley. A

handwritten inventory was made of items taken from the

Paine's which, when typed at DPD headquarters, later became

the Stoval A & B Exhibits. Items gathered from Beckley

were listed in the Turner #1 Exhibit.

These items (some 225 items ??) were taken to Washington DC

the evening of the assassination. These items were,

according to James Cadigan, photographed at FBI

headquarters. Some, but not all, of these items were

processed with fingerprint ink. But before FBI lab

technicians had time to "de-silver" the fingerprint ink

these items were returned to Dallas......

All documents relating to the above, and in fact all

documents in my JFK collection, have been copied by Baylor

and should already be on-line soon.

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISORESTMP=results.php&CISOVIEWTMP=item_viewer.php&CISOMODE=grid&CISOGRID=thumbnail,A,1;title,A,1;titlea,A,1;box,200,1;notebo,A,1;100;tab,none,none,none,none&CISOBIB=title,A,1,N;titlea,A,0,N;box,200,0,N;none,A,0,N;none,A,0,N;20;relevancy,none,none,none,none&CISOTHUMB=20%20(4x5);relevancy,none,none,none,none&CISOTITLE=20;title,none,none,none,none&CISOHIERA=20;titlea,title,none,none,none&CISOSUPPRESS=1&CISOTYPE=link&CISOOP1=all&CISOFIELD1=box&CISOBOX1=04&CISOOP2=all&CISOFIELD2=notebo&CISOBOX2=02&CISOOP3=all&CISOFIELD3=box&CISOBOX3=&CISOOP4=all&CISOFIELD4=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOBOX4=&c=all&CISOROOT=%2F15poage-arm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John is reading this thread and sends the following comments:

Jack,

Mr. Josephs is correct. Of course the items from Beckley and the Paine's were not the only items of evidence, but numerically these items were the vast majority of evidence on hand during the evening of Nov 22/23 and they were sent to Washington, DC without a proper chain of custody. The important issue, in my view, is that the FBI acquired and then manipulated this evidence (and a lot of other evidence in this case--rifle, minox, pistol, Klein's microfilm, etc) and we can now see how this happened.

Researchers first need to understand that the FBI manipulated a lot of evidence in this case. Then when they look at individual items of evidence they only need to determine by whom, where, and when the item was found (initials), where the items was taken (inventory list), and the ultimate disposition of the item (continuous chain of custody in written form). If we (researchers) cannot reliably "track" a particular piece of evidence, then everything around that piece of evidence lacks credibility (example: Money Order allegedly used to purchase the ML rifle).

My point is that all items of evidence should be questioned until properly verified. Every witness interviewed by the FBI should be shown their interview and asked if it is accurate. Warren Commission testimony should be read in an attempt to understand what questions were NOT asked or what testimony was LIMITED to specific questions asked by counsel (example: Klein's VP Waldman was not asked if the money order was deposited to the Klein's bank account). Transcripts of WC testimony should be compared to the written testimony that appears in the Warren Volumes for alterations/changes (example: changes made to James Cadigan's testimony). These people (FBI, WC) were on a mission to convict LHO in the mind of the public. We (researchers) have for many years, and will continue for many years into the future, worked tirelessly to understand and unravel their mischievious conduct. It is done one item at a time.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael... these docs are going to take some time getting thru...

Pat... funny that you mention the shirt... as I go thru the section Michael linked to I found this...

And thank you John thru Jack .... I agree... each individual piece of evidence that cannot be authenticated is useless as evidence against Oswald while becoming another Brick in the Wall against the LNer argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael... these docs are going to take some time getting thru...

Pat... funny that you mention the shirt... as I go thru the section Michael linked to I found this...

And thank you John thru Jack .... I agree... each individual piece of evidence that cannot be authenticated is useless as evidence against Oswald while becoming another Brick in the Wall against the LNer argument...

Ironically, this incomplete list is as close to an initial inventory as one can find. These are the items supposedly boxed up and given to Drain by 11:45. And yet among these items is the shirt Oswald was wearing at the midnight press conference... Wha?

When one reads Drain's account in No More Silence, one possible explanation becomes apparent... Amazingly, when Drain picked up the evidence at 11:45, he had no idea how he was gonna get the stuff back to Washington. Apparently, no one realized no commercial flights left Dallas after midnight. And so, Drain...supposedly on his own...arranged a special flight out of Carswell Air Force base, less than an hour away. This flight didn't leave till after 3 in the morning. The SS agent who accompanied Drain on this flight fills in some of the details. He met Drain at the Dallas FBI office.

This means that, in the official story, the key evidence--including the rifle--was snatched out of the hands of the Dallas police before it could be studied, only to sit around in the Dallas FBI's office for two hours or so, while the FBI figured out what to do with it. Pretty pathetic.

But quite possibly true. If so, then perhaps someone brought the shirt over after the press conference so it could be added to Drain's cache of evidence.

Funny how that part of the story never saw the light of day, though, isn't it?

Particularly in that, in his chapter in No More Silence, Drain told Sneed he'd testified several times before the Warren Commission. Wha? Has anybody seen this testimony?

I haven't. While Drain, as the sole custodian of the evidence against Oswald for most of its first 48 hours, should have been called, his testimony, if it was indeed taken, has never surfaced.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...