Jump to content
The Education Forum

Question: How valid are Barry Krusch's assertions about spent shells?

Recommended Posts

My hat goes off to Barry Krusch -- for actually being able to persuade someone at the Natl. Archives to photograph the 3 Sniper's Nest bullet shells for him [see above video].

Can just any Tom, Dick, or Barry pull that off and have the NA do something like that? That seems quite amazing to me.

Anyway, from those recent pictures [seen in Barry's YouTube video], those shells look to be in mighty bad shape (i.e., rusty looking and all scratched to hell). I'm wondering also if some of the initials which are certainly on those shells just might be located on the INSIDE lip of each shell--much the same way some of the initials are located on the 4 Tippit murder shells (see Dale Myers' "With Malice", beginning on page 262 for photos of those)?

Granted, the rifle shells look a bit narrow at the top, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of room to squeeze some writing on the inside--but I felt it worth mentioning.

Plus, I'm wondering if the deterioration of the shells (which is quite obvious in Barry's NA pics) might be a reason for not being able to make out the markings which most certainly MUST be there.

Do CTers think the cops went around switching evidence and then were just too damn lazy to scratch some letters into the "fake" shells? But most of the officers went ahead and testified anyway that they DID put their initials on those shells? Talk about dumb! Or lazy! That must take the cake.

And that same argument applies to CE399 and Elmer Todd's initials too. Most CTers think Todd's initials are not on CE399 at all, even though Todd wrote up a report on 11/22/63 stating both he and Bob Frazier scratched their initials into the "nose of the bullet" on the night of Nov. 22 at the FBI lab.

It's a "fake" bullet, per the CTers, but the goofs at the FBI couldn't manage to put their proper markings on it--even though they said they did? Crazy. Todd's initials are on that bullet as sure as anything. And I think all the proper markings are SOMEWHERE on those three SN shells too.

To believe otherwise is to believe is mass fakery of the evidence in a Presidential murder case (which I do not believe for a second). And, as mentioned, we'd also have to believe that the FBI and/or DPD were the biggest boobs to ever come down Elm Street with a fake bullet shell -- by not simply scratching some initials into the "fake" shells when they easily could have done so in order to firm up that chain of custody they would certainly want those fake shells to have.


This is from J.C. Day's affidavit about the shells (dated June 23, 1964)---

"Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day.

The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.

I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963."

/s/ J.C. Day; 6/23/64


David Von Pein

October 20-21, 2013

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video maintains Oswald’s fingerprint in on bullet casing.


Jim Marrs in a recent interview declared that an FBI agent pressed Oswald’s hand against the rifle.


Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is no one responding to the video about the thumb print. I do not know how many points of contact (I believe that is the proper terminology) it takes to confirm a true identification, but it looks convincing to me.

Edited by Terry Adams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald's thumbprint on a bullet casing found at the TSBD wouldn't be too surprising, and does nothing to disprove Krusch's allegation that Oswald was framed. David makes a good point though when he points out that it makes little sense to be sloppy when planting evidence, since it would have been simple enough to make sure the planted evidence was marked appropriately. But the Dallas police certainly were sloppy when it came to handling just about everything in this case. Just consider how sure they were originally that the rifle recovered on the 6th floor was a Mauser. I am hoping others weigh in on this evidence, which to me is new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lt. Carl Day of the DPD said this:

"I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints."

with the over abundance of classic evidentiary screw-ups (documented) by the 1964 Dallas Police Department, might you have a wee-cite for the above alleged quote?

Say did Day head for that mortuary that did the job on Oswald, rifle and supposedly shell casings in hand? Ya just can't trust that 1964 DPD with anything... so many rumors, innuendo not to mention malfesence plus stupidity. The FBI can't find it.... but DPD Day can. Give me, us a break!

Yes, a cite would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FBI can't find it.... but DPD Day can.

So now we've got an interesting situation involving Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD:

He lifted Oswald's palmprint (CE637) off of the rifle (on 11/22/63, two days before Oswald was ever in the Dallas city morgue) -- but no conspiracy theorist believes that Lt. Day lifted any print off of the gun.

And now some super sleuth examining pictures of the very rusty and deteriorated bullet shell casings claims that Oswald's right palmprint is on one of the shells -- but Lt. Day said he "did not find fingerprints" on any of the three shells.

So, Day found something that CTers positively say WASN'T there at all. But he didn't find a print that WAS there?

I find this quite humorous.

Yes, a cite would be nice.

4 H 253 -----> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0131a.htm

There is also this from Lieutenant Day [at 4 H 257].....

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Could you tell us what exactly you did in testing those hulls for fingerprints?"

LT. J.C. DAY -- "I used fingerprint powder, dusted them with the powder, a dark powder.

No legible prints were found."

Edited by David Von Pein
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
  • Create New...