David Josephs Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Bob... Thought you might find this interesting and maybe help us less informed about guns and ammo people if this means anything ... Seems the only two places in the Dallas-Irving area to get 6.5mm MC ammo was one of 2 places including Masens Gun shop. The report below states that the ammo provided by Masen matched the cartridges found on the 6th floor... yet they were loaded with soft point ammo, not FMJ ammo. Any significance to this? https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11176&relPageId=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 David: No real significance here unless, of course, one could "prove" that the assassin purchased 6.5mm WCC MC ammo from Masen and used it in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. While this type of SP bullet could have produced fragmentation after-effects as witnessed on the JFK autopsy skull/head x-rays, if one believes that this SP bullet/ammunition was used in the commission of this crime, and CE399 was a part of this same crime, one would have to account for an assassin [or assassin's?] utilizing multiple yet "different" types of 6.5mm WCC MC bullets. What this document and others produced by the FBI lab on this specific issue indicates is that Masen pulled some of the bullets originally affixed to the cartridge during their manufacture by Western and replaced them with SP - soft-point "hunting" type bullets. In fact, one of the documents generated by the FBI even speculates as to what type of instrument Masen used in removing the original bullets that he did when he acquired his lots of ammo. And Western did not load any of the 4 million plus rounds of 6.5mm MC ammo that they produced with SP bullets. Gary Murr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) David: No real significance here unless, of course, one could "prove" that the assassin purchased 6.5mm WCC MC ammo from Masen and used it in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. While this type of SP bullet could have produced fragmentation after-effects as witnessed on the JFK autopsy skull/head x-rays, if one believes that this SP bullet/ammunition was used in the commission of this crime, and CE399 was a part of this same crime, one would have to account for an assassin [or assassin's?] utilizing multiple yet "different" types of 6.5mm WCC MC bullets. What this document and others produced by the FBI lab on this specific issue indicates is that Masen pulled some of the bullets originally affixed to the cartridge during their manufacture by Western and replaced them with SP - soft-point "hunting" type bullets. In fact, one of the documents generated by the FBI even speculates as to what type of instrument Masen used in removing the original bullets that he did when he acquired his lots of ammo. And Western did not load any of the 4 million plus rounds of 6.5mm MC ammo that they produced with SP bullets. Gary Murr Similar to the revolver allegedly used in Tippit's murder?... Edited February 19, 2015 by Ian Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The difference in the Tippit murder being, Ian, that in that instance the shell casings found at the scene were of two different manufacturer's - Remington/Peters [2] and Western/WCC [2]. In the instance of the potential in this thread, applicable to 6.5mm WCC MC ammunition we are talking about a singular manufacturer only - the Western Cartridge Company - with two "different" bullets - SP and "regular" as loaded by Western in 1954. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Thanks Gary. IMO CE399 was sitting in Rowley's desk and handed to Johnson in place of the bullet shown/given to him by Elmer Todd. It only comes into existence at this point in time and there is no proof it was ever in Dallas. I also agree that the ammo had come from that CIA order and not locally... yet that completely discounts other shooters and sabots... that completely silent .45 caliber rifle from WWII is frighteningly quiet and very accurate to 200 yards.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 And of course, David, there is the last statement attributed to Elmer Todd in CE 2011 - that he, and he alone among those identified in this particular report/CE was able to identify C1 [399] as the bullet he received from Rowley based, it is further stated, upon "initials marked" on this same piece of ballistics evidence. As John Hunt long ago showed, and I personally can confirm, having handled CE 399, Elmer Todd's initials are not on C1. I might also indicate to you that my extensive research on the true history of WCC 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition clearly indicates that the CIA were not responsible for initially "ordering" any of this ammunition from Western, a "speculation" initiated by FBI Lab Night Shift Supervisor, Jay Cochran, a speculation, in turn, that as far as I have been able to ascertain has absolutely no basis in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 IMO CE399 was sitting in Rowley's desk and handed to Johnson in place of the bullet shown/given to him by Elmer Todd. Hello David, I'm confused. The passing of CE399 was in this order: Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson, Chief James Rowley, SA Elmer Todd. Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson and Chief James Rowley stated that CE399 was NOT the bullet they received. So, presumably, each of these fellows was given the actual bullet found on the stretcher. SA Todd states that CE399 *IS* the bullet he received from Chief Rowley because this bullet has his (Todd's) initials on it. With this information it is clear that only Rowley could have substituted an MC 6.5mm bullet for the actual bullet found on the stretcher. Is this correct? You say that Rowley passed the substitute bullet on to Johnson. Did you mean to say Rowley passed it to Todd? Or am I missing something here? No surprise if I am... Thanks, Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Gary Murr, on 21 Feb 2015 - 8:26 PM, said: And of course, David, there is the last statement attributed to Elmer Todd in CE 2011 - that he, and he alone among those identified in this particular report/CE was able to identify C1 [399] as the bullet he received from Rowley based, it is further stated, upon "initials marked" on this same piece of ballistics evidence. As John Hunt long ago showed, and I personally can confirm, having handled CE 399, Elmer Todd's initials are not on C1. Hello Gary, Do you think the above indicates that Todd lied when he identified the bullet given him by Rowley and his initials were NOT on it at that time? Or do you think that Todd's initials WERE on the bullet at that time, and a different MC 6.5 was later substituted that did NOT have Todd's initials on it, but WAS fired from "LHO's" rifle so the two could be ballistically linked? Tom Edited February 22, 2015 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) IMO CE399 was sitting in Rowley's desk and handed to Johnson in place of the bullet shown/given to him by Elmer Todd. Hello David, I'm confused. The passing of CE399 was in this order: Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson, Chief James Rowley, SA Elmer Todd. Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson and Chief James Rowley stated that CE399 was NOT the bullet they received. So, presumably, each of these fellows was given the actual bullet found on the stretcher. SA Todd states that CE399 *IS* the bullet he received from Chief Rowley because this bullet has his (Todd's) initials on it. With this information it is clear that only Rowley could have substituted an MC 6.5mm bullet for the actual bullet found on the stretcher. Is this correct? You say that Rowley passed the substitute bullet on to Johnson. Did you mean to say Rowley passed it to Todd? Or am I missing something here? No surprise if I am... Thanks, Tom That's quite a chain of custody. I wonder how that would have stood up in a court of law. Probably wouldn't even have been introduced as evidence. Going from memory here, but wasn't there a connection between O.P. Wright and the Abundant Life Church in Oak Cliff, where the police thought for a few minutes the assassin might be hiding, or am I getting this all mixed up? --Tommy Edited February 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Tom Neal: From your post #8 herein and in answer to the questions you posed of me. One has to assume that Elmer Todd, not a member of the main FBI Lab in Washington, would not have had an implement in his possession with which to mark his "initials" on the bullet at the time it was theoretically given to him by SS Chief, James Rowley. If this assumption on my part is true, then Todd would have had to have put his initials on this bullet at some point in time after acquisition of this bullet and after acquiring the implement necessary to etch his initials into the surface of the bullet, one would assume after arriving at the FBI Lab with this same bullet. However, as stated previously, Todd's initials are not onC1/CE399, while the initials of others in the employ of the FBI Lab who did examine the exhibit in question - i.e. Robert Frazier et al - are on this same bullet/exhibit. My conclusion from all of this would be that Todd received a bullet from Rowley, took it to the FBI Lab in Washington, but never put his initials on this same bullet. There are those who will contend that Todd did mark the bullet in question and with the passage of time his initials have somehow disappeared - a theoretical nuance that is ridiculous to the extreme. As far as substitution of a bullet in an effort to buttress/further frame an emerging case being built against the alleged accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, when would this substitution have taken place, and where? And when would this same bullet have been fired from "Oswald's" rifle? Not only fired, but distorted/flattened along the axis as it approaches the base of the bullet. Just asking... Gary Murr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Tom Neal: From your post #8 herein and in answer to the questions you posed of me. One has to assume that Elmer Todd, not a member of the main FBI Lab in Washington, would not have had an implement in his possession with which to mark his "initials" on the bullet at the time it was theoretically given to him by SS Chief, James Rowley. If this assumption on my part is true, then Todd would have had to have put his initials on this bullet at some point in time after acquisition of this bullet and after acquiring the implement necessary to etch his initials into the surface of the bullet, one would assume after arriving at the FBI Lab with this same bullet. However, as stated previously, Todd's initials are not onC1/CE399, while the initials of others in the employ of the FBI Lab who did examine the exhibit in question - i.e. Robert Frazier et al - are on this same bullet/exhibit. My conclusion from all of this would be that Todd received a bullet from Rowley, took it to the FBI Lab in Washington, but never put his initials on this same bullet. There are those who will contend that Todd did mark the bullet in question and with the passage of time his initials have somehow disappeared - a theoretical nuance that is ridiculous to the extreme. As far as substitution of a bullet in an effort to buttress/further frame an emerging case being built against the alleged accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, when would this substitution have taken place, and where? And when would this same bullet have been fired from "Oswald's" rifle? Not only fired, but distorted/flattened along the axis as it approaches the base of the bullet. Just asking... Gary Murr Gary Murr, Could it have been done with a common jackknife? Maybe Mr. Todd didn't even have a common pocket knife or jackknife and didn't know anyone he could borrow one from. Thank you, --Tommy Edited February 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hi Tommy: While I assume one could not completely rule out your hypothetical thought of marking a piece of evidence with the tip of a "common pocket knife or jack-knife", I believe in this instance one would be hard-pressed to do so accurately, particularly on this, the surface of a metal-jacketed military style round of ammunition. The implement of choice in marking evidence of this nature [as well as other types of evidence] utilized by members of the FBI Lab, and for that matter individuals such as Lt. J. C. Day and members of the DPD - Crime Unit, was a diamond point pencil. If you view good high resolution images of C1/CE399 you can see the initials of FBI Lab employees Robert Frazier, ["RF"], Charles Killion ["CK"], and Cortland Cunningham ["JH"], all of which are etched near the "front"/rounded end of the bullet. This surface obviously is not flat and presents its own set of difficulties when one attempts to mark one's initials on this somewhat smooth/rounded surface. And regardless of what one may read, or have read elsewhere, there are no other initials on the surface of C1/CE399, in particular those of Elmer Todd. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Hi Tommy: While I assume one could not completely rule out your hypothetical thought of marking a piece of evidence with the tip of a "common pocket knife or jack-knife", I believe in this instance one would be hard-pressed to do so accurately, particularly on this, the surface of a metal-jacketed military style round of ammunition. The implement of choice in marking evidence of this nature [as well as other types of evidence] utilized by members of the FBI Lab, and for that matter individuals such as Lt. J. C. Day and members of the DPD - Crime Unit, was a diamond point pencil. If you view good high resolution images of C1/CE399 you can see the initials of FBI Lab employees Robert Frazier, ["RF"], Charles Killion ["CK"], and Cortland Cunningham ["JH"], all of which are etched near the "front"/rounded end of the bullet. This surface obviously is not flat and presents its own set of difficulties when one attempts to mark one's initials on this somewhat smooth/rounded surface. And regardless of what one may read, or have read elsewhere, there are no other initials on the surface of C1/CE399, in particular those of Elmer Todd. Gary Thanks, Gary, for explaining that to me, and in such great detail! BTW -- Has anyone ever told you that you're an excellent writer? Well, you are. Keep up the good work. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 IMO CE399 was sitting in Rowley's desk and handed to Johnson in place of the bullet shown/given to him by Elmer Todd. Hello David, I'm confused. The passing of CE399 was in this order: Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson, Chief James Rowley, SA Elmer Todd. Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson and Chief James Rowley stated that CE399 was NOT the bullet they received. So, presumably, each of these fellows was given the actual bullet found on the stretcher. SA Todd states that CE399 *IS* the bullet he received from Chief Rowley because this bullet has his (Todd's) initials on it. With this information it is clear that only Rowley could have substituted an MC 6.5mm bullet for the actual bullet found on the stretcher. Is this correct? You say that Rowley passed the substitute bullet on to Johnson. Did you mean to say Rowley passed it to Todd? Or am I missing something here? No surprise if I am... Thanks, Tom Johnson hands Rowley a bullet that ROWLEY does not associate with CE399 Rowley hands Todd a bullet that TODD says is CE399, the bullet in evidence. No one prior to Johnson can authenticate the bullet as the one taken from Parkland. The bullet has all the signs of being fired into cotton or water Let's try to remember that this was a frame-up. The MC was not fired in Dallas that day and none of the SS/FBI/CIA evidence is worth a pound of Sh!t... related to the assassination. and the WC lawyers knew it and expressed so in Redlich to Rankin's letter of April 27, 1964 "I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Actually David this sentence you have taken from the lengthy Redlich-to-Rankin letter/memorandum of April 27, 1964 relates to a singular issue - a plea by a select coterie of Warren Commission lawyers, namely Redlich, Specter, Belin, and Eisenberg, to hold their own assassination reconstruction in Dealey Plaza. And why? Because "the facts which we now have in our possession" are the results of the "separate reports" - read reconstructions - already completed, and on more than one occasion, by members of the FBI and the SS. And what was it about these same reconstructions that this group of lawyers felt was so "totally incorrect" and in turn leading to "a completely misleading picture"? The fact that both members of the FBI and the SS involved in these same reconstructions felt that only three shots were fired and that all three shots "hit" their mark. Of course belief in this three-shot-three-hit scenario runs anathema to the single bullet theory, something that the Commission lawyers just cannot accept as being "true." Not only that, but these same reconstructions also disagree [a] among themselves - the SS and the FBI - as to where these three impacts occur, and these same impact points chosen also disagree with the eventual Commission lawyers impact point reconstruct of a three shot scenario. That, in essence, is what another current lengthy thread under discussion here on the Forum involving Chris, Bob Prudhomme, and others is really all about - an attempt to first understand the impacts chosen by members of the FBI and SS in their reconstructions and why these same points were chosen. Acceptance of any FBI or SS reconstructions generated prior to the construct of the Commission lawyer staff "official" version as represented by the SBT was akin to taking poison. In truth, the SBT was not the brainchild of Arlen Specter; rather, it was generated by Norman Redlich, though both Specter and Belin would turn out to be the most vocal proponents in defense of this, the indefensible. My study of the surviving record would seem to indicate that the bulk of what was to eventually transpire in Dealey Plaza over the weekend of May 24, 1964, the Commission staff generated and controlled reconstruction - was actually put together over the weekend of March 16, 1964 and the driving force behind this was Melvin Eisenberg. I would also agree to disagree with your blanket statement that "none of the SS/FBI/CIA evidence is worth...xxxx" as it relates to the assassination and that the WC lawyers in turn knew this to be true. I actually think that there were many in the employ of the FBI and the SS who never accepted or believed in the SBT, as there were countless others, including John Connally and many learned individuals involved in all things medical and the assassination event who also did not believe in the SBT and never would. These opinions were of course rejected by lawyers on the Commission staff, hell-bent on pursuing and eventually selling their version of the history of November 22, 1963. FWIW Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now