Jump to content
The Education Forum

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report


Recommended Posts

"Check out the testimony of the FBI firearms guys---Frazier, Cunningham, and Killion (plus Nicol from Illinois). They all confirm the shells were fired in and ejected from Rifle C2766."

I just love it when DVP starts referring to the FBI "experts" above. The one I love lampooning the most is FBI SA Robert A. Frazier, the so called firearms expert who tested C2766 and testified to the WC about what he found. What amazed me the most is that in 50 years, virtually no one apart from myself read his testimony and spotted the glaring errors in his work. This guy, believe me, was either totally inept at his job, or lying through his teeth.

Ken & Glenn, just for you guys, I have resurrected an old thread of mine to the first page. It is titled "The most Important Error the FBI told the Warren Commission about the Rifle". Read it, enjoy it and, should you have any questions, by all means, don't be afraid to ask. And remember, everything I am using in that thread is the FBI's evidence to the WC. Nothing more fun than feeding their own garbage back to them. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kenneth,

Do you think you're fooling anybody with this incessant "You Have No Evidence Or Facts" act of yours? It's embarrassing for you. Maybe it's time to stop playing that game. Ya think?

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

Kenneth,

Do you think you're fooling anybody with this incessant "You Have No Evidence Or Facts" act of yours? It's embarrassing for you. Maybe it's time to stop playing that game. Ya think?

Do I think I'm fooling anyone? It's you that apparently doesn't know what a fact is and still are unable to link to one fact. Embarrassing to who?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.).....

Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210).

Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree?

And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun?

This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc.

I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

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

Kenneth,

Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.).....

Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210).

Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree?

And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun?

This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc.

I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

you not only drank lone nut Kool-Aid you're filling your swimming pool with the smelly stuff ... fact this, fact that... yet you buy the 1964 WCR? Lies, exaggerations, falsehoods... Palmprint, magic bullet? Ya need help Peinski... CT's are here to serve you, but, you're nearing the abyss... Since old Vince passed away you haven't been the same, dood!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth,

Let me try a little "Fact" test on you here. (I want to see if you're as predictable as I think you are.).....

Regarding the four spent bullet shells that were found near the Tippit murder scene, the following testimony exists in the record at 3 H 466, in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Cortlandt Cunningham....

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us your conclusion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

And CE143 is the revolver that was in Oswald's hands when he was arrested (the S&W .38, Serial No. V510210).

Now, Ken, when I therefore say that it's an established FACT that Oswald's revolver was the weapon that killed J.D. Tippit, do you disagree?

And do you dispute the FACT, as established by Cunningham's testimony, that the Tippit shells came out of Oswald's own gun?

This same kind of "fact test" can be done with many other pieces of evidence too, of course. E.G., the TSBD bullet shells, verification of Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle, the front-seat limo fragments, CE399, Oswald's palmprint on the rifle, the paper bag with LHO's prints on it, the verification of the authenticity of the Backyard Photos, the verification that Oswald was in Mexico City via multiple documents with Oswald's signature and/or picture on them, verification of the authenticity of the autopsy photos, etc.

I'm just wondering how many "Facts" you're willing to ignore (or deem as "fake")?

Well Davey, it all depends on what you choose to believe:

"When a homicide occurs, it is standard operating procedure for the police homicide division to send off the bullets and cartridges to the F.B.I. Iaboratory in Washington, D.C. for study and possible identi- fication of the gun that fired them. In this case, the Dallas homicide unit, understandably shy about advertising the coroner's discovery, sent only one bullet to the F.B.I. Iab, informing the Bureau that this was the only bullet found in Tippit's body.

To everyone's surprise, the Bureau lab found that the bullet did not match Oswald's revolver. When it discovered this oddity, the Warren Commission was inspired to look for other bullets that might match up better. Although the Commission never received a copy of Tippit's autopsy report, somehow it found out that four bullets rather than merely one had been found in Tippit's body. The ordinarily incurious Commission asked the F.B.I. to inquire about the three missing bullets, and they were found after four months gathering dust in the files of the Dallas homicide division.

These bullets were sent to the F.B.I. Iab. But Special Agent Courtlandt Cunningham, the ballistics expert from the lab, testified before the Commission that the lab was unable to conclude that any of the four bullets found in Tippit's body had been fired by the revolver taken from Lee Oswald

The cartridges allegedly found at the scene proved even more problematic. While the bullets had initially been under the control of the coroner who found them in Tippit's body, the cartridges, the metal casings which provide propulsion power to the bullets, were Dallas homicide's responsibility from the outset.

On the very day of Officer Tippit's murder, Dallas homicide had made a summary of all the evidence it had in the case, a most important standard police procedure. Although a number of witnesses mentioned that they had seen cartridges strewn around after the shooting and the early recorded radio messages had described the murder weapon as an automatic because of the ejector marks on cartridges found at the scene, this summary did not include cartridges of any kind.

It was not until six days after it had sent the single bullet to the F.B.I. Iab in Washington that the Dallas homicide division finally added four cartridges allegedly found at the scene to the Tippit evidence summary. The cartridges were then sent off to Washington, and the Bureau lab promptly reported back that they indeed had been fired by the same revolver that Oswald allegedly purchased through the mail under the alias of A. Hidell.

The Dallas police force may have been relieved to hear this result, but to me the late appearance of the cartridges only focused more attention on the Dallas homicide unit's unconscionable manipulation of evidence. I knew that if the cartridges had actually been fired by Oswald before his arrest, they routinely would have been included in the summary of evidence and sent off to the F. B.l. Iab on the evening of the murder. But these cartridges were not sent until well *after* Dallas homicide had learned that the lab could not find positive markings from Oswald's gun on the single bullet. (This evaluation would have come from the Washington lab to the Dallas Bureau office by telex within 24 hours.)

It seemed clear to me what had happened. Having failed to get a positive identification with Oswald's revolver from the bullet, Dallas homicide was not about to send off cartridges with an automatic hand gun's ejector marks on them, even if these were the actual cartridges found at the scene. Instead, someone in the homicide division or cooperating with it had fired the confiscated revolver *after* Oswald's arrest, thereby obtaining the needed cartridges bearing its imprint. Then those cartridges were sent to Washington."

"However, competence was not the Dallas homicide unit's strong suit, even in fabricating evidence. The F.B.I. Iab found that *two* of the cartridge cases had been manufactured by Western and *two* by Remington. Since the lab had already concluded that *three* of the bullets found in Tippit's body were copper-coated Westerns and *one* was a lead Remington, these numbers simply did not add up.

Worse yet, at the Warren Commission hearings it became embarrassingly apparent that the used cartridges that the Dallas homicide team had sent to the F. B.l. Iab were not the cartridges actually found at the scene of Tippit's murder. One witness, Domingo Benavides, found two used cartridge shells not far from the shooting and handed them to Officer J.M. Poe. Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill instructed Poe to mark them i.e., to scratch his initials on them in order to maintain the chain of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for all homicide officers everywhere.

Poe informed the Warren Commission that he believed he had marked them, but he could not swear to it. At the Commission hearing Poe examined four cartridges that were shown to him but was unable to identify his marks on them. Sergeant W.E. Barnes informed the Commission that he had received two cartridges from Officer Poe back at police headquarters and had added his own initials to them. However, he too was unable to positively identify the two shells. "

Want to read more: http://scribblguy.50megs.com/tippit.htm

Now I'm not 'real' sure, but seems as if there might just be a little bitty 'chain of custody' problem, which means your evidence never gets into the courtroom. Other than that? Next.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm not 'real' sure, but seems as if there might just be a little bitty 'chain of custody' problem, which means your evidence never gets into the courtroom.

Think again.....

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's also this from Vince....

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Letter from Vincent Bugliosi to David Von Pein; August 22, 2009

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

Now I'm not 'real' sure, but seems as if there might just be a little bitty 'chain of custody' problem, which means your evidence never gets into the courtroom.

Think again.....

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's also this from Vince....

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Letter from Vincent Bugliosi to David Von Pein; August 22, 2009

Since two police officers testified that they had put their marks on the shell casings recovered at the scene and since neither of their marks were on the shell casings being used, they could not identify the casings as being the ones recovered at the scene. You really think a jury would 'overlook' that little detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm not 'real' sure, but seems as if there might just be a little bitty 'chain of custody' problem, which means your evidence never gets into the courtroom.

Think again.....

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's also this from Vince....

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Letter from Vincent Bugliosi to David Von Pein; August 22, 2009

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. And that would be where the bug man ran into trouble. If the 'actual' cartridge shells recovered at the scene were admitted, that alone would clear LHO as he had no weapon that made ejector marks on the shells and none of the shells were expanded as LHO revolver were shown to do. And especially when the bullets recovered from JDTs body were not a match for the cartridge casings that were produced as evidence. Yep, I say admit that evidence so the Jury will have a much easier time with their Not guilty verdict.

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to post
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...