Tippit Ballistics

[Bill Brown]

Ballistic testing can determine whether or not an empty shell casing was fired from a specific weapon to the exclusion of every other weapon in the entire world.  Before shooting, the shell casing is placed against the breech face and the firing pin.  When the pin strikes the primer, the bullet is fired off and the shell casing is thrust against the breech face of the weapon.  This causes a permanent mark on the base of the empty shell, i.e. the distinctive fine lines etched onto the breech face put their "fingerprint" on the base of the empty shell.

Joseph Nicol (Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois) along with Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert Frazier and Charles Killion (of the Firearms Identification Unit of the FBI Laboratory in Washington D.C.) each examined the shells found at the Tippit scene and Oswald's revolver, which he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc.  Each of these experts determined that the shells were linked (through ballistics) to Oswald's revolver, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

you should read up on the latest science on ballistics. Since the 2009 National Academy Sciences study, the accuracy of toolmarks evidence has been called into question. Indeed, recent black box studies have shown that toolmark examiners accuracy is no better than flipping a coin. the so-called science behind toolmarks is now viewed as "junk science". The kind of testimony used to link the shells to the revolver would no longer be admissible in court. Examiners are now required to state the likelihood that there is a match and the error rate.  

There were also ballistics problems with the shells. Tippit bullets, the FBI, and the panel test-fired bullets all showed variations in their individual identifying characteristics because the revolver had been altered; changes included the shortening of the barrel and the modification of the chamber to accommodate .38 special caliber cartridge. The variations were due from firing under-sized bullets in a barrel. So we had three different expert examinations of the firearms evidence that led to three different, but contradictory, conclusions.  

The foregoing does not mean that LHO did not shoot Tippit. it just means that one needs other evidence than ballistics. 

[David Von Pein]

42 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

The foregoing does not mean that LHO did not shoot Tippit. It just means that one needs other evidence than ballistics. 

And we do, indeed, possess just that in the Tippit case.

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course) ---

1.) Ballistics (firearms) proof. (Via the 4 bullet shells that Oswald was kind enough to scatter on the Davis girls' lawn, coupled with the additional hunk of kindness exhibited by Oswald on Nov. 22---that being: hanging on to the gun for 35 more minutes after ejecting those four shells on Tenth Street, so that Oswald could be caught carrying what various firearms experts proved was the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands at the time he was arrested in the Texas Theater.)

2.) Positive identification from multiple eyewitnesses who either saw Oswald kill J.D. Tippit or saw Oswald fleeing the area of 10th & Patton with a gun in his hand.

The above combination of evidence provides rock-solid proof of the guilt of the killer (Oswald).

It is not logical, therefore, when faced with the above combination of evidence, to conclude that Lee Oswald was not  the murderer of J.D. Tippit.

Edited July 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

I posted this nearly a year ago but it seems relevant here again.

TIPPIT BALLISTICS

In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he marked. 

The observation above (which is from me) is true and startling, but has been so little noticed that, for example, awareness of this lacuna in published evidence is not even mentioned in the usually scrupulous Myers, With Malice (and the same comment is applicable to other published studies). 

The FBI lab found that the evidence shells turned over to the FBI labeled as the shells found at the Tippit crime scene—Q74, Q75, Q76, Q77—had been fired from Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon (3H466). This is the linchpin of the case against Oswald. The problem with this is there is no clear evidence those shells were the ones found at the Tippit crime scene. 

There are officers testifying to the Warren Commission that they marked shells at the scene (without identifying their mark on evidence shells shown to them). There is an unsigned FBI report to the Warren Commission stating that three Dallas Police officers confirmed to an FBI agent identification of their marks on evidence shells to that FBI agent (but there is no signed document or testimony or known report from that FBI agent reporting that, nor signed document or testimony from any of those three Dallas Police officers saying that directly). There is an officer testifying under oath that he had been shown the four evidence shells earlier (not while under oath), and on that occasion he had identified two shells that he had marked (but without stating an identification of his mark on an evidence shell in present time in that testimony). (He testified under oath that he had formerly said something, but not that what he had said was accurate.) All of this can be found in the Warren Commission testimony. 

But there is no instance of any of the five Dallas police officers who marked the four shells found at the scene prior to turning them into the Crime Lab for safekeeping, under oath in testimony to the Warren Commission, or in sworn written statement, or in any other setting under oath, having been shown any of the evidence shells, identified their mark on it, and identified that shell on the basis of their mark, as the same shell they had received and marked at the scene of the crime. 

It is such an odd lacuna, so easily missed—and it is systematic across the board, applying to all five officers and all four of the shells found at the Tippit crime scene. 

But the other claims—thirdhand statements from other than the marking officers themselves—that those officers identified their marks on the evidence shells read so smoothly that the truth of the short statement at the top of this section—almost as if by some sleight of hand—is not "seen". 

To cut to the chase

The theory of the case developed here is that there were three corruptions in the Dallas Police Department handling of the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case.

(1) The Dallas Police Department did not hand over to the FBI but withheld three of four bullets taken from Tippit's body, after being instructed to hand over all physical evidence in their possession and stating that they had done so.

(2) The four ejected .38 Special shells found at the scene of the crime from the killer's revolver and marked by officers were replaced, sometime between Sat Nov 23 and Tue Nov 26, by person or persons within the Dallas Police Crime Lab, by four substituted shells fired from Oswald's revolver. Marks were scratched on the substitute shells attempting to imitate, not entirely successfully, the officers' marks on the original shells. Following this, the newly-marked shells fired from Oswald’s revolver were handed over to the FBI on Thu Nov 28 to examine whether they were fired from Oswald’s revolver, in order to find out whether Oswald was guilty.

(3) Three live .38 Special cartridges of Winchester-Western manufacture of six taken from Oswald's revolver were replaced by three of the same kind of Remington-Peters manufacture. 

In this reconstruction there were no substitutions in the four body bullets of Tippit, the revolver of Oswald, or the five shells found by officers Boyd and Sims in Oswald's pants pocket. There was no planting of shells at the scene. There was no corruption in the FBI lab with respect to these items. The FBI lab reported accurately on the basis of what they received. There was no intent to be dishonest or willingness to lie under oath with respect to these items on the part of the five officers who originally scratched their marks on those shells.

This is not an argument merely over whether evidence would have held up in court or justified a legal conviction of Oswald. This is an argument that Oswald was actually innocent of the Tippit killing; that whatever else Oswald may or may not have done he did not kill officer Tippit, and on that specific charge he should be exonerated.

Method

One way to test theories is to ask: on the assumption that this theory were true, what would one expect to happen, if so?

If, for example, the theory of the case to be developed here is correct, one might expect to see in the known evidence and testimony:

• Officers noticing otherwise-unidentified marks on the shells which may resemble their own but which look different from their own, causing some confusion or uncertainty in identifications of their marks.
• Officers when asked prior to their testimony if they were prepared to make a positive identification of their mark on a shell expressing reluctance to do so under oath, and responsive to this, if called to testify are not questioned on that point.
• One way of dealing with an inability to obtain direct testimony under oath from officers identifying their marks on shells would be to "conceal" that by workarounds.

On the other hand, if the four shells handed over by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI were the same four shells found at the scene of the crime—a straightforward, clean handling and conveyance of those four shells—one might expect:

• Officers who marked those shells, in their testimony before the Warren Commission would be shown a shell, asked if they could identify their mark on the shell, and then asked if they could identify the shell as the one they had marked, stated clearly under oath, as part of the vast quantity of other Warren Commission testimony.
• Officers who marked those shells would normally be expected to be able to find and identify their own marks without difficulty, and would so testify under oath.

Following is an examination of the testimonies of the five officers who marked the four shells ejected from the killer’s revolver at the scene of the Tippit killing, before those shells entered the custody of the Crime Lab at the Dallas Police station. 

Warren Commission testimony of the five officers who marked the four ejected shells from the killer’s revolver found at the scene of the Tippit killing

Patrolman J. M. Poe

Mr. Ball. Did you put any markings on the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir. 

(…)

Mr. Ball. What did you do with the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.

Mr. Ball. Do you know the name of the man with the crime lab or from the crime lab?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it. I believe Pete Barnes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.

(…)

Mr. Ball. Now, I have here a package which has been marked “Q”—FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by [citizen] Benavides?

Mr. Poe. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.

Mr. Ball. Did you make a mark?

Mr. Poe. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.

Mr. Ball. But there is a mark on two of these?

Mr. Poe. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

Mr. Ball. Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think it is these two? Q-77 and Q-75?

Mr. Poe. Yes, sir; those two there.

Mr. Ball. Both marked Western Special? They both are marked Western Special? How long did you stay there?

Mr. Poe. At the scene?

Mr. Ball. Uh-huh.

Comment: Poe does make a tentative identification though he “wouldn’t swear to it” of two evidence shells that he thought he had marked out of the four, even though—very oddly (assuming he marked)—he cannot identify his marks. But the marks are the basis for identification, so if Poe cannot find his marks, how is he tentatively identifying at all? That is not asked. It appears Poe was guessing concerning which two he thought he marked, or possibly was influenced by marks which most closely resembled his own on two shells even though he did not think he made those marks. All of this is consistent with an officer encountering forged attempts to imitate his marks on substituted shells.

Under oath, Poe, the first officer to take possession of shells ejected from the killer’s gun at the scene, has testified he is not able to identify marks he remembered making on any of the four shells. The following account from Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 152-55, is so jaw-dropping I can do no better than quote it at length.

“In 1984, Poe explained to the author that he was absolutely certain that he marked the shells. Indeed, he could not be certain of a single other instance during his twenty-eight years of police work when he had failed to properly mark evidence. He indicated that he became aware that he could not find his markings prior to his Warren Commission testimony ‘when the FBI came down and interviewed us … We were down in the [FBI] office, and I just could not be absolutely positive that my mark was in there.’ While Poe did not specifically say that he was pressured to ‘find’ his marks in the hulls, he volunteered this comment about his experience: ‘I wasn’t going to lie to the man and say I saw my mark when I didn’t. I still wouldn’t do that.’

“Officer Poe insisted to the author that even though he could not find his identifying marks, he felt certain that the hulls were the ones he had taken into evidence at the scene of the Tippit murder. Poe recalled one explanation that he had not mentioned to the Warren Commission two decades earlier. He stated that the reason he was not able to find his markings might have been that so many other identifying marks had been placed in the cartridge hulls, actually on top of his identifying marks, thus obscuring his markings in the thicket of marks from other officials through whose hand the evidence passed. Stated Poe: ‘When it came to [my] looking at them again, there were so many marks in there that I couldn’t find mine … In a better light, or [with] a magnifying glass, I might be able to pick it out.’

“Soon after Poe made this statement, the author examined the cartridge hulls at the National Archives with a lighted magnifying glass. Only Officer Poe can state whether his identifying mark is on the hulls, and he has stated that he cannot find it because it appears lost among so many other marks. What is readily apparent to anyone who examines the hulls is that while there are several identification marks scratched in them, in no case is a marking obliterating another marking. Moreover, in each hull at least 50 percent of the surface area around the inside rim has no marking at all, leaving ample space for even additional identifying marks. There is no conceivable reason for any marking to be placed over another marking.

“The markings in the hulls are distinctive and clearly seen—even with the naked eye. It seems impossible that if Poe’s marks were actually there, he could not find them. Confronted with this, Officer Poe flatly stated, ‘I [have] talked to you all I’m going to talk to you. You already got your mind made up about what you’re going to say. I know what the truth is.’ He then hung up the telephone, refusing to discuss the matter further.

“Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill, a key figure in the arrest of Oswald, was one of the first policemen to arrive at the scene of the Tippit slaying (. . .) At the scene, Sergeant Hill inspected the cartridge hulls and ordered Officer Poe to mark them as evidence and turn them over to the crime lab.

“In 1984 the author interviewed Hill, who rose to the rank of lieutenant before his retirement from the police force (. . .) When asked if he believed the official version on Tippit’s death, he dismissed the question with bombast, stating that the cartridge hulls from the scene, proved to have been fired in Oswald’s pistol, sealed the case.

“The author referred to the grave inconsistencies concerning Poe’s identification of the hulls, suggesting the possibility that they might have been replaced by hulls not discovered at the scene and marked by Poe. The implication, of course, is that when the hulls marked by Poe were tested in the lab and were found not to have been fired from Oswald’s pistol, they were replaced by hulls that had been fired from Oswald’s pistol—after it came into the custody of the police. (. . .)

“Hill dismissed the suggestion with the following statement: ‘If they did that [replaced the cartridge hulls], they would also have forged Poe’s marks.’

“It was pointed out to Hill that, as the facts prove, it made no difference that Poe’s marks could not be found. The evidence still became the cornerstone of the case against Oswald in the killing of Tippit. Hill acknowledged that the circumstances concerning the apparent disappearance of Poe’s marks made it appear that something like this might have been done. Then, Hill added, ‘If it were any other police department in the United States, I would say that is possible. But this department is so clean that it scares me.’” 

Sergeant W. E. Barnes 

Mr. Belin. Now you mentioned out there that some cartridge cases were found, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. That is true.

Mr. Belin. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or identified by you?

Mr. Barnes. I placed “B”, the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74—I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.

Comment: “I believe it was” suggests some hesitation or uncertainty. Does he not know for sure? How strong is his belief? Belin does not follow up but goes to other matters.

(. . .)

Mr. Belin. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. .38 caliber.

Mr. Belin. .38 caliber pistol?

Mr. Barnes. Yes. 

Mr. Belin. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?

Mr. Barnes. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.

Mr. Belin. The two that the patrolman gave you, were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. What instrument did you use to place this mark?

Mr. Barnes. I used a diamond point pen.

Mr. Belin. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?

Mr. Barnes. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Comment: Does not answer the question. The question calls for a yes or no answer. Belin accepts the non- or ambiguous answer to the question without followup or clarification and turns to another topic. Barnes does not clearly state that he marked Q74 or Q75. The “too” might be parsed as implying an unspoken affirmative answer to Belin’s question but it is not straightforward and Belin does not seek to have it clarified.

The FBI later reported that Barnes had changed his mind on one of the two shell identifications that he believed he had marked, from Q75 to Q77 (CE 2011). According to this FBI report, Barnes retracted his belief expressed in sworn testimony that he had marked Q75. An anonymous author of the FBI report, not under oath relays secondhand from FBI Special Agent Odum from whom no signed document or testimony is known on this matter—meaning the FBI report is relaying thirdhand (and unsworn) hearsay from Barnes. According to this anonymously-authored FBI report relaying thirdhand from Barnes, Barnes identified Q77, not Q75, as the second of the two shells he marked, as well as Q74. That is the latest known word from believed to be from Barnes concerning shell identification.

Going back to the Warren Commission testimony (when Barnes said he believed he had marked Q74 and Q75), Commission Counsel Belin, asking the questions, was very concerned about the issue of marks, referring to them repeatedly in his questioning. The very purpose of the marks is to establish that an item in evidence is the same that was from the scene of the crime. It is therefore extraordinarily odd, with Barnes directly being questioned, and Belin having the four evidence shells physically presented to Barnes to examine, and Belin asking Barnes repeated questions about marks, that Belin does not ask the one question that most matters, the reason marking is done in the first place: could Barnes identify his mark on a shell he was looking at in front of him? In all the verbiage of his questioning of Barnes, Belin never asks that question of Barnes, which is sort of the whole point of the thing.

These oddities are what one might anticipate—they become comprehensible—if Barnes had marked shells at the crime scene and then, like Poe, sees marks on the evidence shells which do not look like he made them. But Barnes reasons those marks must be his because where else could his marks be. The reactions of Poe and Barnes are in agreement with a scenario of honest officers being confronted with forged marks on substituted shells. The reactions are not so easily in agreement with what would be expected if the marks were genuine.

Note finally that the two evidence shells Poe said he thought he had marked (Q75, Q77), the two Barnes under oath believed he had marked (Q74, Q75), and the two Barnes was later reported thirdhand to have identified (Q74, Q77), differ from each other, even though Poe and Barnes marked the same two shells at the scene of the crime. There is the impression something is amiss here.

Captain G. M. Doughty

He received and marked the third of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. No known sworn testimony or signed statement from Doughty exists with respect to identification of his mark on an evidence shell. (But see below on CE 2011.) 

Detective C. N. Dhority

He was one of two officers who received and marked the fourth of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene.

Mr. Ball. Now, what did you do with the empty hull that was given to you, that Virginia gave you?

Mr. Dhority. I gave it to Lieutenant Day in the crime lab.

Mr. Ball. Do you know whether or not Virginia or Jeanette Davis found an empty shell—did she tell you she found an empty shell—Jeannette Davis?

Mr. Dhority. I don’t recall—it seems like she told me she had found one earlier and gave it to the police out there, as well as I remember.

Mr. Ball. Gave it to the police that day?

Mr. Dhority. Yes; I believe so.

Comment: That is all of the questions asked by Mr. Ball about the shell, as he turned to other matters. Dhority is not asked about marking the shell or identification of his mark or identification of one of the evidence shells as the one he marked. (Why?)

There is the appearance that none of these officers were willing to commit perjury, which means they were not willing to say they recognized marks as theirs which they did not recognize as theirs. The simple reason the Warren Commission did not obtain simple and direct identification-of-evidence-shell testimony from these officers is because these officers were not willing to commit perjury.

Detective C. W. Brown

Mr. Brown. Lieutenant Wells ordered my partner, G. N. Dhority, and I, to go to the Davis residence where Mrs. Barbara Davis handed my partner this spent hull at approximately 7 p.m. that evening. That was brought to the homicide and robbery bureau by myself and Detective Dhority.

Mr. Belin. Was it brought to that bureau at the time you brought the two women?

Mr. Brown. At the same time the Davis women were brought to the office for affidavits and identification.

Mr. Belin. Who did you turn that cartridge shell over to?

Mr. Brown. That went to the crime lab, Dallas Crime Lab.

Mr. Belin. Did you, yourself, turn it over?

Mr. Brown. No; Detective Dhority handled that.

Mr. Belin. Detective Dhority handled that?

Mr. Brown. We were keeping this evidence in a chain there. Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis handed him the spent cartridge. He gave it to the crime lab himself which was initialed by both of us.

Mr. Belin. Anything else, sir?

Comment: That is all of the questions asked of Detective Brown concerning identification of evidence shells, which is to say nothing. Brown testifies that he marked, but never identifies or is asked to identify his marking on one of the evidence shells. As with the case with Dhority, there is the appearance that the lack of questioning to Brown concerning identification of an evidence shell as the one he marked, is because there was knowledge on the part of the Commission counsel that Brown would not offer the identification wanted. (Otherwise he would have been asked.)

The third-hand anonymously-authored FBI report, CE 2011

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-50, were shown to Captain G. M. Doughty of the Dallas Poilce Department by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Captain Doughty identified his marking on one of these cases which also bears a marking ‘Q76’. Captain Doughty stated this is the same shell which he obtained from Barbara Jeanette Davis at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, the same four cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Detective C. N. Dhority, Homicide Division Dallas Police Department. Detective Dhority identified his marking on one of these cartridge cases which also is marked ‘Q75’. He stated this is the same cartridge case which he obtained from Virginia Davis, Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown to Dallas Police officer J. M. Poe at his home at 1716 Cascade, Mesquite, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum. Officer Poe stated he had received two similar cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, from Domingo Benavides at Dallas, Texas, and had on the same date given them to Pete Barnes, Crime Laboratory, Dallas Police Department. He stated he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes, but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him on June 12, 1964, he cannot locate his marks: therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides. 

“On July 6, 1964, Officer J. M. Poe, Dallas Police Department, advised Special Agent Bardwell Odum that he marked the two cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, ‘J.M.P.’

“On June 15, 1964, the same cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Pete Barnes, an officer of the Dallas Police Department assigned to the Crime Laboratory, and he identified his marking on two of these cases, which also bear the markings “Q74” and “Q77”. He advised these are the same two cartridge cases which he received from officer J. M. Poe of the Dallas Police Department at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.” (CE 2011)

Comment: CE 2011 is an unusual document. Dated July 7, 1964 and issued from FBI, Dallas, anonymously authored and unsigned, it states its purpose is to respond to the President’s Commission’s request for tracing various items of physical evidence. Its content consists of description of what FBI agents, such as Bardwell Odum in the case of the Tippit physical evidence, learned from various witnesses. If any error or misrepresentation were to come to light, it is difficult to see that there would be accountability, since information from witnesses is presented in the form of thirdhand hearsay authored anonymously and with no known supporting interview-report documentation. There is an issue in that document of witness testimony on another ballistics issue involving a denial by Bardwell Odum that he had anything to do with several interviews attributed to him in that document; see Aguilar and Thompson at http://whokilledjfk.net/magic_bullet.htm.

A pattern to what is missing

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story, “Silver Blaze”, Sherlock Holmes studying a case suggested attention be given to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time”. But, he was told, the dog did nothing in the night-time. “That was the curious incident,” said Sherlock Holmes. The point is it is noticed that something did not happen which should have happened.

Is it not just obvious what was going on? The Warren Commission was functioning like a prosecutor making a case in court. They did not suborn perjury, but presented the best case based on the evidence they had. The Warren Commission hearings and exhibits have no testimony from any of the five officers identifying their marks on shells Q47-Q50 because no such testimony was obtainable from those officers. CE 2011 was a fallback, a document without name attached and layers of deniability. CE 2011 asserts unsworn thirdhand hearsay identifications of physical evidence from officers none of whom were willing to state such directly in their own name under oath. The missing sworn testimony from an officer concerning identification of his mark on any of those evidence shells was rather successfully disguised such that the systematic lacuna on this critical point went largely unnoticed. 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I posted this nearly a year ago but it seems relevant here again.

 

TIPPIT BALLISTICS

In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he marked. 

The observation above (which is from me) is true and startling, but has been so little noticed that, for example, awareness of this lacuna in published evidence is not even mentioned in the usually scrupulous Myers, With Malice (and the same comment is applicable to other published studies). 

The FBI lab found that the evidence shells turned over to the FBI labeled as the shells found at the Tippit crime scene—Q74, Q75, Q76, Q77—had been fired from Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon (3H466). This is the linchpin of the case against Oswald. The problem with this is there is no clear evidence those shells were the ones found at the Tippit crime scene. 

There are officers testifying to the Warren Commission that they marked shells at the scene (without identifying their mark on evidence shells shown to them). There is an unsigned FBI report to the Warren Commission stating that three Dallas Police officers confirmed to an FBI agent identification of their marks on evidence shells to that FBI agent (but there is no signed document or testimony or known report from that FBI agent reporting that, nor signed document or testimony from any of those three Dallas Police officers saying that directly). There is an officer testifying under oath that he had been shown the four evidence shells earlier (not while under oath), and on that occasion he had identified two shells that he had marked (but without stating an identification of his mark on an evidence shell in present time in that testimony). (He testified under oath that he had formerly said something, but not that what he had said was accurate.) All of this can be found in the Warren Commission testimony. 

But there is no instance of any of the five Dallas police officers who marked the four shells found at the scene prior to turning them into the Crime Lab for safekeeping, under oath in testimony to the Warren Commission, or in sworn written statement, or in any other setting under oath, having been shown any of the evidence shells, identified their mark on it, and identified that shell on the basis of their mark, as the same shell they had received and marked at the scene of the crime. 

It is such an odd lacuna, so easily missed—and it is systematic across the board, applying to all five officers and all four of the shells found at the Tippit crime scene. 

But the other claims—thirdhand statements from other than the marking officers themselves—that those officers identified their marks on the evidence shells read so smoothly that the truth of the short statement at the top of this section—almost as if by some sleight of hand—is not "seen". 

To cut to the chase

The theory of the case developed here is that there were three corruptions in the Dallas Police Department handling of the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case.

(1) The Dallas Police Department did not hand over to the FBI but withheld three of four bullets taken from Tippit's body, after being instructed to hand over all physical evidence in their possession and stating that they had done so.

(2) The four ejected .38 Special shells found at the scene of the crime from the killer's revolver and marked by officers were replaced, sometime between Sat Nov 23 and Tue Nov 26, by person or persons within the Dallas Police Crime Lab, by four substituted shells fired from Oswald's revolver. Marks were scratched on the substitute shells attempting to imitate, not entirely successfully, the officers' marks on the original shells. Following this, the newly-marked shells fired from Oswald’s revolver were handed over to the FBI on Thu Nov 28 to examine whether they were fired from Oswald’s revolver, in order to find out whether Oswald was guilty.

(3) Three live .38 Special cartridges of Winchester-Western manufacture of six taken from Oswald's revolver were replaced by three of the same kind of Remington-Peters manufacture. 

In this reconstruction there were no substitutions in the four body bullets of Tippit, the revolver of Oswald, or the five shells found by officers Boyd and Sims in Oswald's pants pocket. There was no planting of shells at the scene. There was no corruption in the FBI lab with respect to these items. The FBI lab reported accurately on the basis of what they received. There was no intent to be dishonest or willingness to lie under oath with respect to these items on the part of the five officers who originally scratched their marks on those shells.

This is not an argument merely over whether evidence would have held up in court or justified a legal conviction of Oswald. This is an argument that Oswald was actually innocent of the Tippit killing; that whatever else Oswald may or may not have done he did not kill officer Tippit, and on that specific charge he should be exonerated.

Method

One way to test theories is to ask: on the assumption that this theory were true, what would one expect to happen, if so?

If, for example, the theory of the case to be developed here is correct, one might expect to see in the known evidence and testimony:

• Officers noticing otherwise-unidentified marks on the shells which may resemble their own but which look different from their own, causing some confusion or uncertainty in identifications of their marks.
• Officers when asked prior to their testimony if they were prepared to make a positive identification of their mark on a shell expressing reluctance to do so under oath, and responsive to this, if called to testify are not questioned on that point.
• One way of dealing with an inability to obtain direct testimony under oath from officers identifying their marks on shells would be to "conceal" that by workarounds.

On the other hand, if the four shells handed over by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI were the same four shells found at the scene of the crime—a straightforward, clean handling and conveyance of those four shells—one might expect:

• Officers who marked those shells, in their testimony before the Warren Commission would be shown a shell, asked if they could identify their mark on the shell, and then asked if they could identify the shell as the one they had marked, stated clearly under oath, as part of the vast quantity of other Warren Commission testimony.
• Officers who marked those shells would normally be expected to be able to find and identify their own marks without difficulty, and would so testify under oath.

Following is an examination of the testimonies of the five officers who marked the four shells ejected from the killer’s revolver at the scene of the Tippit killing, before those shells entered the custody of the Crime Lab at the Dallas Police station. 

Warren Commission testimony of the five officers who marked the four ejected shells from the killer’s revolver found at the scene of the Tippit killing

Patrolman J. M. Poe

Mr. Ball. Did you put any markings on the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir. 

(…)

Mr. Ball. What did you do with the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.

Mr. Ball. Do you know the name of the man with the crime lab or from the crime lab?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it. I believe Pete Barnes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.

(…)

Mr. Ball. Now, I have here a package which has been marked “Q”—FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by [citizen] Benavides?

Mr. Poe. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.

Mr. Ball. Did you make a mark?

Mr. Poe. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.

Mr. Ball. But there is a mark on two of these?

Mr. Poe. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

Mr. Ball. Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think it is these two? Q-77 and Q-75?

Mr. Poe. Yes, sir; those two there.

Mr. Ball. Both marked Western Special? They both are marked Western Special? How long did you stay there?

Mr. Poe. At the scene?

Mr. Ball. Uh-huh.

Comment: Poe does make a tentative identification though he “wouldn’t swear to it” of two evidence shells that he thought he had marked out of the four, even though—very oddly (assuming he marked)—he cannot identify his marks. But the marks are the basis for identification, so if Poe cannot find his marks, how is he tentatively identifying at all? That is not asked. It appears Poe was guessing concerning which two he thought he marked, or possibly was influenced by marks which most closely resembled his own on two shells even though he did not think he made those marks. All of this is consistent with an officer encountering forged attempts to imitate his marks on substituted shells.

Under oath, Poe, the first officer to take possession of shells ejected from the killer’s gun at the scene, has testified he is not able to identify marks he remembered making on any of the four shells. The following account from Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 152-55, is so jaw-dropping I can do no better than quote it at length.

“In 1984, Poe explained to the author that he was absolutely certain that he marked the shells. Indeed, he could not be certain of a single other instance during his twenty-eight years of police work when he had failed to properly mark evidence. He indicated that he became aware that he could not find his markings prior to his Warren Commission testimony ‘when the FBI came down and interviewed us … We were down in the [FBI] office, and I just could not be absolutely positive that my mark was in there.’ While Poe did not specifically say that he was pressured to ‘find’ his marks in the hulls, he volunteered this comment about his experience: ‘I wasn’t going to lie to the man and say I saw my mark when I didn’t. I still wouldn’t do that.’

“Officer Poe insisted to the author that even though he could not find his identifying marks, he felt certain that the hulls were the ones he had taken into evidence at the scene of the Tippit murder. Poe recalled one explanation that he had not mentioned to the Warren Commission two decades earlier. He stated that the reason he was not able to find his markings might have been that so many other identifying marks had been placed in the cartridge hulls, actually on top of his identifying marks, thus obscuring his markings in the thicket of marks from other officials through whose hand the evidence passed. Stated Poe: ‘When it came to [my] looking at them again, there were so many marks in there that I couldn’t find mine … In a better light, or [with] a magnifying glass, I might be able to pick it out.’

“Soon after Poe made this statement, the author examined the cartridge hulls at the National Archives with a lighted magnifying glass. Only Officer Poe can state whether his identifying mark is on the hulls, and he has stated that he cannot find it because it appears lost among so many other marks. What is readily apparent to anyone who examines the hulls is that while there are several identification marks scratched in them, in no case is a marking obliterating another marking. Moreover, in each hull at least 50 percent of the surface area around the inside rim has no marking at all, leaving ample space for even additional identifying marks. There is no conceivable reason for any marking to be placed over another marking.

“The markings in the hulls are distinctive and clearly seen—even with the naked eye. It seems impossible that if Poe’s marks were actually there, he could not find them. Confronted with this, Officer Poe flatly stated, ‘I [have] talked to you all I’m going to talk to you. You already got your mind made up about what you’re going to say. I know what the truth is.’ He then hung up the telephone, refusing to discuss the matter further.

“Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill, a key figure in the arrest of Oswald, was one of the first policemen to arrive at the scene of the Tippit slaying (. . .) At the scene, Sergeant Hill inspected the cartridge hulls and ordered Officer Poe to mark them as evidence and turn them over to the crime lab.

“In 1984 the author interviewed Hill, who rose to the rank of lieutenant before his retirement from the police force (. . .) When asked if he believed the official version on Tippit’s death, he dismissed the question with bombast, stating that the cartridge hulls from the scene, proved to have been fired in Oswald’s pistol, sealed the case.

“The author referred to the grave inconsistencies concerning Poe’s identification of the hulls, suggesting the possibility that they might have been replaced by hulls not discovered at the scene and marked by Poe. The implication, of course, is that when the hulls marked by Poe were tested in the lab and were found not to have been fired from Oswald’s pistol, they were replaced by hulls that had been fired from Oswald’s pistol—after it came into the custody of the police. (. . .)

“Hill dismissed the suggestion with the following statement: ‘If they did that [replaced the cartridge hulls], they would also have forged Poe’s marks.’

“It was pointed out to Hill that, as the facts prove, it made no difference that Poe’s marks could not be found. The evidence still became the cornerstone of the case against Oswald in the killing of Tippit. Hill acknowledged that the circumstances concerning the apparent disappearance of Poe’s marks made it appear that something like this might have been done. Then, Hill added, ‘If it were any other police department in the United States, I would say that is possible. But this department is so clean that it scares me.’” 

Sergeant W. E. Barnes 

Mr. Belin. Now you mentioned out there that some cartridge cases were found, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. That is true.

Mr. Belin. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or identified by you?

Mr. Barnes. I placed “B”, the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74—I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.

Comment: “I believe it was” suggests some hesitation or uncertainty. Does he not know for sure? How strong is his belief? Belin does not follow up but goes to other matters.

(. . .)

Mr. Belin. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. .38 caliber.

Mr. Belin. .38 caliber pistol?

Mr. Barnes. Yes. 

Mr. Belin. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?

Mr. Barnes. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.

Mr. Belin. The two that the patrolman gave you, were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. What instrument did you use to place this mark?

Mr. Barnes. I used a diamond point pen.

Mr. Belin. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?

Mr. Barnes. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Comment: Does not answer the question. The question calls for a yes or no answer. Belin accepts the non- or ambiguous answer to the question without followup or clarification and turns to another topic. Barnes does not clearly state that he marked Q74 or Q75. The “too” might be parsed as implying an unspoken affirmative answer to Belin’s question but it is not straightforward and Belin does not seek to have it clarified.

The FBI later reported that Barnes had changed his mind on one of the two shell identifications that he believed he had marked, from Q75 to Q77 (CE 2011). According to this FBI report, Barnes retracted his belief expressed in sworn testimony that he had marked Q75. An anonymous author of the FBI report, not under oath relays secondhand from FBI Special Agent Odum from whom no signed document or testimony is known on this matter—meaning the FBI report is relaying thirdhand (and unsworn) hearsay from Barnes. According to this anonymously-authored FBI report relaying thirdhand from Barnes, Barnes identified Q77, not Q75, as the second of the two shells he marked, as well as Q74. That is the latest known word from believed to be from Barnes concerning shell identification.

Going back to the Warren Commission testimony (when Barnes said he believed he had marked Q74 and Q75), Commission Counsel Belin, asking the questions, was very concerned about the issue of marks, referring to them repeatedly in his questioning. The very purpose of the marks is to establish that an item in evidence is the same that was from the scene of the crime. It is therefore extraordinarily odd, with Barnes directly being questioned, and Belin having the four evidence shells physically presented to Barnes to examine, and Belin asking Barnes repeated questions about marks, that Belin does not ask the one question that most matters, the reason marking is done in the first place: could Barnes identify his mark on a shell he was looking at in front of him? In all the verbiage of his questioning of Barnes, Belin never asks that question of Barnes, which is sort of the whole point of the thing.

These oddities are what one might anticipate—they become comprehensible—if Barnes had marked shells at the crime scene and then, like Poe, sees marks on the evidence shells which do not look like he made them. But Barnes reasons those marks must be his because where else could his marks be. The reactions of Poe and Barnes are in agreement with a scenario of honest officers being confronted with forged marks on substituted shells. The reactions are not so easily in agreement with what would be expected if the marks were genuine.

Note finally that the two evidence shells Poe said he thought he had marked (Q75, Q77), the two Barnes under oath believed he had marked (Q74, Q75), and the two Barnes was later reported thirdhand to have identified (Q74, Q77), differ from each other, even though Poe and Barnes marked the same two shells at the scene of the crime. There is the impression something is amiss here.

Captain G. M. Doughty

He received and marked the third of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. No known sworn testimony or signed statement from Doughty exists with respect to identification of his mark on an evidence shell. (But see below on CE 2011.) 

Detective C. N. Dhority

He was one of two officers who received and marked the fourth of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene.

Mr. Ball. Now, what did you do with the empty hull that was given to you, that Virginia gave you?

Mr. Dhority. I gave it to Lieutenant Day in the crime lab.

Mr. Ball. Do you know whether or not Virginia or Jeanette Davis found an empty shell—did she tell you she found an empty shell—Jeannette Davis?

Mr. Dhority. I don’t recall—it seems like she told me she had found one earlier and gave it to the police out there, as well as I remember.

Mr. Ball. Gave it to the police that day?

Mr. Dhority. Yes; I believe so.

Comment: That is all of the questions asked by Mr. Ball about the shell, as he turned to other matters. Dhority is not asked about marking the shell or identification of his mark or identification of one of the evidence shells as the one he marked. (Why?)

There is the appearance that none of these officers were willing to commit perjury, which means they were not willing to say they recognized marks as theirs which they did not recognize as theirs. The simple reason the Warren Commission did not obtain simple and direct identification-of-evidence-shell testimony from these officers is because these officers were not willing to commit perjury.

Detective C. W. Brown

Mr. Brown. Lieutenant Wells ordered my partner, G. N. Dhority, and I, to go to the Davis residence where Mrs. Barbara Davis handed my partner this spent hull at approximately 7 p.m. that evening. That was brought to the homicide and robbery bureau by myself and Detective Dhority.

Mr. Belin. Was it brought to that bureau at the time you brought the two women?

Mr. Brown. At the same time the Davis women were brought to the office for affidavits and identification.

Mr. Belin. Who did you turn that cartridge shell over to?

Mr. Brown. That went to the crime lab, Dallas Crime Lab.

Mr. Belin. Did you, yourself, turn it over?

Mr. Brown. No; Detective Dhority handled that.

Mr. Belin. Detective Dhority handled that?

Mr. Brown. We were keeping this evidence in a chain there. Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis handed him the spent cartridge. He gave it to the crime lab himself which was initialed by both of us.

Mr. Belin. Anything else, sir?

Comment: That is all of the questions asked of Detective Brown concerning identification of evidence shells, which is to say nothing. Brown testifies that he marked, but never identifies or is asked to identify his marking on one of the evidence shells. As with the case with Dhority, there is the appearance that the lack of questioning to Brown concerning identification of an evidence shell as the one he marked, is because there was knowledge on the part of the Commission counsel that Brown would not offer the identification wanted. (Otherwise he would have been asked.)

The third-hand anonymously-authored FBI report, CE 2011

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-50, were shown to Captain G. M. Doughty of the Dallas Poilce Department by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Captain Doughty identified his marking on one of these cases which also bears a marking ‘Q76’. Captain Doughty stated this is the same shell which he obtained from Barbara Jeanette Davis at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, the same four cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Detective C. N. Dhority, Homicide Division Dallas Police Department. Detective Dhority identified his marking on one of these cartridge cases which also is marked ‘Q75’. He stated this is the same cartridge case which he obtained from Virginia Davis, Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown to Dallas Police officer J. M. Poe at his home at 1716 Cascade, Mesquite, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum. Officer Poe stated he had received two similar cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, from Domingo Benavides at Dallas, Texas, and had on the same date given them to Pete Barnes, Crime Laboratory, Dallas Police Department. He stated he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes, but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him on June 12, 1964, he cannot locate his marks: therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides. 

“On July 6, 1964, Officer J. M. Poe, Dallas Police Department, advised Special Agent Bardwell Odum that he marked the two cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, ‘J.M.P.’

“On June 15, 1964, the same cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Pete Barnes, an officer of the Dallas Police Department assigned to the Crime Laboratory, and he identified his marking on two of these cases, which also bear the markings “Q74” and “Q77”. He advised these are the same two cartridge cases which he received from officer J. M. Poe of the Dallas Police Department at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.” (CE 2011)

Comment: CE 2011 is an unusual document. Dated July 7, 1964 and issued from FBI, Dallas, anonymously authored and unsigned, it states its purpose is to respond to the President’s Commission’s request for tracing various items of physical evidence. Its content consists of description of what FBI agents, such as Bardwell Odum in the case of the Tippit physical evidence, learned from various witnesses. If any error or misrepresentation were to come to light, it is difficult to see that there would be accountability, since information from witnesses is presented in the form of thirdhand hearsay authored anonymously and with no known supporting interview-report documentation. There is an issue in that document of witness testimony on another ballistics issue involving a denial by Bardwell Odum that he had anything to do with several interviews attributed to him in that document; see Aguilar and Thompson at http://whokilledjfk.net/magic_bullet.htm.

A pattern to what is missing

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story, “Silver Blaze”, Sherlock Holmes studying a case suggested attention be given to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time”. But, he was told, the dog did nothing in the night-time. “That was the curious incident,” said Sherlock Holmes. The point is it is noticed that something did not happen which should have happened.

Is it not just obvious what was going on? The Warren Commission was functioning like a prosecutor making a case in court. They did not suborn perjury, but presented the best case based on the evidence they had. The Warren Commission hearings and exhibits have no testimony from any of the five officers identifying their marks on shells Q47-Q50 because no such testimony was obtainable from those officers. CE 2011 was a fallback, a document without name attached and layers of deniability. CE 2011 asserts unsworn thirdhand hearsay identifications of physical evidence from officers none of whom were willing to state such directly in their own name under oath. The missing sworn testimony from an officer concerning identification of his mark on any of those evidence shells was rather successfully disguised such that the systematic lacuna on this critical point went largely unnoticed. 

This is really killer stuff Greg. It reminded me of something similar I ran into with the mailbox evidence. David Belin avoided having a witness authenticate (or even discuss) certain documents under oath, and instead had the FBI show this witness a photograph of the documents months later and write an incredibly vague report that answered literally none of the relevant questions about those documents. This was almost certainly done to avoid suborning perjury - and what you described with the shells looks to be a variation on the same tactic. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Paul Cummings]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I posted this nearly a year ago but it seems relevant here again.

 

TIPPIT BALLISTICS

In not a single instance in the published record—whether in the Warren Commission report or exhibits or in any other venue—are any of the four evidence shells Q74, Q75, Q76, and Q77 (supposedly the four shells ejected from the Tippit killer's revolver found at the scene of the crime) identified under oath by an officer who originally marked them, on the basis of identification of his mark, as the shell he marked. 

The observation above (which is from me) is true and startling, but has been so little noticed that, for example, awareness of this lacuna in published evidence is not even mentioned in the usually scrupulous Myers, With Malice (and the same comment is applicable to other published studies). 

The FBI lab found that the evidence shells turned over to the FBI labeled as the shells found at the Tippit crime scene—Q74, Q75, Q76, Q77—had been fired from Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of any other weapon (3H466). This is the linchpin of the case against Oswald. The problem with this is there is no clear evidence those shells were the ones found at the Tippit crime scene. 

There are officers testifying to the Warren Commission that they marked shells at the scene (without identifying their mark on evidence shells shown to them). There is an unsigned FBI report to the Warren Commission stating that three Dallas Police officers confirmed to an FBI agent identification of their marks on evidence shells to that FBI agent (but there is no signed document or testimony or known report from that FBI agent reporting that, nor signed document or testimony from any of those three Dallas Police officers saying that directly). There is an officer testifying under oath that he had been shown the four evidence shells earlier (not while under oath), and on that occasion he had identified two shells that he had marked (but without stating an identification of his mark on an evidence shell in present time in that testimony). (He testified under oath that he had formerly said something, but not that what he had said was accurate.) All of this can be found in the Warren Commission testimony. 

But there is no instance of any of the five Dallas police officers who marked the four shells found at the scene prior to turning them into the Crime Lab for safekeeping, under oath in testimony to the Warren Commission, or in sworn written statement, or in any other setting under oath, having been shown any of the evidence shells, identified their mark on it, and identified that shell on the basis of their mark, as the same shell they had received and marked at the scene of the crime. 

It is such an odd lacuna, so easily missed—and it is systematic across the board, applying to all five officers and all four of the shells found at the Tippit crime scene. 

But the other claims—thirdhand statements from other than the marking officers themselves—that those officers identified their marks on the evidence shells read so smoothly that the truth of the short statement at the top of this section—almost as if by some sleight of hand—is not "seen". 

To cut to the chase

The theory of the case developed here is that there were three corruptions in the Dallas Police Department handling of the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case.

(1) The Dallas Police Department did not hand over to the FBI but withheld three of four bullets taken from Tippit's body, after being instructed to hand over all physical evidence in their possession and stating that they had done so.

(2) The four ejected .38 Special shells found at the scene of the crime from the killer's revolver and marked by officers were replaced, sometime between Sat Nov 23 and Tue Nov 26, by person or persons within the Dallas Police Crime Lab, by four substituted shells fired from Oswald's revolver. Marks were scratched on the substitute shells attempting to imitate, not entirely successfully, the officers' marks on the original shells. Following this, the newly-marked shells fired from Oswald’s revolver were handed over to the FBI on Thu Nov 28 to examine whether they were fired from Oswald’s revolver, in order to find out whether Oswald was guilty.

(3) Three live .38 Special cartridges of Winchester-Western manufacture of six taken from Oswald's revolver were replaced by three of the same kind of Remington-Peters manufacture. 

In this reconstruction there were no substitutions in the four body bullets of Tippit, the revolver of Oswald, or the five shells found by officers Boyd and Sims in Oswald's pants pocket. There was no planting of shells at the scene. There was no corruption in the FBI lab with respect to these items. The FBI lab reported accurately on the basis of what they received. There was no intent to be dishonest or willingness to lie under oath with respect to these items on the part of the five officers who originally scratched their marks on those shells.

This is not an argument merely over whether evidence would have held up in court or justified a legal conviction of Oswald. This is an argument that Oswald was actually innocent of the Tippit killing; that whatever else Oswald may or may not have done he did not kill officer Tippit, and on that specific charge he should be exonerated.

Method

One way to test theories is to ask: on the assumption that this theory were true, what would one expect to happen, if so?

If, for example, the theory of the case to be developed here is correct, one might expect to see in the known evidence and testimony:

• Officers noticing otherwise-unidentified marks on the shells which may resemble their own but which look different from their own, causing some confusion or uncertainty in identifications of their marks.
• Officers when asked prior to their testimony if they were prepared to make a positive identification of their mark on a shell expressing reluctance to do so under oath, and responsive to this, if called to testify are not questioned on that point.
• One way of dealing with an inability to obtain direct testimony under oath from officers identifying their marks on shells would be to "conceal" that by workarounds.

On the other hand, if the four shells handed over by the Dallas Police Department to the FBI were the same four shells found at the scene of the crime—a straightforward, clean handling and conveyance of those four shells—one might expect:

• Officers who marked those shells, in their testimony before the Warren Commission would be shown a shell, asked if they could identify their mark on the shell, and then asked if they could identify the shell as the one they had marked, stated clearly under oath, as part of the vast quantity of other Warren Commission testimony.
• Officers who marked those shells would normally be expected to be able to find and identify their own marks without difficulty, and would so testify under oath.

Following is an examination of the testimonies of the five officers who marked the four shells ejected from the killer’s revolver at the scene of the Tippit killing, before those shells entered the custody of the Crime Lab at the Dallas Police station. 

Warren Commission testimony of the five officers who marked the four ejected shells from the killer’s revolver found at the scene of the Tippit killing

Patrolman J. M. Poe

Mr. Ball. Did you put any markings on the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it; no, sir. 

(…)

Mr. Ball. What did you do with the hulls?

Mr. Poe. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.

Mr. Ball. Do you know the name of the man with the crime lab or from the crime lab?

Mr. Poe. I couldn’t swear to it. I believe Pete Barnes, but I wouldn’t swear to it.

(…)

Mr. Ball. Now, I have here a package which has been marked “Q”—FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by [citizen] Benavides?

Mr. Poe. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.

Mr. Ball. Did you make a mark?

Mr. Poe. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.

Mr. Ball. But there is a mark on two of these?

Mr. Poe. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

Mr. Ball. Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think it is these two? Q-77 and Q-75?

Mr. Poe. Yes, sir; those two there.

Mr. Ball. Both marked Western Special? They both are marked Western Special? How long did you stay there?

Mr. Poe. At the scene?

Mr. Ball. Uh-huh.

Comment: Poe does make a tentative identification though he “wouldn’t swear to it” of two evidence shells that he thought he had marked out of the four, even though—very oddly (assuming he marked)—he cannot identify his marks. But the marks are the basis for identification, so if Poe cannot find his marks, how is he tentatively identifying at all? That is not asked. It appears Poe was guessing concerning which two he thought he marked, or possibly was influenced by marks which most closely resembled his own on two shells even though he did not think he made those marks. All of this is consistent with an officer encountering forged attempts to imitate his marks on substituted shells.

Under oath, Poe, the first officer to take possession of shells ejected from the killer’s gun at the scene, has testified he is not able to identify marks he remembered making on any of the four shells. The following account from Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, 152-55, is so jaw-dropping I can do no better than quote it at length.

“In 1984, Poe explained to the author that he was absolutely certain that he marked the shells. Indeed, he could not be certain of a single other instance during his twenty-eight years of police work when he had failed to properly mark evidence. He indicated that he became aware that he could not find his markings prior to his Warren Commission testimony ‘when the FBI came down and interviewed us … We were down in the [FBI] office, and I just could not be absolutely positive that my mark was in there.’ While Poe did not specifically say that he was pressured to ‘find’ his marks in the hulls, he volunteered this comment about his experience: ‘I wasn’t going to lie to the man and say I saw my mark when I didn’t. I still wouldn’t do that.’

“Officer Poe insisted to the author that even though he could not find his identifying marks, he felt certain that the hulls were the ones he had taken into evidence at the scene of the Tippit murder. Poe recalled one explanation that he had not mentioned to the Warren Commission two decades earlier. He stated that the reason he was not able to find his markings might have been that so many other identifying marks had been placed in the cartridge hulls, actually on top of his identifying marks, thus obscuring his markings in the thicket of marks from other officials through whose hand the evidence passed. Stated Poe: ‘When it came to [my] looking at them again, there were so many marks in there that I couldn’t find mine … In a better light, or [with] a magnifying glass, I might be able to pick it out.’

“Soon after Poe made this statement, the author examined the cartridge hulls at the National Archives with a lighted magnifying glass. Only Officer Poe can state whether his identifying mark is on the hulls, and he has stated that he cannot find it because it appears lost among so many other marks. What is readily apparent to anyone who examines the hulls is that while there are several identification marks scratched in them, in no case is a marking obliterating another marking. Moreover, in each hull at least 50 percent of the surface area around the inside rim has no marking at all, leaving ample space for even additional identifying marks. There is no conceivable reason for any marking to be placed over another marking.

“The markings in the hulls are distinctive and clearly seen—even with the naked eye. It seems impossible that if Poe’s marks were actually there, he could not find them. Confronted with this, Officer Poe flatly stated, ‘I [have] talked to you all I’m going to talk to you. You already got your mind made up about what you’re going to say. I know what the truth is.’ He then hung up the telephone, refusing to discuss the matter further.

“Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill, a key figure in the arrest of Oswald, was one of the first policemen to arrive at the scene of the Tippit slaying (. . .) At the scene, Sergeant Hill inspected the cartridge hulls and ordered Officer Poe to mark them as evidence and turn them over to the crime lab.

“In 1984 the author interviewed Hill, who rose to the rank of lieutenant before his retirement from the police force (. . .) When asked if he believed the official version on Tippit’s death, he dismissed the question with bombast, stating that the cartridge hulls from the scene, proved to have been fired in Oswald’s pistol, sealed the case.

“The author referred to the grave inconsistencies concerning Poe’s identification of the hulls, suggesting the possibility that they might have been replaced by hulls not discovered at the scene and marked by Poe. The implication, of course, is that when the hulls marked by Poe were tested in the lab and were found not to have been fired from Oswald’s pistol, they were replaced by hulls that had been fired from Oswald’s pistol—after it came into the custody of the police. (. . .)

“Hill dismissed the suggestion with the following statement: ‘If they did that [replaced the cartridge hulls], they would also have forged Poe’s marks.’

“It was pointed out to Hill that, as the facts prove, it made no difference that Poe’s marks could not be found. The evidence still became the cornerstone of the case against Oswald in the killing of Tippit. Hill acknowledged that the circumstances concerning the apparent disappearance of Poe’s marks made it appear that something like this might have been done. Then, Hill added, ‘If it were any other police department in the United States, I would say that is possible. But this department is so clean that it scares me.’” 

Sergeant W. E. Barnes 

Mr. Belin. Now you mentioned out there that some cartridge cases were found, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. That is true.

Mr. Belin. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or identified by you?

Mr. Barnes. I placed “B”, the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74—I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.

Comment: “I believe it was” suggests some hesitation or uncertainty. Does he not know for sure? How strong is his belief? Belin does not follow up but goes to other matters.

(. . .)

Mr. Belin. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?

Mr. Barnes. .38 caliber.

Mr. Belin. .38 caliber pistol?

Mr. Barnes. Yes. 

Mr. Belin. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?

Mr. Barnes. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.

Mr. Belin. The two that the patrolman gave you, were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?

Mr. Barnes. Yes.

Mr. Belin. What instrument did you use to place this mark?

Mr. Barnes. I used a diamond point pen.

Mr. Belin. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?

Mr. Barnes. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.

Comment: Does not answer the question. The question calls for a yes or no answer. Belin accepts the non- or ambiguous answer to the question without followup or clarification and turns to another topic. Barnes does not clearly state that he marked Q74 or Q75. The “too” might be parsed as implying an unspoken affirmative answer to Belin’s question but it is not straightforward and Belin does not seek to have it clarified.

The FBI later reported that Barnes had changed his mind on one of the two shell identifications that he believed he had marked, from Q75 to Q77 (CE 2011). According to this FBI report, Barnes retracted his belief expressed in sworn testimony that he had marked Q75. An anonymous author of the FBI report, not under oath relays secondhand from FBI Special Agent Odum from whom no signed document or testimony is known on this matter—meaning the FBI report is relaying thirdhand (and unsworn) hearsay from Barnes. According to this anonymously-authored FBI report relaying thirdhand from Barnes, Barnes identified Q77, not Q75, as the second of the two shells he marked, as well as Q74. That is the latest known word from believed to be from Barnes concerning shell identification.

Going back to the Warren Commission testimony (when Barnes said he believed he had marked Q74 and Q75), Commission Counsel Belin, asking the questions, was very concerned about the issue of marks, referring to them repeatedly in his questioning. The very purpose of the marks is to establish that an item in evidence is the same that was from the scene of the crime. It is therefore extraordinarily odd, with Barnes directly being questioned, and Belin having the four evidence shells physically presented to Barnes to examine, and Belin asking Barnes repeated questions about marks, that Belin does not ask the one question that most matters, the reason marking is done in the first place: could Barnes identify his mark on a shell he was looking at in front of him? In all the verbiage of his questioning of Barnes, Belin never asks that question of Barnes, which is sort of the whole point of the thing.

These oddities are what one might anticipate—they become comprehensible—if Barnes had marked shells at the crime scene and then, like Poe, sees marks on the evidence shells which do not look like he made them. But Barnes reasons those marks must be his because where else could his marks be. The reactions of Poe and Barnes are in agreement with a scenario of honest officers being confronted with forged marks on substituted shells. The reactions are not so easily in agreement with what would be expected if the marks were genuine.

Note finally that the two evidence shells Poe said he thought he had marked (Q75, Q77), the two Barnes under oath believed he had marked (Q74, Q75), and the two Barnes was later reported thirdhand to have identified (Q74, Q77), differ from each other, even though Poe and Barnes marked the same two shells at the scene of the crime. There is the impression something is amiss here.

Captain G. M. Doughty

He received and marked the third of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. No known sworn testimony or signed statement from Doughty exists with respect to identification of his mark on an evidence shell. (But see below on CE 2011.) 

Detective C. N. Dhority

He was one of two officers who received and marked the fourth of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene.

Mr. Ball. Now, what did you do with the empty hull that was given to you, that Virginia gave you?

Mr. Dhority. I gave it to Lieutenant Day in the crime lab.

Mr. Ball. Do you know whether or not Virginia or Jeanette Davis found an empty shell—did she tell you she found an empty shell—Jeannette Davis?

Mr. Dhority. I don’t recall—it seems like she told me she had found one earlier and gave it to the police out there, as well as I remember.

Mr. Ball. Gave it to the police that day?

Mr. Dhority. Yes; I believe so.

Comment: That is all of the questions asked by Mr. Ball about the shell, as he turned to other matters. Dhority is not asked about marking the shell or identification of his mark or identification of one of the evidence shells as the one he marked. (Why?)

There is the appearance that none of these officers were willing to commit perjury, which means they were not willing to say they recognized marks as theirs which they did not recognize as theirs. The simple reason the Warren Commission did not obtain simple and direct identification-of-evidence-shell testimony from these officers is because these officers were not willing to commit perjury.

Detective C. W. Brown

Mr. Brown. Lieutenant Wells ordered my partner, G. N. Dhority, and I, to go to the Davis residence where Mrs. Barbara Davis handed my partner this spent hull at approximately 7 p.m. that evening. That was brought to the homicide and robbery bureau by myself and Detective Dhority.

Mr. Belin. Was it brought to that bureau at the time you brought the two women?

Mr. Brown. At the same time the Davis women were brought to the office for affidavits and identification.

Mr. Belin. Who did you turn that cartridge shell over to?

Mr. Brown. That went to the crime lab, Dallas Crime Lab.

Mr. Belin. Did you, yourself, turn it over?

Mr. Brown. No; Detective Dhority handled that.

Mr. Belin. Detective Dhority handled that?

Mr. Brown. We were keeping this evidence in a chain there. Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis handed him the spent cartridge. He gave it to the crime lab himself which was initialed by both of us.

Mr. Belin. Anything else, sir?

Comment: That is all of the questions asked of Detective Brown concerning identification of evidence shells, which is to say nothing. Brown testifies that he marked, but never identifies or is asked to identify his marking on one of the evidence shells. As with the case with Dhority, there is the appearance that the lack of questioning to Brown concerning identification of an evidence shell as the one he marked, is because there was knowledge on the part of the Commission counsel that Brown would not offer the identification wanted. (Otherwise he would have been asked.)

The third-hand anonymously-authored FBI report, CE 2011

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-50, were shown to Captain G. M. Doughty of the Dallas Poilce Department by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Captain Doughty identified his marking on one of these cases which also bears a marking ‘Q76’. Captain Doughty stated this is the same shell which he obtained from Barbara Jeanette Davis at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, the same four cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Detective C. N. Dhority, Homicide Division Dallas Police Department. Detective Dhority identified his marking on one of these cartridge cases which also is marked ‘Q75’. He stated this is the same cartridge case which he obtained from Virginia Davis, Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. (. . .)

“On June 12, 1964, four .38 Special cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown to Dallas Police officer J. M. Poe at his home at 1716 Cascade, Mesquite, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum. Officer Poe stated he had received two similar cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, from Domingo Benavides at Dallas, Texas, and had on the same date given them to Pete Barnes, Crime Laboratory, Dallas Police Department. He stated he recalled marking these cases before giving them to Barnes, but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him on June 12, 1964, he cannot locate his marks: therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides. 

“On July 6, 1964, Officer J. M. Poe, Dallas Police Department, advised Special Agent Bardwell Odum that he marked the two cartridge cases on November 22, 1963, ‘J.M.P.’

“On June 15, 1964, the same cartridge cases, designated as Exhibits C47-C50, were shown by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum to Pete Barnes, an officer of the Dallas Police Department assigned to the Crime Laboratory, and he identified his marking on two of these cases, which also bear the markings “Q74” and “Q77”. He advised these are the same two cartridge cases which he received from officer J. M. Poe of the Dallas Police Department at Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.” (CE 2011)

Comment: CE 2011 is an unusual document. Dated July 7, 1964 and issued from FBI, Dallas, anonymously authored and unsigned, it states its purpose is to respond to the President’s Commission’s request for tracing various items of physical evidence. Its content consists of description of what FBI agents, such as Bardwell Odum in the case of the Tippit physical evidence, learned from various witnesses. If any error or misrepresentation were to come to light, it is difficult to see that there would be accountability, since information from witnesses is presented in the form of thirdhand hearsay authored anonymously and with no known supporting interview-report documentation. There is an issue in that document of witness testimony on another ballistics issue involving a denial by Bardwell Odum that he had anything to do with several interviews attributed to him in that document; see Aguilar and Thompson at http://whokilledjfk.net/magic_bullet.htm.

A pattern to what is missing

In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story, “Silver Blaze”, Sherlock Holmes studying a case suggested attention be given to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time”. But, he was told, the dog did nothing in the night-time. “That was the curious incident,” said Sherlock Holmes. The point is it is noticed that something did not happen which should have happened.

Is it not just obvious what was going on? The Warren Commission was functioning like a prosecutor making a case in court. They did not suborn perjury, but presented the best case based on the evidence they had. The Warren Commission hearings and exhibits have no testimony from any of the five officers identifying their marks on shells Q47-Q50 because no such testimony was obtainable from those officers. CE 2011 was a fallback, a document without name attached and layers of deniability. CE 2011 asserts unsworn thirdhand hearsay identifications of physical evidence from officers none of whom were willing to state such directly in their own name under oath. The missing sworn testimony from an officer concerning identification of his mark on any of those evidence shells was rather successfully disguised such that the systematic lacuna on this critical point went largely unnoticed. 

Hi Greg, thank you for your contribution. I seem to recall reading years ago about Tippit being killed with an .38 automatic based upon the ejection or shells versus Oswald having .38 revolver. Please clarify if you can. Again thanks.

[Greg Doudna]

49 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Hi Greg, thank you for your contribution. I seem to recall reading years ago about Tippit being killed with an .38 automatic based upon the ejection or shells versus Oswald having .38 revolver. Please clarify if you can. Again thanks.

In my view that is an example of an early mistake that once started, never dies. There are people today who still think an automatic was used but it is clear to me that that was just a mistake/early misstatement on the part of witness Callaway and officer Gerald Hill, it was not an automatic. Myers, With Malice, explains that and is totally convincing to me on that detail. The key points are Gerald Hill never examined those shell hulls in person despite claiming he did (Hill said one howler after another in sloppy claims in his interviews, long story there, this being just one more); the find locations of the hulls in the Davis sisters' house front yard means it was not an automatic since if it was an automatic they would have been found right around the Tippit cruiser not away from the location of the shooter at the cruiser when the shots were fired; and multiple witnesses who witnessed the killer manually unloading and reloading as he ran/moved away around the corner from Tenth south on Patton. The shells do match to the kind used in Oswald's revolver--as I understand it snub-nosed .38 Special revolvers were the most common concealed-carry weapon in America at the time so that agreement is not too significant in itself, and more importantly, it also matches to what I believe is the true find of the Tippit murder weapon, the paper-bag snub-nosed Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver tossed and abandoned (because just recently used in some serious crime) by some unknown party not later than the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 on a street in downtown Dallas, found by a citizen at about 7:30 am that morning and turned in to Dallas Police that morning, according to an FBI report.  

[Paul Cummings]

I find it odd from the time of the shooting (1:15 ish) finding the shells to 4:30-5PM. I guess I'm missing something here in the time line.

Mr. DULLES. Did you know at the time he was emptying his gun?

Mrs. DAVIS. That is what I presumed because he had it open and was shaking it. 

Later on...

Mr. BALL. What time of day did you find the one shell?

Mrs. DAVIS. I don’t know. This was probably an hour and a half, maybe 2 hours, after the officer was shot.

Mr. BALL. What time of day did your sister-in-law find her shell, find the shell that she found?

Mr. DAVIS. Somewhere around 4 :30, 5, somewhere in there.

[Greg Doudna]

Another point: whereas Gerald Hill, the main original source of the "automatic" idea, exaggerated and dissembled on his claims of how well he examined the first two or three shell hulls found, the two officers who clearly did handle and examine those first two shell hulls, Poe and Barnes, neither said anything in their reporting about the shells being automatics. When shown the evidence shell hulls later in their Warren Commission testimony, there were issues over finding their marks on what they were shown, but neither of those officers said, "hey wait a minute--these aren't automatics. The shell hull I marked was an automatic." This indicates the "automatic" idea, resting as it does most centrally on an early radio report of one of the least-reliable officers of all, Gerald Hill, as not correct. The idea probably began from witness Callaway, who had military experience, seeing from a distance the killer holding the revolver up high in his left hand in what Callaway thought was standard position to have an automatic reloaded, when actually it was the killer manually unloading shell hulls from a non-automatic revolver (and then manually reloading). Note also the overlooked testimony of Acquila Clemons who told of witnessing manual unloading by the killer. (Also note that Acquila Clemons never claimed, contrary to much mistaken reporting, to have seen a second shooter--she saw two persons only one of whom was the shooter--she saw, looking southward from the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton where she was standing, the interaction between Callaway and the killer on Patton--there was only one shooter, Callaway was not a shooter [https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27358-tippit-acquila-clemons/; and second from bottom here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/].)

8 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

This is really killer stuff Greg. It reminded me of something similar I ran into with the mailbox evidence. David Belin avoided having a witness authenticate (or even discuss) certain documents under oath, and instead had the FBI show this witness a photograph of the documents months later and write an incredibly vague report that answered literally none of the relevant questions about those documents. This was almost certainly done to avoid suborning perjury - and what you described with the shells looks to be a variation on the same tactic. 

Interesting your experience finding the same type of thing in a different area Tom. It agrees with what I imagine to be routine case presentation by prosecutor's offices across America--take existing evidence that can be found and tell the most convincing story possible out of what one has. There was a lot of pre-interviewing of witnesses before bringing them under oath for their Warren Commission testimony. As the saying goes for good lawyer practice (at least as I have seen it in courtroom thriller movies), don't ask a witness a question that you do not know in advance what that witness's answer will be.