Into the Nightmare: A Milestone

[James DiEugenio]

Now that we have established the rather inexplicable movements of a couple of DPD guys, and their production of certain pieces of evidence, let us take a look at the ballistics in the Tippit case. From my essay, "The Tippit Case in the New Millenium." 

The ballistics evidence in the Tippit case is also a morass. First of all, there is the enigmatic message sent out over the police radio by the ubiquitous Sgt. Jerry Hill. A message Hill actually tried to deny before the Warren Commission but which he admitted to decades later. Further, Hill once told a writer that the shells were arrayed within a hand towel of each other. Such was not the case, since they were recovered yards apart from each other. (See Bill Simpich, “Jerry Hill’s Lies: The Heart of the J. D. Tippit Shooting,” 3/12/16)

Hill reported that one of the shells at the scene indicated “that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol.” This was shortly after another Dallas cop described the man escaping the scene—who did not match Oswald’s description—as being armed with an automatic. (Garrison, p. 198) Michael Griffith wrote in a review of Dale Myer's book about the Tippit case that, in 1986, Hill admitted he had picked up one of the casings for examination This is important because the shells are marked with ‘.38 AUTO’ at the base. And Hill said he specifically looked on the bottom.

As Garrison went on to explain, an automatic is clip loaded from its handle and its spring action ejects cartridge cases from the spent round. A revolver keeps the cartridge shells in the chamber as the turret rotates to the next round. As several authors have shown, including Garrison, it is hard to believe that experienced policemen could mistake an automatic handgun and ammo for a revolver. (For a telling visual presentation of this key point, see Robert Groden’s book Absolute Proof, p. 298) Especially since the Dallas police used .38 Special ammo and the shells were marked at the bottom. (see again Simpich, “Jerry Hill’s Lies”) This is an important point to recall as we progress through the ballistics evidence, and later, the issue of possession of the weapon.

[James DiEugenio]

The ballistics in the Tippit case, continued:

Of the bullets taken from Tippit’s body, three are Winchester Western manufactured and copper-coated. The last is a lead bullet made by Remington-Peters. As Garrison noted, this seemed to suggest that two men might have fired at Tippit. (Garrison, p. 199) But further, the shells did not match the bullets. Two of the shells were made by Remington and two by Winchester. (Garrison, p. 201) This has led some to think that perhaps there was a shot that missed and a shell that was not recovered. The House Select Committee on Assassination suggested this but labeled it as speculation. (McBride, p. 256)

But the automatic/revolver dispute and the mismatching of the manufacturers and the ammo is only the beginning of the problems with the ballistics evidence. On the day of the shooting, the police made out an inventory of the evidence found at the scene. There was no mention of cartridge cases of any kind. (Garrison, p. 200) Moreover, it is also standard police procedure to send the bullets and shells to the FBI lab the day of the crime to have them identified and matched to the weapon. In the Tippit case, the authorities sent only one bullet to the Bureau. The police said this was the only projectile recovered from the victim’s body. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 244) The FBI could not match this bullet to the weapon allegedly taken from Oswald later at the Texas Theater. And further, that bullet was described by the FBI as “so badly mutilated that there is not sufficient individual microscopic characteristics present for identification purposes.” (WC 24, p. 263)

[James DiEugenio]

More on the Tipppit Ballistics:

There was a complicating factor to this issue. As Henry Hurt explained in Reasonable Doubt, and John Armstrong amplified on in Harvey and Lee, the Smith and Wesson .38 revolver in evidence had been altered by its purchaser George Rose and Company, located in Los Angeles. The company sent 500 of these guns to its gunsmith in Van Nuys, California. Among the modifications made were the re-chambering of the cylinder so the weapon could accommodate a .38 Special cartridge. This altered chamber made for a slight slippage upon firing and thus did not allow the usual markings to be placed on the bullet. (Armstrong, p. 482; Hurt, p. 143)

When they could not get a match on the first bullet, in March of 1964, the Commission sent FBI technician Cortlandt Cunningham to Dallas to find the other bullets. The police said they had misfiled them. But they turned up in the dead files, a point that the Commission tried to paper over. (McBride, p. 254) Predictably, four months later, the same thing happened: the bullets did not match. (Garrison, p. 199)

Thus, the emphasis was now on the shells. It was not until six days after the police sent the first bullet to the FBI that they finally marked the evidence inventory sheet with four shells. These the FBI were able to match to the weapon. The delay in getting the shells on the inventory list and the failure to send all the ammunition exhibits promptly to the FBI has led some to suspect that the police fiddled with the evidence—to the extent that it suggests that the original weapon perhaps really was an automatic. This is not at all a critic’s meandering speculation. Warren Commissioner Hale Boggs himself expressed similar reservations about the delay. Boggs asked Commission counsel Melvin Eisenberg, “What proof do you have though that these are the bullets?” (McBride, p. 258)

[James DiEugenio]

The Coup de Grace supplied by Leavelle to McBride:

 

But even that is not the end to the problems with the Tippit ballistics. Benavides had found two cartridge cases at the scene. He handed them to Officer J. M . Poe. Hill told Poe to mark the shells with his initials. His marks were not evident when the policeman inspected the exhibits for the Commission. (Hurt, pp. 153-54) Further, when the witnesses who found the other two shells were asked by the FBI to identify them as the ones they originally recovered, they could not. (WC 24, p. 414)

One would think it could not get any worse. But, in the JFK case, it usually does. When McBride interviewed Detective Jim Leavelle in 1992, the crusty old cop tried to put the whole issue of police identification to rest by throwing a giant curveball at it. He now said that neither Poe, nor the man Poe gave the shells to, Sgt. Barnes, ever marked the cartridge cases at all. (McBride, p. 256) Consider the ramifications of this charge. First, Poe is now a xxxx. But by labeling him as such, it attempts to rid the Dallas Police of the substitution of evidence accusation. What it really does, however, as McBride notes—as if it had not been done already—is it makes the whole “chain of custody on the shells highly suspect.” (McBride, p. 256)

[James DiEugenio]

Can you imagine presenting this whole sorry tale about the bullets and shells to a jury?

Can you imagine what a skilled defense lawyer could do with it?

First it was an automatic, then it was not.  Was there a precise bullet audit and collection and if not, why do the shells and bullets not match?  

Why were the shells not listed on the original inventory sheet?  Why was only one bullet sent to FBI for testing?

Why did Cunningham and the WC have to go to Dallas to find the other bullets? Boggs: "What proof do you have that these are the bullets?"  This is the half asleep Warren Commission asking that question.

For years there was the Poe mystery, which Henry Hurt did such a splendid job on: What happened to his markings?

Well, McBride talks to Leavelle, and presto: no markings ever existed.  Which makes the Boggs question even more insightful than ever.

Edited August 3, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now that we have shown how questionable the ballistics in the TIppit case are, let us look at the actual handgun.

One of the weirdest things about this is that there was no 302 that I can find at REA.  This was the company that was supposed to have given the weapon to Oswald.  It was kind of like a forerunner to Fed Ex.

In other words, you walked in with some kind of card you got either from your home or post office box and they would then go in the back or to a box area and turn over the merchandise to you.  

Evidently, the FBI did not do this at REA.  At least there is no evidence in the record that reflects it was done.

One has to wonder why it was not done. If such was the case.  How hard was it to drive over there and talk to someone?

[James DiEugenio]

Why is this important?

Because there was no evidence at Oswald's rooming house concerning the handgun.

No ammo.

 A holster that was not ordered with the handgun.  In fact, that particular order crossed out the holster.

No cleaning solution.

No box or case.

No receipt or paperwork that showed he picked up the weapon from REA.

Yet, in the face of this, the FBI does not appear to have visited REA. One would have thought this would have been near the top of their agenda.

Edited August 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Steve Roe]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why is this important?

Because there was no evidence at Oswald's rooming house concerning the handgun.

No ammo.

No holster.

No cleaning solution.

No box or case.

No receipt or paperwork that showed he picked up the weapon from REA.

Yet, in the face of this, the FBI does not appear to have visited REA. One would have thought this would have been near the top of their agenda.

Baloney, a holster was found in Oswald's room at Beckley. 

[James DiEugenio]

What about after Oswald was apprehended.  Here you have Westbrook again.

From my essay:

According to the Warren Commission, it was Hill who had possession of the handgun taken from Oswald upon the arrival of the suspect at the police station. But as Gokay Hasan Yusuf has pointed out in his essay, “Gerald Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald”, there is some confusion about who actually took a handgun from Oswald at the theater and when it was transferred to Hill. When Hill arrived at the station, he placed the gun in Westbrook’s office while he wrote a report. This was so odd that Westbrook himself admitted to the Commission that the gun should not have been there. (WC 7, p. 118) Concerning this point, Hill testified that he had tried to turn over the gun to Lt. T. L. Baker, but for some reason Baker did not accept it at that time. (WC 7, p. 51) It would have been nice if the Commission had asked Baker about the matter and why he did not accept the weapon, but when Baker did testify, he was only asked eight questions, none about this episode. (WC 4, p. 248)

[James DiEugenio]

One of the oddest things about the alleged murder weapon is the fact that it should not have been in Westbrook's office at all. He was in personnel.  It should have gone to Baker in homicide, who also appears to be Oswald's jailer.  But allegedly Hill brought it to Westbrook's office.

But yet, when one boils down all the testimony, as David Josephs has, Baker does not get the handgun until about 4:00 pm.  But even at that, this is established through the testimony  of other people.  There is not a document that says he was in receipt of the alleged murder weapon in the Tippit case. And when one reads his testimony in Volume 4 the topic does not come up.  Which is a bit weird.

Edited August 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me wrap this up by referring to Dale Myers and his recent reference to the DVD package of JFK Revisited and my annotated book of both scripts, which includes almost 30 interview excerpts, most of them not in the film.

The long version of the film is JFK:Destiny Betrayed, running four hours.  The short version is JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass at  2 hours.  For a total of 6 hours.  And in fact, some of the material in the short version is repeated in the long version.  So its actually less than that.  Yet he refers to something like ten hours of materials. I hope he is not talking about the DVD commentary since that is over the short version.

His big complaint is we did not deal with the Tippit case.  This was Oliver Stone's decision. He did not want to deal with Tippit or Walker. He wanted to focus on the JFK case and the ARRB revelations about it, plus the ramifications of what came afterward.  I think that was a good decision.  This is why, in the long version, you will see areas of discussion that no JFK documentary has ever gone into: what the CIA and LBJ did in Indonesia and Vietnam as a result of Kennedy's death. Understandably, the other side does not like talking about this.  Who wants to explain away the death of about 6 million people.  And do it with a Magic Bullet.

Myers ignores all the information in the interview excerpts and says the scripts are semi-annotated.  I fail to see how 500 footnotes constitutes "semi" status. Anyone can see  how profusely referenced the scripts are; many subjects are multi annotated. (See, for example, pp. 69, 73, 75 etc. In the middle reference we score Tim Weiner's ignorant comments about the OAS, CIA and de Gaulle.)

Edited August 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As the reader can see, we could have easily argued the Tippit case effectively if Oliver had wanted to do that. 

In the book JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, I make reference to McBride's book as a source for that case and also my essay, "The Tippit Case in the New Millenium." Myers says that my essay was an embarrassing pastiche of Bill Simpich, John Armstrong, McBride and Farrris Rookstool.  This  is why Dale has a reputation of being a hatchet man. There are no references to Farris in that well documented essay. There is one to Armstrong,   There are all of four to Simpich.  I used more notes to Ian Griggs than I did all three of those guys.

By far the two sources I used most were the WR and WC, and McBride. Which I feel fine about.  McBride's book is the  best on the Tippit case we have. Just read his reply to Myers' review,

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-lee-harvey-oswald-and-the-murder-of-officer-j-d-tippit

As per his whole "Oswald reversed direction upon seeing Tippit", well that has been dealt with by the underrated MIke Griffith a long time ago.  Dale also criticizes what he calls a "reconstruction" of the assassination in the Stone film.  Can the man be real?  We did not do any  reconstruction.  That would have entailed full bodied scale models with bullet holes marked clearly and accurately on both men in the car, with close ups and stop motion.  I told Oliver that is what we should not do.  Simply because things like Myers' cartoon had made that exercise into a travesty of scholarship. 

Henry Lee had told both me and Oliver twice that you cannot do trajectory analysis in a gunshot homicide case if there is not dissection of wounds.  Everyone, except maybe Dale Myers, knows this was not done in the JFK case. Either for the back wound or the head wound. As per the former, we know why it was not done.  Finck testified at the trial of Clay Shaw that the pathologists were obstructed from doing so by the military brass in the morgue..  Finck tried to avoid the question, but the judge ordered him to reply. Evidently, Myers knows more about reconstructing a gunshot homicide scene than Henry Lee does.  Can we see your academic credentials on this Dale?  And also, what is your past experience in the field? Have you been court certified?  In what states? 

What we did in the film was to show how absurd it was to think that one bullet could have done all the damage that this one did and emerge in the condition it did.  Wecht was quite effective in this.  If I was Dale I would not like that either. Its one of the highlights of the film. (This is why Mamet got in contact with Oliver.) The other thing we did was show the problem with the trail of CE 399.  Unlike what the FBI wrote, Odum never showed it to Wright. Who, from what we know, would have blown it up right there.

Edited August 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I am quite proud of the book JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass.  In addition to the 500 reference notes, the interviews are actually worth the price of the volume. We could have easily had a six hour film, with virtually no loss of quality,

 In the film, and the book, we do what Myers' said we did not. We prove Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. The testimony about Kennedy's brain is, I think, the strongest part of the film.  We show, along three lines of evidence, that the pictures and illustrations of the brain have to be false. We also prove, through Chesser, Mantik and Aguilar, that the fragment pattern does reveal a shot from the front, and that is through one of Myer's witnesses, Sturdivan. All of this, and more, clearly indicates what really happened.  And I have not even mentioned Barry Ernest.  In sum, we accomplished what we set out to do, and the book backs it all up.

One last comment. Dale did not like me commenting on how other people have taken apart his so called computer simulation--really a cartoon.  But they have. People like  John Orr, Bob Harris, MIlicent Cranor, Pat Speer, Dave Mantik. He says that he actually vanquished them.  LOL.  Then why did he request of You Tube that they remove Harris' visual critique?  Anyone can read Speer's take down in which he allowed Myers to reply.  (Click here https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania)

But the best one was this: in the days when he was incubating his cartoon, Myers was saying you could see JFK and JBC leaping into the air in unison as they were struck by the same bullet.  For Probe magazine, Mantik noted how this seemed  unlikely since both men were behind the sign at the time: you would have to be able to see through the sign.  This got back to Dale and he said he called Mantik to straighten it out.

I checked back with Dave: 

JIm: Did Myers call you?

Mantik: No. 

Jim:  DId he leave a message? 

Mantik: Not one I got.

This is straightening someone out?

Edited August 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pete Mellor]

Excellent set of posts in this thread Jim!

Today I ordered 'JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass' ,the hardback book.  Amazon U.K.  will release this on September 1st.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Peter.

You will like the book.  Those interview excerpts are really good.