Steve Roe-More Confusion surrounding the General Walker Shooting

[W. Tracy Parnell]

More Confusion surrounding the General Walker Shooting (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

More Confusion surrounding the General Walker Shooting (steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com)

 

Great article by Steve Roe.

Robert Frazier tells us all we really need to know here.

 

[Gerry Down]

Good article, nice detail.

The end of the article explains why some people called it a steel jacketed bullet when it actually was copper.

[Benjamin Cole]

13 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Good article, nice detail.

The end of the article explains why some people called it a steel jacketed bullet when it actually was copper.

I never heard anyone refer to copper-jacketed bullets as "steel-jacketed" just because they suspected the bullet had been fired by a rifle.

The WC testimony of Robert Frazier appears to be unique.

If one can find a similar quote in the literature, let's see it.

Moreover, we are not talking about two hunters out in the woods breezily discussing ammo, we are talking about police-collected evidence, sent to the DPD crime lab, that could be used in what appeared to be an attempted murder case. The original Walker bullet was important and serious evidence, and was reviewed seven officers and detectives in the DPD. 

The photos of CE573, in which the hull or shell has been torn asunder, obviously reveal a copper-jacketed bullet, and not a steel-jacketed or even a copper-gilded steel jacket bullet. 

Initials can faked. (Add on: When scratching initials into a copper-jacketed bullet, again one would see the bullet is in fact copper-jacketed. It is difficult to scratch initials into steel).

I have reasonable doubts about the provenance of CE573. 

Add on: Moreover, on the night of the shooting, and with the bullet in question unidentified, there was no reason to suspect that a rifle, as opposed to a powerful handgun, was used.

Indeed, since the witnesses saw men hurriedly departing but saw no weapon, one might posit that a handgun was more likely, as it could be concealed easily. 

How and why did everyone so quickly assume a rifle? 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Gerry Down]

I could see how someone might inadvertently use the phrase "steel jacketed" in place of "metal jacketed". They might inadvertently say copper was a type of steel rather than a type of metal.

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I never heard anyone refer to copper-jacketed bullets as "steel-jacketed" just because they suspected the bullet had been fired by a rifle.

The WC testimony or Robert Frazier appears to be unique.

If one can find a similar quote in the literature, let's see it.

Moreover, we are not talking about two hunters out in the woods breezily discussing ammo, we are talking about police-collected evidence, sent to the DPD crime lab, that could be used in what appeared to be an attempted murder case. The original Walker bullet was important and serious evidence, and was reviewed seven officers and detectives in the DPD. 

The photos of CE573, in which the hull or shell has been torn asunder, obviously reveal a copper-jacketed bullet, and not a steel-jacketed or even a copper-gilded steel jacket bullet. 

Initials can faked. (Add on: When scratching initials into a copper-jacketed bullet, again one would see the bullet is in fact copper-jacketed. It is difficult to scratch initials into steel).

I have reasonable doubts about the provenance of CE573. 

Add on: Moreover, on the night of the shooting, and with the bullet in question unidentified, there was no reason to suspect that a rifle, as opposed to a powerful handgun, was used.

Indeed, since the witnesses saw men hurriedly departing but saw no weapon, one might posit that a handgun was more likely, as it could be concealed easily. 

How and why did everyone so quickly assume a rifle? 

 

I agree. Why didn’t the WC just ask the DPD officers who wrote the report? Robert Frazier said so though so it must be true… 

Steve also minimizes a legitimate concern about the chain of custody: there is none. The bullet was never authenticated under oath, by anyone. The only so-called “authentication” was performed by the FBI in an unsworn interview over a year after the Walker shooting on explicit orders from J. Lee Rankin to not establish a chain of custody and only trace the bullet to the first person who could provide a positive ID.  

Norvell supposedly identified the bullet and his initials, but this was fourteen months after the shooting and Norvell was no longer even a cop. Norvell’s unsworn, uncorroborated identification in CE2011 is beyond worthless, and I don’t think that’s even really debatable. 

Also, is there a better picture of the alleged “N” than that NIST photo in Steve’s article? I see the “N”, but it looks almost like bubble letters - a lot different than other chain of evidence markings I’ve seen.

However, the initials on the bullet are irrelevant. The problem is not a single person was asked to identify the bullet under oath as the same bullet recovered at the crime scene. A sole-source, uncorroborated, unsworn, belated identification by a guy who had either quit, retired, or been fired from the DPD is not the sort of evidence we should be accepting as gospel, folks. 

In other words, Ben is right. It is reasonable to have doubts about the provenance of the Walker bullet. Steve’s acceptance of Norvell’s belated, uncorroborated “ID” as proof reflects his bias, especially after making a statement such as this: 

“There was no chain of custody issue, the bullet and the evidence box were all initialed by DPD and FBI Lab examiners.” 

If that is true, why was the chain of custody never established by the WC? Why was not a single person asked to identify the bullet and their initials under oath? Initials being observed on the bullet fifteen years after the shooting does not establish a chain of custody. That was the WC’s job, so why didn’t they do it? 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Also, is there a better picture of the alleged “N” than that NIST photo in Steve’s article? I see the “N”, but it looks almost like bubble letters - a lot different than other chain of evidence markings I’ve seen.

It's not visible in other NIST photos. Here's an unenhanced crop:

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It's not visible in other NIST photos. Here's an unenhanced crop:

I do not see anything here. Am I missing something? 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I could see how someone might inadvertently use the phrase "steel jacketed" in place of "metal jacketed". They might inadvertently say copper was a type of steel rather than a type of metal.

Huh? You mean an adult detective in a major-city police department? 

"They might inadvertently say copper was a type of steel rather than a type of metal." 

Well, sure, anything is possible. 

But remember, this is evidence what appeared to be a murder attempt, of a high-profile public figure.  Most cops are very, very familiar with guns and ammo, and detectives even more so. 

Seven different officers and detectives of the DPD handled the evidence. Some, purportedly, scratched their initials into the original Walker bullet---and they all thought it was steel-jacketed, and not a copper jacket? 

For me, that does not hold water.

I have reasonable doubts regarding the provenance of CE573. 

 

[Steve Roe]

10 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I agree. Why didn’t the WC just ask the DPD officers who wrote the report? Robert Frazier said so though so it must be true… 

Steve also minimizes a legitimate concern about the chain of custody: there is none. The bullet was never authenticated under oath, by anyone. The only so-called “authentication” was performed by the FBI in an unsworn interview over a year after the Walker shooting on explicit orders from J. Lee Rankin to not establish a chain of custody and only trace the bullet to the first person who could provide a positive ID.  

Norvell supposedly identified the bullet and his initials, but this was fourteen months after the shooting and Norvell was no longer even a cop. Norvell’s unsworn, uncorroborated identification in CE2011 is beyond worthless, and I don’t think that’s even really debatable. 

Also, is there a better picture of the alleged “N” than that NIST photo in Steve’s article? I see the “N”, but it looks almost like bubble letters - a lot different than other chain of evidence markings I’ve seen.

However, the initials on the bullet are irrelevant. The problem is not a single person was asked to identify the bullet under oath as the same bullet recovered at the crime scene. A sole-source, uncorroborated, unsworn, belated identification by a guy who had either quit, retired, or been fired from the DPD is not the sort of evidence we should be accepting as gospel, folks. 

In other words, Ben is right. It is reasonable to have doubts about the provenance of the Walker bullet. Steve’s acceptance of Norvell’s belated, uncorroborated “ID” as proof reflects his bias, especially after making a statement such as this: 

“There was no chain of custody issue, the bullet and the evidence box were all initialed by DPD and FBI Lab examiners.” 

If that is true, why was the chain of custody never established by the WC? Why was not a single person asked to identify the bullet and their initials under oath? Initials being observed on the bullet fifteen years after the shooting does not establish a chain of custody. That was the WC’s job, so why didn’t they do it? 

Quite a list of doubts you got there Tom. 

So, Tom, let's do a gut check.

Do you actually believe the DPD or the FBI or a combination of both found a WCC bullet, fired it into some sort of hard surface to mushroom the rounded bullet nose, got everyone who was involved with the Walker shooting, re-initial the bullet?

In essence this is what you are saying, the bullet was switched out?

Correct?

[Benjamin Cole]

57 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Quite a list of doubts you got there Tom. 

So, Tom, let's do a gut check.

Do you actually believe the DPD or the FBI or a combination of both found a WCC bullet, fired it into some sort of hard surface to mushroom the rounded bullet nose, got everyone who was involved with the Walker shooting, re-initial the bullet?

In essence this is what you are saying, the bullet was switched out?

Correct?

I am not speaking for Tom, but you have created a straw man.

1. Obviously, post-JFKA, a Western ammo Mannlicher Carcano bullet could be fired into some sort of impediment, let us say a plaster wall. Sheesh, a number of bullets could be fired until one resulted with a somewhat similar look to the original Walker bullet. 

2. No one re-initialed the new Walker bullet. Before the new Walker bullet got to the FBI lab, perhaps someone put some initials on it, mimicking the style of extant initials on the real Walker bullet. 

3. As Tom has laid out, post-JFKA no one ever confirmed they had their initials on CE573, under oath. Norvell was a patrolman who was sent to Walker's home the night of the shooting. Not a crime lab guy. He handled the bullet briefly, for one evening. 

4. Confusingly, Detective McElroy stated he found the original Walker bullet and "later gave it to Officer B . G . BROWN, of the Crime Scene Search Section, DPD."  But then Novell stated that he, Norvell, found the spent bullet, and gave to McElroy.  

5. Another officer, named Tucker, specifically stated he did not see Norvell initial the original Walker bullet before Norvell gave the bullet to McElroy. 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1953.pdf

There are additional curiosities regarding the Walker bullet.

The bullet was sent to a county crime laboratory at Parkland Memorial Hospital on April 25, and stayed there until December 3. In all of this time, through various detective hands and labs, no one seemed to notice the original Walker bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet. There is evidently zero DPD paperwork stating the original Walker bullet is copper-jacketed. 

Lastly, the DPD furnished seven photographs of the Walker crime scene to the FBI. Not one of those photographs was of the original Walker bullet. Evidently, the Walker bullet was never photographed while in DPD custody, or at Parkland. If the bullet was photographed, then that photo has been suppressed. 

So...we are lacking photographic evidence of the original Walker bullet, and only Norvell, a patrolman at the time of the Walker shooting, is the only person to say his initials were on CE573, and he said that not under oath. 

Norvell handled the original Walker bullet briefly in April 1963, and 14 months later, not under oath, he said the bullet handed to him by a FBI guy was the same bullet he handled on the night of the Walker non-shooting. 

I think we can have reasonable doubt regarding the provenance of the CE573. 

[Tom Gram]

9 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It's not visible in other NIST photos. Here's an unenhanced crop:

I’m still not sure that’s really conclusively an “N”, or at least one made by a human. Look at the dark lines at the bottom tips of the “N” that curve and extent toward the bottom of the photo. Did Norvell (or whoever) use a magic marker that got smudged or something? Does it not seem a little odd that a cop would put in the effort to create obscenely tiny bubble letters instead of just etching his initials into the copper jacket? 

A bunch of initials, including an “N”, were supposedly identified in that 1979 NARA microscope exam or whatever it was. That doesn’t change the fact that not one of the 6+ people who allegedly marked the bullet were asked to identify their initials under oath. 

To answer Steve, I don’t know if the bullet was switched or not, but the WC’s failure to authenticate it combined with the other evidence gives us a non-zero probability of a switcheroo. A defense attorney would have eaten this stuff for breakfast. I know you feel like the government would never do such a thing, but think about it for a minute. What type of evidence would we expect to see if the bullet was switched in an attempt to pin the crime on Oswald? 

1. Hesitancy to display the new bullet to any of the original officers involved or ask any questions, especially under oath. Check.
 

2. Contemporaneous reports that contradict later descriptions of the bullet. Check. 
 

3. Everything Ben mentions in his most recent comment above: no photographs, contradictory reports on the chain of evidence, etc. Check. 

It would have been so easy for the WC to show the bullet to the original witnesses and obtain a legally meaningful ID, so why didn’t they? They should have deposed everyone who marked the bullet to establish a full chain of custody. Rankin’s  work-around with the FBI was sketchy as hell and clearly designed to avoid putting contradictions on the record, so you can’t really blame people for being suspicious. 

EDIT: Also, the sole person responsible for the bullet now in evidence is J.C. Day. Need I say more? 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Steve Roe]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

To answer Steve, I don’t know if the bullet was switched or not, but the WC’s failure to authenticate it combined with the other evidence gives us a non-zero probability of a switcheroo. A defense attorney would have eaten this stuff for breakfast. I know you feel like the government would never do such a thing, but think about it for a minute. What type of evidence would we expect to see if the bullet was switched in an attempt to pin the crime on Oswald? 

You don't know if the bullet was switched out? Isn't this a little silly Tom? It's either the real one or a substituted fake. You and Ben go through a whole bunch of excuses why CE573 wasn't authenticated, shown under oath, etc. Sounds like to me you really believe it's a switcheroo because it doesn't hold up to your standards. 

Walker saw the bullet; he never said it was a fake. In fact, nobody did. 

The bullet was in the City-County Crime lab for those dates. The FBI checked the log with that Lab at Parkland.....never been checked out by anyone Tom. 

So why don't you explain the logic behind why a bullet would be switched out, tampered with way before the assassination and before the DPD had any knowledge of Oswald?

A competent defense attorney would not challenge that bullet in evidence before a criminal judge. There's plenty of evidence on the movement of the bullet, initials, paperwork, police logs. 

You guys go ahead and question everything to your hearts' content, I'm sticking with the facts and reality. 

And that reality is CE573 is the real Walker bullet. 

Read Keuch's examination of CE573 when Walker wrote all those letters complaining about a "pristine bullet". Let me know if that meets your standards of proof.

ADMIN FOLDER-O1: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, HSC-A TICKLER VOLUME VI (maryferrell.org)

[Benjamin Cole]

Steve---

Unfortunately, I believe it is possible CE573 is not the original bullet recovered from the Walker home in April, which was DPD ID'ed as "steel-jacketed." 

There is no DPD paperwork, on scene or from the county crime lab, describing the Waker bullet as "copper-jacketed" although CE573 is obviously copper-jacketed. 

There are no photographs of the Walker bullet, pre-JFKA. No pre-JFKA photographic evidence exists, or if it did, it has been suppressed. 

Novell, if he handled the bullet at the Walker home, must have held the slug briefly, 14 months before providing a statement to the FBI regarding the bullet. Another officer at the scene specifically told the FBI he did not see Novell initial the bullet. And odd statement to pop up in an FBI report. 

According to the June 10 FBI report, Detective McElroy said he found the spent bullet (that is, not Novell) among some papers and literature, and McElroy handed the bullet to BG Brown, crime scene guy. 

In other words, McElroy's statements to the FBI place Novell outside the evidence loop. That also creates doubt, no? 

There is such a thing as "reasonable doubt." One does not have to 100% subscribe to one explanation of CE573 or the other. 

If I sat on a jury regarding the authenticity of CE573, I would have to conclude I had reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is logical and legal necessity. How can one be 100% sure of the authenticity of CE573 one way or the other? 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1953.pdf

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Gerry Down]

The DPD would have been used to homicides involving hand guns and shotguns. Homicides involving rifles would have been rare. Hand guns use naked lead bullets. Therefore for the DPD to find a bullet that had a jacket of any kind on it, as in the Walker shooting, would have been so rare that one could understand how they could use the wrong phraseology when describing it - "steel jacketed" meaning it was not of the naked lead type they were used to dealing with.