Epstein's Memoir: Priceless exchange

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

In regular handgun and hunting ammunition, the term JHP is used to refer to a Jacketed Hollow-Point bullet, with it understood that these rounds are copper-jacketed.

I have yet to see any current ads for STEEL-jacketed handgun or hunting rounds. 

Steel-jacketed bullets are most often found in specialty ammunition used for police and military purposes. Steel-jacketed bullets aren't common here in the US.

"A lead core bullet with a steel jacket is not an uncommon feature for a foreign military surplus round, especially if it originated in the Soviet Bloc. (Steel’s lesser cost than that of copper makes such ammo more economical to produce, but the tradeoff is that harder steel can be harsher on a bore.) " -- What is Steel Core Ammo? - The Broad Side (targetbarn.com)

 

Mark Knight--

Yes, steel-jacketed bullets are the exception.

If you found a steel-jacketed bullet at an attempted murder scene, that is notable. A detective would make a note of that, as an important clue. The gunman is using relatively rare bullets. If an arrest is made, the steel-jacketed bullet could be telling evidence.

If two Dallas Police Department department detectives (McElroy and Van Cleave) author and sign a same-day (April 10, 1963) report that the bullet found at the Walker residence was "steel jacketed"---I find it inexplicable that the bullet was actually copper-jacketed. 

Yet, CE573 (the Warren Commission's putative Walker bullet) is obviously copper-jacketed and to the naked eye. It has been torn asunder, revealing solid copper-jacketing. 

I have reasonable doubt CE573 is the bullet found in the Walker home the night of the shooting. 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Im not sure that Redlich's memo was publicly available at the time of Belin's statement. Regardless, Belin made the statement under oath at a Congressional hearing which is more significant than an internal memo.

Here is Redlich's memo. I'm fairly certain it was released in response to one of Weisberg's lawsuits in the early 70's. I consider it more significant than anything Belin would say later for a number of reasons. One is that Belin was not remotely involved in the re-enactment, and was essentially repeating what he'd heard from others. Two is that Redlich's proposal was successful, and was the basis for the re-enactment. That he put in writing in the proposal for the re-enactment, that it didn't have to be accurate, and was designed to show whether or not the single-bullet theory was remotely possible (as opposed to being likely) speaks volumes, IMO, and is far more significant than anything an underling like Belin would say later. 

 

 

April 27, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Norman Redlich

The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.

Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.

As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing.

We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman.

Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots.

It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Mark Ulrik]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I have reasonable doubt [...]

You keep adding the word "reasonable" as if it means something, but it's just plain old doubt (reasonable or not).

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Mark Ulrik said:

You keep adding the word "reasonable" as if it means something, but it's just plain old doubt (reasonable or not).

Well...it is a legal term.

If I sat on a jury, and the question was the authenticity of the CE-573 Walker bullet, I would have "reasonable doubt." 

That is, I do not doubt the authenticity of the bullet as I have a bias against the Dallas Police Department, or because the prosecutor had red hair. Or my professional and political affiliations.

There is plenty of evidence, such as same-day police reports and the CE573's obvious cooper-jacketing, to reasonably doubt the authenticity of the Walker bullet. 

I would like an explanation fo why anyone is "reasonably certain," or just "certain" that CE573 is the slug found in the Walker home on April 10. 

You are "certain"? One way or the other? 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

 "reasonable doubt" exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. Another way of looking at this is when 90% certainy  whereas "clear and convincing" is usually viewed as 75% while preponderance of the evidence means more than 50%. 

the juries in 6 of 7 mock trials held since 1967 by bar associations and law schools found sufficient reasonable doubt to either acquit or end up in a hung jury. 

[Benjamin Cole]

45 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 "reasonable doubt" exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. Another way of looking at this is when 90% certainy  whereas "clear and convincing" is usually viewed as 75% while preponderance of the evidence means more than 50%. 

the juries in 6 of 7 mock trials held since 1967 by bar associations and law schools found sufficient reasonable doubt to either acquit or end up in a hung jury. 

Thanks for your legal insights.

But I would not send someone to the gas chamber if I was "90% certain" he/she was guilty. 

Do I misunderstand something? I would pretty much have to be at the 100% mark to send someone to the gallows. 

I would have grave feelings about setting a probably murderer free, but...life is sometimes the best of bad options....

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Hey Pat-

I have Weisberg's cases and legal filings. His initial FOIA complaints were for the FBI materials, NAA and spectrographic analysis. NARA did its first five-year review of the JFK materials in 1971. It is unclear what materials were released during that process and again in 1975. The Redlich memo does not have a release date so i guess we wont be able to verify its release date. 

There were still lots of classified WC records at the time of the Abzug hearing in 1975 which was about how the WC documents were improperly classified. Belin agreed that the WC did not have original classification authority and that Rankin improperly classified WC materials. This was a major admission. The Abzug hearing was an important historical event that has largely been lost to history but it helped convince Congress to create the HSCA.     

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Hey Pat-

I have Weisberg's cases and legal filings. His initial FOIA complaints were for the FBI materials, NAA and spectrographic analysis. NARA did its first five-year review of the JFK materials in 1971. It is unclear what materials were released during that process and again in 1975. The Redlich memo does not have a release date so i guess we wont be able to verify its release date. 

There were still lots of classified WC records at the time of the Abzug hearing in 1975 which was about how the WC documents were improperly classified. Belin agreed that the WC did not have original classification authority and that Rankin improperly classified WC materials. This was a major admission. The Abzug hearing was an important historical event that has largely been lost to history but it helped convince Congress to create the HSCA.     

Thanks for that background. The Redlich memo was published by Howard Roffman in his book, Presumed Guilty, written in 1975. Roffman was a protege of Weisberg's, so I assumed he got it from Weisberg.

But you know what happens when you assume things. It 's certainly possible it was released as a result of the Abzug hearing. 

[Michael Griffith]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:14 PM, W. Niederhut said:

This reminds me of Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission statement that none of the major short-selling of United Airlines and American Airlines stock just prior to 9/11 was linked to the suspects (i.e., Al Qaeda.)

Oh my heavens. The 9/11 Commission factually and logically explained this selling. Among other facts, the Commission noted that one of the major sellers of United Airlines stock on 9/6 also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines stock on 9/10. 

So you're a 9/11 Truther. Well, why am I not surprised?