The Word "Day" on CE573?

[Benjamin Cole]

CE573 is the Warren Commission's "Walker bullet," the slug purportedly removed from the Walker residence on April 10, 1963, after someone shot at Walker through a window.

There is controversy regarding the Walker bullet as two Dallas Police department detectives ID'ed the Walker bullet on April 10, in official reports, as "steel jacketed" when CE573 is obviously copper-jacketed. 

On or about Dec. 5 1963, Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department told the FBI he had placed upon the Walker slug the word "Day" and a "cross." The slug itself, not an envelope or tag. 

Day also told the Warren Commission on July 14, 1964  "the slug has my name 'Day' scratched in it." 

But according to the 1979 NARA inspection of CE573 , there is no “Day” on the Walker bullet.

The only marks found were: “Q188, N, B, J, O (or D), JH, and RF."

One photo of an "N" on CE 573 appears to show a letter two millimeters high (less than one-tenth of an inch).

So what gives? 

---30---

In his WC testimony, Day gives a curiously evasive answer whether CE573 is the same slug as the original Walker bullet.

---

Mr. BELIN. I will ask you this. Have you ever seen Commission Exhibit 573 before, if you know?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell us what 573 is?

Mr. DAY. This slug was gotten from the home of former General Edwin Walker, 4011 Turtle Creek, April 10, 1963, by Detective B. G. Brown, one of the officers under my supervision. He brought this in and released it to me.

Mr. BELIN. You are reading now from a report that is in your possession, is that correct?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Those are the official records of my office.

---30---

In his very brief WC testimony regarding CE573 (brief as the WC asked no questions), Day does not pick up the CE573 and say, "You can see my marks right here."

Lt. Day instead refers to his official records. 

Actually, it is not clear if the Walker slug was even present during Day's WC testimony. The record does not indicate Day looked at a bullet in his hand, etc. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=281&search=Day_and 573

Any comments? 

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Ben.  I think you are on to something.

[Tom Gram]

This is truly strange. Day supposedly turned the bullet over to the FBI on Dec. 2nd. Only two or three days later he tells the FBI, categorically, that he marked his full name “Day” and a cross on the bullet. He also testifies to putting his full name “Day” on the bullet (next few lines from what you quoted): 

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Those are the official records of my office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that prepared under your supervision?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. In the regular course of your duties at the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. The slug has my name "Day" scratched in it.

The 1979 NARA exam found “Q188, N, B, J, D, A, O or D, JH, and RF.” (I missed that there were two Ds. Steve Roe only mentions one D in his 2021 article.) 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=10

No cross or “Day”. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Ben.  I think you are on to something.

JD--

Thanks

But this 10% of it. Tom Gram has done outstanding work. 

If I had to bet, I would bet CE573 is not the slug extracted from the Walker home on April 10, 1963...and I would give you odds. 

 

[Michael Crane]

You always have to look out for the "deciders."

They are some sneaky bastids.

[David Von Pein]

This is probably just like the Elmer Todd/CE399 controversy. For years, CTers insisted Todd's initials weren't on the CE399 bullet. But when hi-def photos emerged of the bullet, Todd's initials are plainly visible:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

I'd be willing to bet that this Lt. Day/CE573 episode is exactly the same as Todd & 399. And some high-resolution photos would no doubt prove it (just as they did with Elmer Todd).

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

This is probably just like the Elmer Todd/CE399 controversy. For years, CTers insisted Todd's initials weren't on the CE399 bullet. But when hi-def photos emerged of the bullet, Todd's initials are plainly visible:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

I'd be willing to bet that this Lt. Day/CE573 episode is exactly the same as Todd & 399. And some high-resolution photos would no doubt prove it (just as they did with Elmer Todd).

 

According to the 1979 NARA report, 24 photos were taken of the bullet and included as an enclosure to the copy of the report in the main FBI JFK HQ file. Have we seen those photos? 

I searched the HQ file for the copy of that report on MFF and couldn’t find it. I’m sure it’s in there but it might be a bad copy so the OCR didn’t work. 

Copies of the 24 photos might be in the HQ file too, but I bet they are in an enclosure behind file (EBF). A lot of the EBFs are not available online, but the EBF at NARA might have the original photos in it.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

This is probably just like the Elmer Todd/CE399 controversy. For years, CTers insisted Todd's initials weren't on the CE399 bullet. But when hi-def photos emerged of the bullet, Todd's initials are plainly visible:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

I'd be willing to bet that this Lt. Day/CE573 episode is exactly the same as Todd & 399. And some high-resolution photos would no doubt prove it (just as they did with Elmer Todd).

 

DVP--

It did happen once as you say. 

But will lightening strike twice?

CE-573 is an entirely 'nother matter, especially given the initial ID of the original bullet as a relatively rare, steel-jacketed bullet (by two detectives in a same-day official report they authored and signed), when the norm is copper-jacketed bullets. 

The WC itself appears to have been dubious about CE 573, as you shall see when I finish writing up a story with the able guidance of Tom Gram, for KennedysandKing.com 

I believe Mark Ulrik can supply the hi-rez photos of CE-573, or maybe someone else computer literate. 

Mark Ulrik provided this link, but I do not know the next step. 

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/149279166

Ulrik did provide a hi-rez photo of what might be an "N,"  of CE573, or possibly a "V," but the mark is two millimeters high, or less than 1/10th of an inch.

Would a human mark a slug with a letter less than one-tenth of an inch? 

How much do you want to bet (with proceeds going to a charity)? 

[Stu Wexler]

Ben what does the 1979 inspection say for CE399 out of curiosity?

Stu

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DVP--

It did happen once as you say. 

But will lightening strike twice?

CE-573 is an entirely 'nother matter, especially given the initial ID of the original bullet as a relatively rare, steel-jacketed bullet (by two detectives in a same-day official report they authored and signed), when the norm is copper-jacketed bullets. 

The WC itself appears to have been dubious about CE 573, as you shall see when I finish writing up a story with the able guidance of Tom Gram, for KennedysandKing.com 

I believe Mark Ulrik can supply the hi-rez photos of CE-573, or maybe someone else computer literate. 

Mark Ulrik provided this link, but I do not know the next step. 

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/149279166

Ulrik did provide a hi-rez photo of what might be an "N,"  of CE573, or possibly a "V," but the mark is two millimeters high, or less than 1/10th of an inch.

Would a human mark a slug with a letter less than one-tenth of an inch? 

How much do you want to bet (with proceeds going to a charity)? 

Even if the FBI somehow missed “Day” and a cross in their 1979 microscope exam, which is possible, the situation would be the same. 

Day was responsible for turning over the bullet to the FBI on 12/2/63. Day also turned over the DPD evidence photos, which, incredibly, did not include a photo of the bullet. Day also has more evidence against him suggesting evidence tampering than anyone else in the entire case.

Another thing I just noticed is the letter from the FBI Director’s office to the Lab requesting a ballistics comparison states that the bullet would be returned to the DPD after the exam: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=14

I bet that’s why the WC asked Day if he’d seen the bullet since he turned it over to Odum. The actual lab report only states that the bullet was being “temporarily retained in the Laboratory for comparison with any other bullets which may be received”, with a note to Dallas to forward any bullets determined to be fired from Oswald’s rifle from the time of purchase to the time of its recovery. 

How long would the FBI “temporarily” override Hoover’s office? There might be some later communications from the Director to retain all physical evidence in the Lab for transfer to the WC, but the WC didn’t get the Walker bullet until March, so I think it’s worth looking into. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

Ben what does the 1979 inspection say for CE399 out of curiosity?

Stu

My understanding is that somehow a 1979 inspection of CE399 failed to find the initials "ET." Coupled with CE 399's dubious history (https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm) that led to suspicions. 

But researcher Steve Roe found a hi-rez photo of CE 399 that does have the initials "ET" on it. 

I hope Steve Roe reads this, and uses his skills to present to us similar photos of CE573. 

I guess NARA has 20 hi-rez photos of CE573 online, but navigating their website has flummoxed me. I have sent an e-mail to NARA asking for help. 

It still is troublesome that the civilians who first found CE399 said it was a pointy-head bullet, not a dome-shaped bullet, and an FBI agent who is recorded as handling the bullet says he never did. 

 

 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I guess NARA has 20 hi-rez photos of CE573 online, but navigating their website has flummoxed me. I have sent an e-mail to NARA asking for help.

They'll probably tell you to download the multi-part archive (446 GB in total) and decompress it. It will require disk space and patience but is perfectly doable. Mai Tais are optional. Roughly 1/20 are image files; the rest is 3D measurement data. The images of CE573 are from 5 different angles and also taken at different exposures. Not all areas of the bullet's surface are covered and in sharp focus, so expect the hunt for markings to be a frustrating one.

[Tom Gram]

37 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

They'll probably tell you to download the multi-part archive (446 GB in total) and decompress it. It will require disk space and patience but is perfectly doable. Mai Tais are optional. Roughly 1/20 are image files; the rest is 3D measurement data. The images of CE573 are from 5 different angles and also taken at different exposures. Not all areas of the bullet's surface are covered and in sharp focus, so expect the hunt for markings to be a frustrating one.

Do you know if the current archive catalog photos are the same photos taken during the 1979 exam? There were supposedly 24 photos included as an enclosure to the copy of the report in the 62-109060 JFK HQ file. 

I know the NIST photos are a different thing but I’m curious if the 1979 photos are available anywhere. Hell they might be on MFF but I’m sure that’d just be crappy B&W photocopies. 

I haven’t had time but it shouldn’t be too hard to track down the file number of the 1979 report in the HQ file. Unfortunately though the OCR on MFF doesn’t work so you’d have to either flip through it manually or use the NARA database. If the photos are there, great, if not they’d be in an EBF to that same file number. So like if the report is 62-109060-4544 the photos would be Section EBF Serial 4544. Unfortunately only a handful of EBFs are available online. 

EDIT: It looks like the main sections of the copy of the HQ file on MFF do not go past 1977, so the 1979 report and associated photos would only be available at NARA. Also the catalog photos online have a “NARA 1985” logo on them, so it is possible that the 1979 photos have only been seen by visitors to NARA who have flipped through the correct section of the FBI JFK HQ file. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Mark Ulrik]

19 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you know if the current archive catalog photos are the same photos taken during the 1979 exam? There were supposedly 24 photos included as an enclosure to the copy of the report in the 62-109060 JFK HQ file. 

I know the NIST photos are a different thing but I’m curious if the 1979 photos are available anywhere. Hell they might be on MFF but I’m sure that’d just be crappy B&W photocopies. 

I have no idea about the 1979 photos, sorry. Maybe someone like Gary Murr does. He's one of the finest researchers around and very knowledgeable about the bullet evidence. The NIST photos are from 2014.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@David Von Pein "probably" is an assumption. How does the totality of evidence and effort to verify the provenance with this particular specimen compare to the process and body of evidence with the Elmer Todd experience. And the issue with Todd was both the presence of his initials and the timing... which remains an issue despite your assumption of what "probably" happened.