Walker Bullet Article in KennedysandKing

[James DiEugenio]

I just pointed out above Mr. Cohen that the rifle in the TSBD was not the one Oswald allegedly ordered.

That night at FBI HQ, the best fingerprint man in America, Sebastian LaTona, tried everything to get any prints of value off that weapon.

He tried highlighting, sidelighting, bringing in his own photographer--he finally broke down the rifle into its parts.

Nada.

That evidence is so compelling that PBS prevaricated about it in its "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald" special.

Brian Edwards, a former police inspector, presented it in Oliver's film.  What Roe did with that is an utter and complete disgrace to anyone on either side, except maybe Litwin. 

Or Mr. Cohen.

Question:  If Mr. Cohen has gone over to the other side, if he has any honesty,  he should admit that.

Edited May 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

10 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Tom let's set the record straight. Do you actually believe that CE573 is a switcheroo bullet? I'm assuming you agree with everything said in that article as proof. Ben said it was a switcheroo, do you? 

I'm not going to argue your article on EF, but only seeking for clarification on your position before I address this "article" later. I don't want to misquote or put words in your mouth. State your position clearly whether or not CE573 was, or was not, the bullet found in the Walker home. 

Thank you. 

Why does my opinion matter? It doesn’t, even if I put it in bold letters. The FBI and WC both expressed doubts about the authenticity of the bullet, and had every opportunity imaginable to resolve those doubts for good. Instead, they tiptoed through a joke of an investigation that avoided potential conflict like it was monkey-pox.

At pretty much the exact same time the bullet arrived or was set to arrive in the FBI lab, William Sullivan called Dallas at 3 in the morning asking about the “alleged bullet” that was recovered from Walker’s home, and ordered agents to review newspaper articles about the shooting. 

Ira Van Cleave was sourced in one of these newspaper articles from 4/12/63 as saying that the bullet recovered was a .30-06. Van Cleave was also of course one of four different cops who said the bullet was steel jacketed in the initial police reports. 

Fast forward six months. The WC orders the FBI to conduct additional investigation into the Walker shooting. One of the reasons cited was the “conflicting stories about the nature of the bullet”, and Van Cleave and McElroy’s initial police report was mentioned specifically. 

The FBI subsequently interviewed every DPD employee involved in the Walker investigation…except for Ira Van Cleave. That’s bad enough, but during this inquiry, the FBI received a mess of conflicting reports about who initially handled the bullet, the most egregious of which was from Van Cleave’s partner.

Van Cleave was interviewed by the FBI in December about the Ruby shooting, and again a couple days later about a letter he received about Walker. However, during an investigation into the Walker incident with a specific focus on the recovered bullet, the FBI allegedly failed to interview the one guy who could have resolved all the major contradictions in the record, who also happened to be one of the first two detectives on the scene. Give me a break - and that’s just one example of many.

There is a reasonable doubt about the provenance of CE573. There is not enough evidence to prove that the bullet was switched, but the evidence generally cited as proof of authenticity is laughable. With so many unresolved conflicts in the record, and all the effort that went into keeping those conflicts unresolved, I think 50/50 is being generous.

EDIT: I think it’s plausible that the FBI and WC just wanted to keep the record as “clean” as they could, but this is so weirdly specific that it looks to me like the FBI was legitimately worried about something. The 3am Sullivan call about the “alleged bullet” seems to corroborate that idea - I’m still looking for the follow-up paperwork. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Lawrence Schnapf]

what this represents is another example how the historic record was manufactured and built on planted evidence, junk science, perjured testimony and witness intimidation. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Bob Ness  Yes, let's see how steve roe and others rationalize their way out of the evidentiary trail. Wanna bet the line of attack is that  cops make mistakes ( including all of them that saw the original bullet). Maybe they are also color-blind.

@Benjamin Cole good article as usual. But i really dont think LHO was at the scene the night of the shooting. The photos were either planted or he was asked to do recon at another time as a set-up. No one ever saw a man on a bus holding an unusualy package.  Remembe the incriminating evidence (alleged LHO note and Marina testimony) magically occurred the day before the FBI had to prepare its final report on the assassination. 

and to borrow from  @Paul Cummings, "do you believe in magic"    

[Benjamin Cole]

36 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Bob Ness  Yes, let's see how steve roe and others rationalize their way out of the evidentiary trail. Wanna bet the line of attack is that  cops make mistakes ( including all of them that saw the original bullet). Maybe they are also color-blind.

@Benjamin Cole good article as usual. But i really dont think LHO was at the scene the night of the shooting. The photos were either planted or he was asked to do recon at another time as a set-up. No one ever saw a man on a bus holding an unusualy package.  Remembe the incriminating evidence (alleged LHO note and Marina testimony) magically occurred the day before the FBI had to prepare its final report on the assassination. 

and to borrow from  @Paul Cummings, "do you believe in magic"    

LS-

Obviously, at this late date, and with so many participants and witnesses dead, all I have is reasonable conjecture. 

I am reasonably sure the true Walker Bullet is not CE573.  I would bet 10-to-one on that. 

Was LHO part of a staged or managed event? I think it is possible. The Walker residence photos were found by the DPD rather quickly after the JFKA. 

Mohrenschildt seemed to connect LHO with the Walker shot within 24 hours. 

Was LHO on a Walker residence recon mission when he took the photos? Maybe so---that might explain the odd missing license plate. Maybe the FBI wanted compromising dirt on Walker, and in those days that could include his private sexual life. Working through a cutout---LHO---would keep FBI hands clean. 

.....

BTW, the big, big lesson in all of this: Never wholly trust a government investigation.

I have always appreciated defense counsels, doing what must be done.  

But when you see what happens in a government investigation---the dubious evidence (and who knows what exculpatory evidence is uncollected or disappears), the curated witnesses (many of whom are hearsay witnesses), the controlled narrative, the leads left unfollowed, the conflating of innuendo or supposition with fact---you see how important defense counsels are. 

[Bob Ness]

7 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Well, someone got the rifle into the TSBD without raising eyebrows. 

Quite. Who was that? How was it done?

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

You very well know that "steel-jacketed" was the misnomer that I referred to. Bedtime now.

If you're referring to the DPD identifying the bullet they found as "steel jacketed" being a misnomer or mistake you should know in the US this kind of identification of ammunition by ALMOST ANYONE at that time is kindergarten kind of stuff. Almost all of us were taught how to shoot and care for firearms by the time we were 12 and this identification is not likely to be a mistake. Especially by professional law enforcement officers doing an investigation.

Maybe in other countries that could be reasonable (I don't know about where you're at - and I don't mean to sound condescending) but guns were very much enculturated in the US, especially after WW2. We actually were allowed to have small caliber guns like .22s but weren't allowed to have BB or pellet guns because our parents were afraid we'd think of them as toys (which seems to be the prevailing attitude about guns now thanks to video games IMO).

Ben's ten to one really should be more like fifty to one - he's being conservative.

Edited May 25, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

If you're referring to the DPD identifying the bullet they found as "steel jacketed" being a misnomer or mistake you should know in the US this kind of identification of ammunition by ALMOST ANYONE at that time is kindergarten kind of stuff. Almost all of us were taught how to shoot and care for firearms by the time we were 12 and this identification is not likely to be a mistake. Especially by professional law enforcement officers doing an investigation.

Maybe in other countries that could be reasonable (I don't know about where you're at - and I don't mean to sound condescending) but guns were very much enculturated in the US, especially after WW2. We actually were allowed to have small caliber guns like .22s but weren't allowed to have BB or pellet guns because our parents were afraid we'd think of them as toys (which seems to be the prevailing attitude about guns now thanks to video games IMO).

Ben's ten to one really should be more like fifty to one - he's being conservative.

BN--thanks for your comments. 

Yes, it is inexplicable that four different DPD officers, two patrolman and two detectives, would all, without equivocation, ID the Walker Bullet as "steel-jacketed" after having inscribed their initials into it. 

The idea is "some individuals" in the US referred to all rifle bullets as "steel jacketed" is a far-fetched  fabrication. There is nothing in the literature to confirm that, and moreover, the vast majority of rifle bullet were copper-jacketed in the 1960s. 

Copper-jacketing was invented to handle the higher explosive power of rifle bullets. 

The only reason in 1963 to ID a mangled slug as "steel jacketed" is because 1) it was and 2) that is unusual and possibly a valuable clue. 

[Mark Ulrik]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mark, are you not forgetting something?

That TSBD rifle is not the one Oswald allegedly ordered.

Yeah, he received a slightly longer one. What a bummer.

[Steve Roe]

11 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Why does my opinion matter? It doesn’t, even if I put it in bold letters. The FBI and WC both expressed doubts about the authenticity of the bullet, and had every opportunity imaginable to resolve those doubts for good. Instead, they tiptoed through a joke of an investigation that avoided potential conflict like it was monkey-pox.

At pretty much the exact same time the bullet arrived or was set to arrive in the FBI lab, William Sullivan called Dallas at 3 in the morning asking about the “alleged bullet” that was recovered from Walker’s home, and ordered agents to review newspaper articles about the shooting. 

Ira Van Cleave was sourced in one of these newspaper articles from 4/12/63 as saying that the bullet recovered was a .30-06. Van Cleave was also of course one of four different cops who said the bullet was steel jacketed in the initial police reports. 

Fast forward six months. The WC orders the FBI to conduct additional investigation into the Walker shooting. One of the reasons cited was the “conflicting stories about the nature of the bullet”, and Van Cleave and McElroy’s initial police report was mentioned specifically. 

The FBI subsequently interviewed every DPD employee involved in the Walker investigation…except for Ira Van Cleave. That’s bad enough, but during this inquiry, the FBI received a mess of conflicting reports about who initially handled the bullet, the most egregious of which was from Van Cleave’s partner.

Van Cleave was interviewed by the FBI in December about the Ruby shooting, and again a couple days later about a letter he received about Walker. However, during an investigation into the Walker incident with a specific focus on the recovered bullet, the FBI allegedly failed to interview the one guy who could have resolved all the major contradictions in the record, who also happened to be one of the first two detectives on the scene. Give me a break - and that’s just one example of many.

There is a reasonable doubt about the provenance of CE573. There is not enough evidence to prove that the bullet was switched, but the evidence generally cited as proof of authenticity is laughable. With so many unresolved conflicts in the record, and all the effort that went into keeping those conflicts unresolved, I think 50/50 is being generous.

EDIT: I think it’s plausible that the FBI and WC just wanted to keep the record as “clean” as they could, but this is so weirdly specific that it looks to me like the FBI was legitimately worried about something. The 3am Sullivan call about the “alleged bullet” seems to corroborate that idea - I’m still looking for the follow-up paperwork. 

Ok, noted. Thank you, Tom. 

[Tom Gram]

Hell, I’d be more than happy to get on board with the steel jacket thing being a misnomer if any of the four cops involved actually said that. The FBI never asked the question, nor did they ask anyone besides Norvell for even a basic description of the bullet - and even Norvell was not asked about the jacketing or caliber, supposedly. 

These were not idiots, and there is no way in hell the FBI somehow just forgot to investigate the exact topic they were asked to investigate. The direct quote from the WC is: 

The report of the investigation conducted by the Dallas Police Department…does not indicate the caliber and other basic characteristics of the bullet which was recovered from General Walker’s home…

…In view of the conflicting stories concerning the nature of the bullet which was actually recovered from General Walker’s home, we would appreciate advice as to whether or not the bullet was ever examined by the Dallas Police Department or by any other person or organization on its behalf.

The McElroy/Van Cleave report was specifically mentioned in this letter as a source of some of these “conflicting stories”. 

In response to this letter, the FBI interviewed everyone who saw or handled the bullet (minus Van Cleave), and allegedly didn’t ask a single question about the caliber or any other “basic characteristics” of the bullet. Right. 

The WC letter seems to indicate that they wanted to get to the truth on this. However, on the exact same day, Rankin sent a different letter to the FBI specifically ordering them not to trace a chain of custody - by showing the actual bullet to witnesses - past the first person who could provide a positive ID. 

The FBI handled this by sending two agents to interview the bulk of the Walker witnesses before the bullet arrived in Dallas from Washington - then sending a different agent to display the bullet to Norvell, and only Norvell, a few days after he’d already been interviewed. 

The FBI ran into a problem though, when the two agents on the Walker case received conflicting accounts on who actually found the bullet.

Instead of showing the bullet to the 13-year veteran detective and his partner, they went with the guy who literally spent 6 months as a cop and “resigned” from the DPD less than a month after the Walker shooting. To be fair, Tucker and Brown corroborated Norvell’s story, but not really. Brown and Tucker also gave conflicting accounts: Brown claimed that he received the bullet directly from Norvell, and Tucker claimed that Norvell turned it over to McElroy - as did Norvell himself.  

The two FBI agents specifically described these problems and conflicting stories in their report to the WC - but made no effort to resolve them. All they had to do was reinterview McElroy, or interview Van Cleave, or even better to get all these guys in the same room. 

Ben covers this in the article, so I’ll stop ranting, but the point is that the provenance and appearance of the bullet were legitimate concerns, and incredibly simple issues to resolve. That the FBI failed to resolve a damn thing despite having every imaginable opportunity to do so is grounds for reasonable suspicion, IMO. 

[Steve Roe]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Brian Edwards, a former police inspector, presented it in Oliver's film.  What Roe did with that is an utter and complete disgrace to anyone on either side, except maybe Litwin. 

Mr. DiEugenio, you may want to ask Larry Schnapf about this as he recently had some doubts about the rifle D-Mount straps theory by Mr. Edwards. 

[Mark Ulrik]

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

If you're referring to the DPD identifying the bullet they found as "steel jacketed" being a misnomer or mistake you should know in the US this kind of identification of ammunition by ALMOST ANYONE at that time is kindergarten kind of stuff. Almost all of us were taught how to shoot and care for firearms by the time we were 12 and this identification is not likely to be a mistake. Especially by professional law enforcement officers doing an investigation.

Maybe in other countries that could be reasonable (I don't know about where you're at - and I don't mean to sound condescending) but guns were very much enculturated in the US, especially after WW2. We actually were allowed to have small caliber guns like .22s but weren't allowed to have BB or pellet guns because our parents were afraid we'd think of them as toys (which seems to be the prevailing attitude about guns now thanks to video games IMO).

Ben's ten to one really should be more like fifty to one - he's being conservative.

I'm probably the one who should apologize—for having such low expectations of 60's country boys. But it doesn't have to be purely a matter of terminology. Not having high quality color photos of the bullet to rely on, perhaps the officers tasked with the paperwork were in doubt about the metallic composition of its jacket, and it only took one to suggest it may have been "steel-jacketed" for that term to stick. The bullet had, after all, pierced a thick wall. I think the article overstates the significance of all four officers signing reports containing the term.

[Mark Ulrik]

Btw, this 1957 news item doesn't prove anything about anything, but it reminded me of the Walker case.

[James DiEugenio]

8 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Quite. Who was that? How was it done?

It was the wrong rifle.

Wrong length, wrong weight, and wrong classification.  Not to even mention the sling problems.

Edited May 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio