Response to Roe re staged Walker shot

[Greg Doudna]

Steve Roe, with whom I have been in friendly contact for a while, is one of the most knowledgeable researchers on the Walker shooting and right-wing extremist groups in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. He wrote a major chapter in Gayle Nix Jackson's excellent book, Pieces of the Puzzle: An Anthology. 

On March 11, 2023 I posted a paper on my website titled "Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot at General Walker on April 10, 1963?" (79 pages; https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1497). I made a case that the shot at General Walker was staged, that Walker was never in real danger, was not in the room when the shot was fired, faked his light injuries on a forearm, and that Oswald was working with Walker aide Robert Surrey in the staging of that shot.

The article attracted a little interest. Larry Hancock was very supportive and invited me to share time with him discussing it on an episode of The Ochelli Effect podcast on March 16; https://ochelli.com/banks-plus-walker-shooting-revisited/. I invited and Larry accepted the idea of a possible collaboration on a fuller development of the study in the future. Jefferson Morley ran a story on it (https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/did-lee-harvey-oswald-shoot-general). 

Recently, on May 30, 2023, Steve has posted a critical review ("New Theory on the General Walker shooting--Breakthrough?" (https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/new-theory-on-the-general-walker-shooting-breakthrough). Always a straight shooter, Steve told me it was coming and said I wasn't going to like it because he disagreed rather strongly with the idea that the Walker shot was staged. 

So I waited for the shoe to drop, and on May 30 it dropped. 

He's actually rather nice to me in the opening before going to substantive criticisms. He ends with a conclusion that I was taken in by a bogus story of David Surrey (oldest son of Robert Surrey, now deceased), says I was "duped" by that story, and expresses confidence I "will be extra cautious next time".

Well.

After reading and considering the points, I stand by my paper and will address the key points raised. The main point above all else is that the argument is not derivative from nor does it rest upon the story of David Surrey. That is a misunderstanding central to Steve Roe's criticism from its start to finish. The argument would stand if there were no story of David Surrey. The argument rests on the identification of one of the cars Kirk Coleman saw leaving after the shot, as the car of Robert Surrey. That--not the story of David Surrey--is the linchpin.

Following are responses to what I identify as the main points of Roe's critique.

Roe: the video of David Surrey is of dubious credibility "and it served as the foundation to [Doudna's] thesis in regard to the General Walker shooting"

Not so on the foundation of the thesis claim. The identification of the black-over-white Robert Surrey car as the black-over-white car seen by Kirk Coleman is the foundation. That car identification was not previously made before my study and is the foundation and the breakthrough.

Actually the identification of Robert Surrey's car as a black-over-white (1961 Ford Galaxy Sunliner convertible) is one detail that does come first to history from David (in his video), and that detail is essential. But Steve Roe has agreed to me (private communication) on the description of Robert Surrey's car as true, as fact; it is the rest of David's story that Roe rejects. But David's story is not the foundation, the car identification is the foundation.

The reason: the Robert Surrey car identification establishes Robert Surrey was at the Walker house at the time of the shot, as a fact of the case. And since Surrey's presence at Walker's house when the shot happened was concealed and not disclosed to the police, it supports the shot was staged.

The foundation is what Kirk Coleman saw and the identification of the car as Robert Surrey's--a black-over-white parked in the same location where Robert Surrey said he had parked his black-over-white several days earlier (in the church parking lot next to the Walker house). The identification of Robert Surrey's car means the man Coleman saw walking to that car was Robert Surrey.

What Kirk Coleman saw supports David Surrey's story that his father and he were at the Walker house at the time of the shot

Kirk Coleman saw the man at that black-and-white car (Robert Surrey) with a "dome light" on (will get to that detail in a moment), leaning in and with an arm over a seat and setting something on the floor in the rear. I interpret that as Robert Surrey clearing the passenger seat for a passenger about to sit in the front seat. That agrees with the story of David Surrey who said he was that passenger in that car at exactly the moments Kirk Coleman saw, and that his father (Robert Surrey) picked him up in the alley behind the Walker house which would have been moments after Robert cleared the seat for his son to sit. There is no sign that David Surrey in telling of his father and him at the Walker house at the time of the shot had any idea of Kirk Coleman's testimony which independently corroborated Robert Surrey at Walker's house exactly when David said he was there, at the time of the shot. 

Roe: David's younger brother Bill Surrey told Morley that David "made up the story .. and there you have it" "The foundation of this story falls apart"

Not so (referring to the night of the Walker shot). The reference is to a podcast of Morley and Larry Schnapf of April 4, starting at about 18:00: https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/jfk-facts-podcast-revisiting-the?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=l459#details). 

David Surrey actually told three stories related to the Walker shot: (1) with his father at the Walker house when the shot was fired (and drove off with his father); (2) going practice shooting with his father and Oswald; and (3) visiting "Martina" [Marina] at the house on Neely where David remembers "Martina" had a boy about 10 from a previous marriage and a dog (none of which matches to Lee and Marina). 

Morley did indeed report that he had called William, David's younger brother, and that William told him unfortunately he thought his older brother David had "made the story up". However the question is what, exactly, was William telling Morley David had made up? Which of the three stories just named? Or all three? I will give the transcript below so anyone can read and judge for themselves, but I believe the reference was to stories #2 and #3 above, not #1 (and I agree with Roe on William being credible and sound).

Here is my transcription of the full Morley segment. Schnapf expresses skepticism about the story of David visiting Lee and Marina with the boy and the dog, story #3 above, Morley answers with the William comment referencing #2 and #3 but not #1.

Schnapf. I think that Greg has done a good piece of research with Surrey. I think he's done a good piece of research with thinking that this thing was staged. I don't believe--I find less credence in the testimonies of the children, because they say that they went to Oswald's house--

Morley. No, they don't say that. David--one of them--said that.

Schnapf. One of then said that they went to the house and that there was a dog there, and that there was a young boy close to their age. So I'm not sure if they're misremembering or conflating this with something else, or if one of them is trying to be a part of history. However--

Morley. Just to note one thing. I called William Surrey. He's still alive, and I spoke with him this week. And I asked him about these interviews, you know, did he have anything to add. And he said that--I asked him--do you think that your brother made up this thing? And he said, unfortunately yes. So his own brother doubted that his father, that what, what--what, what David Surrey said was that he had gone on these shooting expeditions with his father and somebody named Lee, who he identified as Lee Oswald who he later visited and his brother thought that had not happened. Although his brother does remember very similar shooting expeditions with his father. But David was the older one, Bill was the younger one, and so he said, you know, his father actually, usually took the older boy along, not the younger one. 

Schnapf. David was dying, I guess, when he gave his interview. But I do think that their testimony about what happened at the Walker house is actually compelling, because the younger one, William, testified that--both of them say the same thing. They were at the house, filling folders for the campaign--there's some question about what campaign it was--but then--

Morley. Well Edwin Walker was very politically ambitious. He'd run for govenor of Texas in '62, and he was thinking about running for President in '64. 

Schnapf. Yeah, yes. Um, so William, the younger one, at some point, he went back to his house with his mother to get more supplies, and David stayed there. And David said he was there when the shooting occurred. So the brothers, although they have difference experiences with that event, then they come back to the house and they're told what happened. So you have different experiences but they're saying the same thing. So that kind of < ? > that they were there. And the suggestion--and I think Greg might be--has a good point here--that maybe Walker was actually on the second floor knowing that a shot was going to be fired. Because it would have passed real close to his head.

(Morley laughter)

Schnapf. And I don't think anyone if they're going to fake a shooting, I mean, you know, it would have been a very-- it would have been close, I think a too close for comfort for someone to set there and hope that the person misses you. So that's interesting.

Therefore I think Roe overreached in the claim that William discredited David's story of the night of the Walker shot.

Roe: "What easily discounts this as Surrey's car" is Kirk Coleman said he saw a dome light on in the black-over-white; but 1961 Ford Sunliners (convertible top) did not have dome lights.

1961 Ford Sunliners had an under-the-dashboard light, as below. This would have been what Kirk Coleman saw, the interior lit up, and just called it a "dome light".   

 

 

Nov 16, 2023 edit:  I have removed from the first sentence a statement that Steve Roe grew up in Dallas which was incorrect. Nothing else has been edited from the above other than that.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Benjamin Cole]

I won't stick my nose in to this particular dispute except to note the extremely odd way the Walker bullet presented itself: 

The Walker Bullet Was Found—Resting between Bundles of Literature?

Among the many oddities of the true Walker Bullet is where it was found.

If DPD patrolman Norvell is correctly quoted, he found the steel-jacketed slug resting atop one bundle of paper in a stack of bundles, after another bundle had been removed from atop of it.

That is, the Walker Bullet missed Walker, then passed through an interior wall behind Walker. The Walker Bullet then purportedly came to rest in-between bundles of paper.^[16]

Commission Exhibit 1009: The Walker Bullet was found “in between” bundles of paper such as this?

Per an FBI report dated June 4, 1964 (italics added):

"In his adjoining [Walker's] room, the [Dallas Police Department] officers [Tucker and Norvell] found numerous bundles and literature and papers stacked against this common wall. Upon removing some, they found a mushroom-shaped bullet lying on one of the stacks of literature near the hole in the wall.”

---30--

There has always been speculation that General Walker, a national public figure, had staged the Walker shooting as a publicity stunt, with or without LHO’s participation.

If the true Walker Bullet was found resting in-between bundles of paper, lying on one of the stacks, then one might have suspicions the bullet had been planted there.

 

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Walker Bullet Was Found—Resting between Bundles of Literature?

Among the many oddities of the true Walker Bullet is where it was found.

If DPD patrolman Norvell is correctly quoted, he found the steel-jacketed slug resting atop one bundle of paper in a stack of bundles, after another bundle had been removed from atop of it.

That is, the Walker Bullet missed Walker, then passed through an interior wall behind Walker. The Walker Bullet then purportedly came to rest in-between bundles of paper.^[16]

Commission Exhibit 1009: The Walker Bullet was found “in between” bundles of paper such as this?

Per an FBI report dated June 4, 1964 (italics added):

"In his adjoining [Walker's] room, the [Dallas Police Department] officers [Tucker and Norvell] found numerous bundles and literature and papers stacked against this common wall. Upon removing some, they found a mushroom-shaped bullet lying on one of the stacks of literature near the hole in the wall.”

---30--

There has always been speculation that General Walker, a national public figure, had staged the Walker shooting as a publicity stunt, with or without LHO’s participation.

If the true Walker Bullet was found resting in-between bundles of paper, lying on one of the stacks, then one might have suspicions the bullet had been planted there.

The hole in the wall and the nick in the window sill look like a real shot was fired, and if a real shot was fired I don't see any point to planting a bullet. I don't see a problem with the report that it was found where it was.

[Benjamin Cole]

15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The hole in the wall and the nick in the window sill look like a real shot was fired, and if a real shot was fired I don't see any point to planting a bullet. I don't see a problem with the report that it was found where it was.

We are of different perceptions on many issues regarding the Walker incident, but that is what a forum is for. 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We are of different perceptions on many issues regarding the Walker incident, but that is what a forum is for.

I asked in the Walker Bullet article thread what you guys think happened with the bullet that went through the wall. (Cue the crickets.)

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I asked in the Walker Bullet article thread what you guys think happened with the bullet that went through the wall. (Cue the crickets.)

I rather suspect the purported true Walker Bullet bullet that went through the wall did not come to rest in-between bundles of paper. 

It could be the FBI report was incomplete. That Tucker and Novell noted a streak on top of one bundle, and on the bottom of one bundle, illustrating how the slug came to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper. Well, anything is possible. 

However, by but the time the bullet passed through a wall, it had become mushroom-shaped. Seems to me the slug would not come to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper without making quite a scene. A jagged tunneling effect.  

If the FBI report is roughly accurate, then the location of the true Walker Bullet stretches credulity. As if someone placed the bullet between the bundles. 

Pure speculation (aided by a pitcher of mai-tais): OK, Walker staged the shooting. Maybe even hired LHO. LHO brought his rifle, loaded with copper-jacketed ammo, and agreed to take a potshot at the empty den-room from the alley.  LHO is no dummy, and says, "Hey, leave behind this 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet where the cops will find it. That way even if I am spotted and become a suspect, I will be cleared." 

The thing I have the most trouble accepting is four different cops calling a copper-jacketed slug, collected as evidence at the scene of an attempted murder of a very high profile public figure,  a "steel jacketed"  bullet, in two separate official reports filed that night. 

Even game wardens knew the difference between steel- and copper-jacketed slugs. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Roe: William Surrey (younger brother) said David Surrey (older brother) "made up the story" of the night of the Walker shot, con'd

As above, the argument is based on the identification of the car that Kirk Coleman saw, not David's story, and Morley explained what William said he thought his brother had made up: that he had he gone shooting with his father and Oswald, and had visited Lee and Marina's place on Neely. Not the night of the Walker shot.

Even there--on David's claim to have gone shooting with his father and Oswald--there is no claim that David knew certainly it was not true, beyond skepticism from a brother who seems to come across as being sensible and having good judgment.

The question then is not did William say David made up the story of being at the Walker house with his father the night of the shot--he did not, from Morley's account--but rather a different question: does a weakening of David's credibility elsewhere (from William's skepticism) spill over to weakening credibility of David's claim that he and his father were at the Walker house the night of the Walker shot?

Well the car shows the father (Robert Surrey) was there. Kirk Coleman, the witness, saw that. Nothing of David's story involved in that. And Kirk Coleman saw what sounds like, from the description, Robert Surrey maybe clearing stuff off a front passenger seat in order to pick up a passenger, which would agree with David's story that he was that passenger picked up moments later.

The question is whether William says anything specific that falsifies or runs counter to that, and the answer is no, nothing known on any record, including what Gayle Nix Jackson reported from earlier contacts and communications from William. But here is William himself, telling details of what he remembers of the night of the Walker shot, May 18, 2013. The video can be seen at Roe's article https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/new-theory-on-the-general-walker-shooting-breakthrough. Nothing William says counters that either his father or his older brother David were at the Walker house at the time of the shot. (My transcription)

"I just saw what David has talked about [evidently David's video], and it was pretty interesting the way he looked at some of the things, and what I did. The basic thing is that David spent a lot more time with my father, and off with my Dad [than William] ... But the different events that we remember, particularly the one of the night that Edwin Walker was shot at, I can remember specifically being there that night. We were stuffing envelopes, literature and stuff to pass out ...<some confusion and discussion off-camera regarding which election campaign>... We were stuffing envelopes. As kids, what we did--our parents used us to do stuff, and we just did it. And we had fun doing it, it was a good thing, we'd run through, we'd have races who could pack the envelopes the quickest. But then we got done at the end, and I think we ran out of a particular piece, and they wanted to wait until they could print some more, whatever it was, but they said we were done for the night.

"So all I did is, I remember just piling into the car, and different people would get into different cars, and then we headed home. And I could not say who was in the car with me or not. But we just got home, and we weren't home very long, when we got a call to get back to General Walker's house right away. At which point we did. And when we got back there we found out that somebody had shot at him. (Question off-camera: had the police arrived yet?) I don't remember the police there that--I don't remember when the police got there.

"But when we came in the house--because there's a front entrance and a rear entrance. There's a lot more activity going on behind the house than in front of the house. We pulled up in front of the house. And when we went into his house there's kind of like a living area (gesturing) off to the side, kind of like a parlor. And so then we were kind of sitting in there trying to find out what was going on. And we heard that he'd been shot at. They kind of kept us there in the front part, we didn't go in to the other areas, but after--and as a kid you lose track of time, it seemed like a long time, it was probably maybe not more than half an hour, they took us back there and showed us the hole, where the bullet went through. And I just recall them saying something "if it hadn't hit this, he'd probably be dead", and I think they were referring to something in the wall, on the wall, or whatever. (off-camera: window frame) Window frame, OK, this is--I remember them saying, Boy, it hit something and it just set it off just enough to miss him. And to me that didn't mean a lot, I just thought, OK, you know, because I was a kid, probably ten, eleven years old, I don't know, at the time ... And so all that activity was going on and they took us to the back of the house.

"And as I heard David's story I thought, well I wasn't there when the shot went off or anything like that, so as he's telling the story, I didn't recall--David--I don't remember him specifically being with us when we went home. And a lot of times he and my Dad would go places together. So it was nothing out of the ordinary not to have David with us. So any way we went back home and we heard later that he got shot at, that he'd been shot, and that--I knew later, probably years later, when David and I were talking, and my wife, and we're all talking about stuff like this, he told me about the <?> behind the house, which is I think where all the activity and stuff was going on. When we were in front, in the parlor, and maybe they were trying to protect us from some of the stuff, probably just keeping us from all the activity that was going on in the back. And so we got home from that, and that's pretty much all I remember of that particular event."

[Greg Doudna]

Continuing with response to points in the Steve Roe May 30. He had told me in advance he saw errors in my paper and in his May 30 he has a section entitled "major cracks in Greg's story" which I will go through.

Roe: the car witness Kirk Coleman saw was not Robert Surrey's car

This is the most fundamental point. The argument stands or falls on the correctness of that car identification. Since I gave an extensive argument for that identification in my paper I won't repeat it here other than I am certain it is correct, due to the extraordinary coincidence of the two-tone black-over-white color match; the fact that the car was where Surrey's black-over-white car had been parked only several days previously by Surrey's admission, and corresponding to a church youth who said he recognized the same black-over-white car (of the night of the Walker shot) parked there on at least one earlier occasion--it was Surrey's car.

Roe gave some reasons, mainly argument that Kirk Coleman's description differed in details from Surrey's car. I have mentioned the dome light objection. Witness Kirk Coleman at night sees a man getting into what looks like a two-door sedan with the interior lit up and leaning in and putting something on the rear floor. Anyone seeing an interior of a car lit up assumes the dome light is on; I would. It happens that Surrey's car was a convertible not a sedan. It was two-door. Being a convertible it did not have a dome light in the roof. Instead 1961 Ford Galaxie Sunliners (Surrey's car) had its interior light under the dashboard. Same effect of lighting up the interior when needed. Kirk Coleman saw the interior light on, was not close enough to verify where the light bulb was. That objection is a non-issue. (Actually credit where credit is due, it was Roe himself who privately informed me after checking that the 1961 Ford Sunliner had a light, just under the dashboard, which I then independently verified.)

More importantly Roe objects that Coleman thought the black-over-white he saw was a 1958 Chevrolet. Roe presents old vintage color advertising of the two kinds of cars and objects that Coleman could not have misidentified, thought one was the other. I do not agree. This was a witness at night. The two-door detail is the same. The "sedan" Coleman thought matches the profile of the Ford Sunliner convertible with the top up that night (profile of a sedan). The black-over-white. The witness simply got Surrey's true make of car wrong, but he saw Surrey's black-over-white Sunliner with the top up. I noted the common detail of the long single stripe running most of the length on the side of each of those cars (can be seen on both in Roe's vintage color old ads for the two cars). It is not as if that stripe is something all or most cars had. But those two particular makes did, and look similar. If I were to guess, I would guess that was the mechanism of the error in which Coleman (who I think was not first reported to have given his car make identification until Sat April 11, a day later). I don't accept Roe's objection that 15-year-old Kirk Coleman looking at night over his fence could not misidentify a black-over-white two-door Ford Sunliner with the top up as a black-over-white 1958 Chevrolet two-door sedan. Roe is holding a truthful witness to a too high standard of precision of accuracy in remembered detail, preferring to see the black-over-white (and two-door and sedan profile and the common distinctive side stripe of the two models) as coincidence rather than that Kirk Coleman simply got the specific make wrong.

Roe: Mary Surrey said her husband (Robert Surrey) was at their home when General Walker called: "was Mary Surrey in on this fake shooting plan?"   

Robert and Mary Surrey lived two miles away from Walker's house as I recall, which would be maybe 4-5 minutes away. As reconstructed, both Robert Surrey and son David went home after the shot and were at home when Walker called, as reported, and they all then returned to the Walker house (large blended family with at least two cars). Walker delayed a small number of minutes by his own account before calling the police. So there is not a conflict in the timeline and presence at the Surrey home on that (cf. p. 27 my paper). On the question of Mary Surrey's knowledge of a faked shot, I don't know. Gayle Nix Jackson's book has some discussion of Mary Surrey being so loyal to Walker that she wrote fake letters on his behalf alleging to be from other women's signed names.

Roe: Walker's wounds in his arm proves he was in the room when the shot was fired: "does anyone in their right mind think Surrey and Walker faked this wound?"

Well, yes I think law enforcement in their right mind investigating the incident would consider it a non-excluded possibility until it is excluded. No witnesses, nature of injury not serious and indeed hardly even painful, publicity-seeking public figure ... not an unusual law enforcement question to consider whether it was faked. Its as natural a question as when police get a call from a husband reporting a dead, murdered wife whose body he just came upon, to consider the husband a suspect until cleared. Its not that faked cases never happen--lots of cases in the news of faked attacks and injuries, for a variety of reasons.  

And Roe erred in claiming I ignored this ("For some reason Greg ignored the obvious, Walker's visible wounds on his arm"). Because of the length of the paper I can understand Roe missed it, but I addressed it. Page 63:

"Man No. 1, with the engine light running and headlights on, leaves the car and walks to a standing position in the parking lot where he can see straight out through the alley exit into the alley itself, with line of sight to the shooter in the darkness there, Oswald. The shooter, Oswald, now in position, can see No. 1 standing out in the lighted parking lot, and Surrey and/or Walker in the Walker house from the second floor also can see No. 1 in the lighted parking lot. Surrey will have assisted Walker upstairs in the preparation of Walker's 'injuries' (scratches on the back of a forearm from pressing lightly over some small jagged metal pieces entering skin in three or four places). (The plaster in the hair could be an added touch by Walker taken from the bullet hole in the wall after he phoned and was awaiting police arrival in the room of the shot.)

"With General Walker readied upstairs with his 'injuries' made, Surrey goes to David and ensures David and he will be on the opposite side of the house on the ground floor from where the shot will come in. Either Surrey or Walker from a window signals to man No. 1, 'ready to go'. Man No. 1 with line of sight to Oswald in the alley gives a 'go-ahead' signal to Oswald. Oswald fires into the empty room, then runs with the rifle down or across the alley and disappears. Man No. 1 turns back to his running car. Kirk Coleman sees No. 1 walking back toward his car with the engine running and headlights on ..."

Roe: the man walking to Kirk Coleman's car No. 2 (the black-over-white) could not be Robert Surrey because of a difference in physical description

Robert Surrey was 5'10", 150-160 pounds, according to an FBI description (obtained from some unknown informant describing Surrey). Witness Kirk Coleman estimated the man going to the black-over-white No. 2 car was 6'1" and 200 pounds. 

I reason that was Robert Surrey Coleman saw because he went to and drove off in Robert Surrey's car. Roe reasons that a witness could not have made a mistake of height and weight of that extent and that argues it was not Surrey or Surrey's car. 

I don't think this objection is substantial, in light of witness variability in description, the only seconds of visibility of the man, at night, and consider what Coleman saw mostly--the backside of someone leaning into a car (after noticing him first walking without paying close attention since his attention was on man No. 1).

Roe: "if this was a staged shot, then why did Oswald fire from the alley where the chipped piece was noticed on the lattice fence? That position risked exposure, and why not take the fake shot inside the Walker backyard where he would be more concealed inside the fence?"

This is a question that could equally be asked of a non-faked shot, either way. I assume the answer (either way) would be the idea was to take the shot in an alley with no one around or watching, and then immediately be gone and disappeared (since the shot would bring people of neighboring houses to windows to look), which could not be done so easily inside Walker's back yard--more risk of being seen leaving. 

Per reconstruction, Kirk Coleman's man No. 1--the one Coleman saw returning walking to a running car with the headlights on in the parking lot--from the position where he would have started his walk, had line of sight to the alley and, unless he was an unusual kind of curious onlooker (hears a shot and gets out of a running car, leaving it running, to go walk to take a better look) ... then that would be a spotter/collaborator in visual signal contact with both the Walker house and Oswald in the alley. 

Roe: "why did [Oswald] hit the window frame if it was a fake shot? This doesn't make sense."

That's an easy one. From all accounts, Oswald just wasn't a very good shot.

(In an underreported, little noticed detail in the Laura Kittrell story, Kittrell claimed Oswald took aptitude tests under her at the Texas Employment Commission in early Oct 1963 and discussed with Oswald a low score on physical coordination. That could suggest maybe some physiological reason Oswald could not be better than mediocre in matters involving physical coordination, such as shooting a firearm. According to Kittrell, Oswald admitted that and admitted he had been a bad shot in the Marines when tested. Of course Kittrell's witness account has credibility issues and is given short thrift because of that, but the response to Kittrell was to write her off rather than check out the specific claims such as the claim of a TEC Oct 1963 aptitude test of Oswald.)

But this is in any case a question that applies whether or not the shot was fake.

Roe: a timing objection:. Man no. 2 could not be Robert Surrey coming out of the Walker house because not enough time until Kirk Coleman was looking

Of all the points raised by Roe this is the one I consider the most serious, calling for explanation (which I believe can be obtained). 

The point goes like this: Kirk Coleman's back fence was only 14 feet from the back door, and Kirk was timed as taking only 2 seconds to get from the back door to the top of looking out over that fence, which he said he did as soon as he heard the shot. No way there is enough time for someone from inside the Walker house could be man No. 2 walking seen by Coleman walking in the parking lot toward the No. 2 car. 

I actually had done quite a bit of work on that question in notes which did not go into my Walker shot paper, but which can in a followup edition or paper. I mentally tried to estimate timing in seconds for each movement of each of the persons as accurately as I could, not as good as a real reenactment but the best that can be done at this distance.

The conclusion was that Coleman, inside the house, must have taken ca. 10-20 seconds longer to get to looking over the fence than has been supposed and that Coleman remembered. Coleman was with someone, and a shot might have a few moments of "what's that?" and listening if there was going to be a second shot, etc. Then considering what to do, then running out back and to the fence, which involved stepping up on a bicycle to look over and focus. The last movement from the rear door to the looking-over can be accepted as ca. 2-3 seconds, so there must be small number of additional seconds of Coleman inside the house before he began his rapid movement to the fence. Time distortion in memory can happen in moments of shock and crisis. 

Man No. 2--whether he was or was not Robert Surrey--from where he was and direction of walking when Coleman saw him, came out of the alley which ran behind Walker's adjoining house. Man No. 2 came from where the shot had just been fired! Now if it were not for the issue of David Surrey also being present (i.e. if perchance his story were to be tossed and it was only Robert Surrey getting into Robert Surrey's car), then one would not need to have Robert Surrey inside the house at the moment of the shot, but for all we know could be out in the alley somewhere with Oswald at the time of the shot, then within 2-4 seconds is walking in the parking lot to his car, as seen by Kirk Coleman with no significant time distortion. But if Robert Surrey is inside the house when the shot happens, then Kirk Coleman must have delayed a certain number of seconds getting out the back door to go run and look. 

Bottom line: the reasons for car No. 2 and the man walking to it being Robert Surrey are so strong and compelling that an overly rigid insistence on numbers of seconds for witness Kirk Coleman's movements is not a sufficient counterargument to the identification. Any resolution of an apparent discrepancy in timing is to be sought in modifying the reconstruction and timing of Kirk Coleman's movements by some numbers of seconds, in keeping with range of witness error in time-memory.

Concluding comment

I appreciate Steve Roe's taking the time to read and respond to my paper, and the many interesting and fascinating details and lore of history he digs up along the way. I appreciate Gayle Nix Jackson's pioneering work in Pieces of the Puzzle (in which Roe played a contributing role too).

Edited June 13, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I rather suspect the purported true Walker Bullet bullet that went through the wall did not come to rest in-between bundles of paper. 

It could be the FBI report was incomplete. That Tucker and Novell noted a streak on top of one bundle, and on the bottom of one bundle, illustrating how the slug came to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper. Well, anything is possible. 

However, by but the time the bullet passed through a wall, it had become mushroom-shaped. Seems to me the slug would not come to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper without making quite a scene. A jagged tunneling effect.  

If the FBI report is roughly accurate, then the location of the true Walker Bullet stretches credulity. As if someone placed the bullet between the bundles. 

Pure speculation (aided by a pitcher of mai-tais): OK, Walker staged the shooting. Maybe even hired LHO. LHO brought his rifle, loaded with copper-jacketed ammo, and agreed to take a potshot at the empty den-room from the alley.  LHO is no dummy, and says, "Hey, leave behind this 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet where the cops will find it. That way even if I am spotted and become a suspect, I will be cleared." 

The thing I have the most trouble accepting is four different cops calling a copper-jacketed slug, collected as evidence at the scene of an attempted murder of a very high profile public figure,  a "steel jacketed"  bullet, in two separate official reports filed that night. 

Even game wardens knew the difference between steel- and copper-jacketed slugs. 

On the steel versus copper jacketed and bullet-substitution issue ... I don't want to be 100% on this, but I honestly think a simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others, or something like that, is a simpler explanation. I know you question that that is plausible. I can suggest an explanation to Tom Gram's (and your) issue of why Dallas Police officers were not asked to clear it up however.

I bet they were, it just isn't reported. And I have a pretty good idea what would happen if those officers were asked by the FBI, "Hey Patrolman Barney, did you idiotically screw up calling this copper-jacketed bullet steel-jacketed?"

That already happened once. The Dallas Police grabbed camera equipment of Michael Paine out of a drawer, even though Michael tried to tell them it was his, during the original search for Oswald's things. Then the Dallas Police marked the items, wrote them up, and conveyed them to the FBI. One of the items was a Minox light meter which the Dallas Police wrote up on the list as a Minox camera. The list and checking off got by even an FBI agent in Dallas overseeing the conveyance paperwork. The mistake was not discovered until the FBI lab in D.C. checking the items found where on the list it said "Minox camera", instead what had actually been shipped was a similarly-shaped Minox light meter.

OK, FBI sends to Dallas to get the Dallas Police to acknowledge correction and fix the paperwork. SURPRISE SURPRISE! The Dallas Police and the FBI didn't like each other very much. The Dallas officer asked--"Mr. Gus Rose, were you so idiotically ignorant that you wrote down a Minox light meter as a Minox camera?" 

He said No, and the rest of the Dallas Police backed him up, and put the story in the media, making the FBI look bad! (DPD probably smiling behind the scenes at payback to the FBI for whatever past history added up to "they deserve it").

Never mind that this took legs and became a decades-long conspiracy theory with adherents to the present day, the Minox Camera Substitution Conspiracy featuring the nefarious FBI, and Ruth Paine (of course), and etc and etc. 

Because--Gus Rose, that honorable Dallas Police officer, said he had not made a mistake! Just ask him--he'll tell you himself! 

Well this is not he says versus they say.

There is evidence, smoking-gun evidence, that tells exactly what happened on that one. That evidence is a Dallas Police photograph of the evidence they had collected, taken by the Dallas Police (nothing to do with FBI), and before the evidence was conveyed to the FBI. All of Michael Paine's camera equipment is there that the Dallas Police took that day mixed with things of Oswald's, including rolls of film of Michael Paine. And there is a Minox light meter, and an empty Minox camera case and no Minox camera. This was part of Rusty Livingstone's DPD evidence photographs published by Savage, First Day Evidence.

And officer Gus Rose, who denied he had gotten it wrong, I have noticed Gus Rose made exaggerations and misstatements on other things.

The Dallas Police by not acknowledging that error which their own evidence photograph proved (but which the world and public did not know about, the evidence photograph that is), came out in the press with the FBI looking bad as if the FBI had altered that evidence! In a context in which the Dallas Police had grievances against the FBI. Maybe a little bit of payback there.

So back to the current topic. Same song, verse 2. How easy is it going to be for an FBI agent to get a DPD officer to admit they were a klutz? 

I think the FBI didn't write up interviews on those officers because they informally found out or knew that it would only be denials (just like Gus Rose earlier), and they weren't interested in denials (which would complicate things, just like the prior Minox saga, and no doubt the DPD would vouch for its own) but in resolving the issue. Therefore, no reported interviews at all with those officers. Only the new one, Norvell, was suitable for FBI purposes.

That's my hunch on this. The bullet was copper-jacketed from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano from the outset and was mislabeled by mistake. 

Bu unlike the case with the Minox in which a DPD evidence photograph answered that question, this one does not have a comparable photograph to answer that question, therefore is a case of an incompletely-resolved odd error, so as noted this is only my hunch re the Walker bullet, not 100% certainty. 

[Mark Ulrik]

I like your hunch, Greg. My hunch tells me that it's possible to overestimate the significance of multiple signatures on police reports. In many cases, the co-signer is probably happy to sign almost anything if it saves him from doing the paperwork himself.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I like your hunch, Greg. My hunch tells me that it's possible to overestimate the significance of multiple signatures on police reports. In many cases, the co-signer is probably happy to sign almost anything if it saves him from doing the paperwork himself.

Well, we are world's apart in our views. 

Remember, all four DPD officers initialed and marked the true Walker slug. That means they held the slug in one hand, and marked it with a stylus or awl. They didn't merely sign a report late at night. 

If the true Waker slug was copper-jacketed (CE573) it stretches credulity none of the four (including two detectives who advanced by taking civil service exams) noticed that, and they all agreed it was a steel-jacketed bullet on official documents. 

IMHO, the analogy to Michael Paine's camera is rather weak, like Popeye before he eats his spinach. 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna on the steel vs jacketed controversy, if you understood that @Benjamin Cole is right that 4 DPD officers each saw/handled the bullet as opposed to your statement that the controversey was due to a "simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others", would that change your thinking about if CE573 was indeed the bullet recovered from the Walker house? 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna on the steel vs jacketed controversy, if you understood that @Benjamin Cole is right that 4 DPD officers each saw/handled the bullet as opposed to your statement that the controversey was due to a "simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others", would that change your thinking about if CE573 was indeed the bullet recovered from the Walker house? 

 

LS--

The four DPD officers not only handled the true Walker bullet, but inscribed their initial (s) into the slug with a stylus or awl. 

If you look at CE573, it may be the most obviously copper-jacketed bullet in existence---and not only that the four officers inscribed the bullet, thus revealing fresh copper in their marks. 

Remember, the DPD officers were collecting evidence at the scene of an attempted murder of a very high-profile public figure---someone nationally famous.  

But then all DPD four officers agreed the evidence they had collected, that they had actually inscribed, was a relatively rare steel-jacketed bullet? An oddity? 

More likely, and naturally, the two DPD detectives regarded the steel-jacketing as a clue to a would-be assassin, and a very dangerous individual at large (if they believed Walker). 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Add on:

The Book of Pistols & Revolvers: An Encyclopedic Reference Work

books.google.co.th › books

 

 

Walter Harold Black Smith · 1960 · ‎Snippet view

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 604

STEEL JACKETED BULLET . Not common in America . Bullets having a soft steel jacket , often flash coated or plated with gilding metal to prevent rusting and reduce frictional resistance in the bore . 12. TRACER BULLET .

---30---

The steel-jacketed bullet was "not common in America." 

So...why would four different DPD officers, including two detectives, decide a copper-jacketed bullet was actually steel-jacketed? 

The quartet went a long, long, long way out of reality to make that error. 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Benjamin Cole I'm just trying to make sure we work from the same set of facts. Greg's prior post appeared to assume that only one officer actually saw the bullet and that the others thought it was a steel jacketed bullet because that was what they were told.