Response to Roe re staged Walker shot

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@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.  

Yes...I understand, but I have to repeat myself...as so strains credulity that four different officers made the same mistake. 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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? 

Benjamin, you are saying that all four officers at the scene who cosigned the two reports (Van Cleave, McElroy, Norvell, Tucker) "inscribed their initial(s) into the slug with a stylus or awl"?

In the article by you and Tom Gram, you write: "All four DPD officers had held the Walker Bullet that night in their hands that night, and inscribed their initials into it, according to official reports." 

Could you document that? I know Norvell's "N" is confirmed, he marked it, said he did, said he recognized his mark, there is an "N" on the copper-jacketed evidence bullet. But could you document that the other three marked? I don't see a link or reference in your article on that.

[Mark Ulrik]

That's a very good question

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin, you are saying that all four officers at the scene who cosigned the two reports (Van Cleave, McElroy, Norvell, Tucker) "inscribed their initial(s) into the slug with a stylus or awl"?

In the article by you and Tom Gram, you write: "All four DPD officers had held the Walker Bullet that night in their hands that night, and inscribed their initials into it, according to official reports." 

Could you document that? I know Norvell's "N" is confirmed, he marked it, said he did, said he recognized his mark, there is an "N" on the copper-jacketed evidence bullet. But could you document that the other three marked? I don't see a link or reference in your article on that.

Yes, all of that is in the footnotes, the Dallas police reports and the FBI reports.

No one disputes that the written official record is that all four DPD officers held and initialed the true Walker Bullet.  

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/walker-bullet-ce-573-is-it-real

What some observers are contending is that after all four officers, including two detectives, initialed the true Walker bullet, with an awl or stylus, then all four officially described the bullet as "steel jacketed" in same-day official reports they authored and signed. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Greg Doudna]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, all of that is in the footnotes, the Dallas police reports and the FBI reports.

No one disputes that the written official record is that all four DPD officers held and initialed the true Walker Bullet.  

Sorry, I cannot find in your footnotes (I checked again) any reference to evidence that officers Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked the bullet.

I am disputing that until seeing evidence.

Not only do I not see any testimony saying Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it, the FBI report on the bullet (CE 573) lists the initials that are on it and identifies the names of those initials, and none are Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=10 .

Also, it does not make sense that all four would mark it. There is uncontested evidence that only one of those four, Norvell, personally handled it before turning it over to the crime lab that night in the person of Brown who was there (conflicting reports on whether it passed through Van Cleave's hands; in either case there is no indication he marked the bullet).

The one finding it and personally handling it, Norvell, marks it, turns it over to Brown of the crime lab who is at the scene, who also marks it. That makes sense. None of the four officers of the reports ever saw the bullet again after that point that night.

Where is evidence that Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it? 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Benjamin Cole]

15 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sorry, I cannot find in your footnotes (I checked again) any reference to evidence that officers Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked the bullet.

I am disputing that until seeing evidence.

Not only do I not see any testimony saying Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it, the FBI report on the bullet (CE 573) lists the initials that are on it and identifies the names of those initials, and none are Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=10 .

Also, it does not make sense that all four would mark it. There is uncontested evidence that only one of those four, Norvell, personally handled it before turning it over to the crime lab that night in the person of Brown who was there (conflicting reports on whether it passed through Van Cleave's hands; in either case there is no indication he marked the bullet).

The one finding it and personally handling it, Norvell, marks it, turns it over to Brown of the crime lab who is at the scene, who also marks it. That makes sense. None of the four officers of the reports ever saw the bullet again after that point that night.

Where is evidence that Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it? 

At work now, will source later. Tom Gram?

Believe me, no one disputes all four officers marked the slug. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours 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? 

Not necessarily. My question focuses not on any notion that an officer carefully looking at that bullet, holding it in his hands, etc. would confuse its identity while studying it, or would knowingly call a copper-jacketed "steel jacketed" as a figure of speech. 

Rather, my question focuses on the writeup of the reports and paperwork and the possibility of a careless labeling or error by one officer in a later writeup, cosigned, and then copied from that report by another report signed by two more. As Mark Ulrik suggests, officers might prefer to cosign a report written by someone else rather than go to the work of writing up a report of their own, and might assume what was written was correct when signing it. 

You could have a situation in which Norvell mislabeled it in the writeup (one mistake in labeling) from misremembering it, in an hours later or day later report writeup. Norvell gave up the bullet that night to Brown (crime lab) and never saw it again, including when he later drafted up and then prepared for Tucker's co-signature the report of that evening.

It was not as if this is a case of he is looking right at the bullet and writes "it is steel-jacketed" in real time.

Instead, it is a case of Norvell found the bullet that evening, handed it over to the crime lab that evening (at the instruction of Van Cleve), never saw it again, and the next day (or whenever) writes up his report and mis-described it or however the error happened (if it was an error). 

Then Tucker cosigned Norvell’s report (Tucker may have deferred to Norvell who wrote the report when signing it). Whichever of the two wrote up the Van Cleave and McElroy Supplementary Offense Report, cosigned by the other, then may have copied or adopted "steel-jacketed" from the written report authored by Norvell.

One person’s mistake in labeling (created with the help of time separation from seeing the bullet), then repeated under four signed names.

Wasn't Norvell, the one who labeled it “steel-jacketed”, the rookie who also didn't remain long at DPD after that? Is it excluded that a factor in his possibly quietly behind the scenes being let go was this very mistake at the time? 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

(duplicate)

Edited June 13, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

At work now, will source later. Tom Gram?

Believe me, no one disputes all four officers marked the slug. 

I'm afraid that's not correct.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I'm afraid that's not correct.

In addition. Lt. Day of the DPD testified to the FBI and to the WC that he marked the true Walker bullet with the word "DAY" and a cross. 

Evidently, and curiously, Day never said he had marked a copper-jacketed bullet, and never felt a duty to correct the original DPD reports of the slug as "steel jacketed." 

For whatever reason, the word DAY and the cross are not found on CE 573. 

[Benjamin Cole]

Add on:

More marks!

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

"Brown (DPD)  stated he marked the bullet and took it back to the CSSS (crime lab) at the Dallas Police Department, where he kept it for safekeeping."

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna i think your theory about possibility of a careless labeling or error by one officer in a later writeup, cosigned, and then copied from that report by another report signed by two more calls for a level of incompetence that would be surprising for even the inept DPD. That requires lots of mistakes. Arent you the one who advocates for the simplest explanation? this theoy requires lots of mistakes. 

I think the key question is documenting if the 4 officers actually witnessed the actual bullet. also important would be the Parkland lab that did forensic study. The lab had custody of the bullet from shortly after the shooting until it was turned over to the FBI.   

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna i think your theory about possibility of a careless labeling or error by one officer in a later writeup, cosigned, and then copied from that report by another report signed by two more calls for a level of incompetence that would be surprising for even the inept DPD. That requires lots of mistakes. Arent you the one who advocates for the simplest explanation? this theoy requires lots of mistakes. 

I think the key question is documenting if the 4 officers actually witnessed the actual bullet. also important would be the Parkland lab that did forensic study. The lab had custody of the bullet from shortly after the shooting until it was turned over to the FBI.   

Unfortunately, the surviving records from the DPD lab (which was in Parkland Hospital) do not indicate whether the true Walker bullet was steel-jacketed or copper-jacketed. One might expect a DPD forensic lab to have performed basic ID of a bullet (ie, "full copper-jacket, lead core"), but such basic documentation has disappeared, if it ever existed. 

Nor are there any surviving DPD photographs of the true Walker bullet.

The DPD took seven photographs of the Walker crime scene which survive. But none of the Walker bullet. 

At every turn to prove the provenance of CE573, one meets roadblocks. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna I have worked with government types for 40 years in my law career and I know that there is a range of diligence among government employees. But you are assuming that that all of the officers co-signed without carefully reviewing the paperwork.  Maybe 1 out 10 would be so careless but 4 out of 4  is simply not consistent my extensive government experience and may I suggest violates your simplest answer doctrine.

And has it ever occured to you that every "mistake" by the DPD, FBI or others that WC supporters cite to explain away evidentiary discrepancies ate always one way- in  support the lone gunman theory? That is not probably or even likely from a statistical standpoint. I think you are being very credulous. -IMHO

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna I have worked with government types for 40 years in my law career and I know that there is a range of diligence among government employees. But you are assuming that that all of the officers co-signed without carefully reviewing the paperwork.  Maybe 1 out 10 would be so careless but 4 out of 4  is simply not consistent my extensive government experience and may I suggest violates your simplest answer doctrine.

And has it ever occured to you that every "mistake" by the DPD, FBI or others that WC supporters cite to explain away evidentiary discrepancies ate always one way- in  support the lone gunman theory? That is not probably or even likely from a statistical standpoint. I think you are being very credulous. -IMHO

Well, four officers reflected one officer's mistake on identifying a Carcano as a Mauser (definitely a mistaken ID and not a real Mauser, as shown in the Alyea film). Was that kind of mistake in the name of four officers believable? Well it happened. One identifies (the mistake), three others copy. Is that an analogy to here? I don't know. 

To me, I consider four things as facts of the case: that the Walker Note was written by Oswald and genuine; that Marina's story of Lee telling her he shot at Walker was unprompted and uncoerced from Marina and default assumption is her story reflects what Lee told her; that the photos of the Walker house in Oswald's belongings are from Oswald (since match to the camera; and Marina's story of Oswald's notebook of documentation); and Robert Surrey was present at the time of the shot (because seen there by Kirk Coleman). The last point plus what Kirk Coleman saw of his man No. 1 supports the staged shot in which Oswald was working with Surrey and one other person on the staged shot, both confirming Oswald took the shot while clearing him of having attempted murder, simultaneously.  

So Oswald taking the Walker shot comes out after the assassination, first from reasonable general suspicion as early as that question of a reporter to Curry on Sat Nov 23, then from the Note of Oswald found by the Secret Service in the book where Marina admitted she had hid it. Marina at first denies, then spills her beans.

With that setup, I suppose the argument for a switch in the bullet would be that it would seal incrimination of Oswald on the Walker shot to have the bullet switched for one that matched or could match to the Carcano found in the TSBD which had been Oswald's rifle. Oswald is already wrapped up tight on JFK and Tippit, so this would be just further icing on the LN cake--frame him still further, dig his hole deeper, motive? But isn't the FBI running things at this point--did the FBI have means to do the switch without it being noticed by others? Who exactly would have done the switch and how? What about the risk of it backfiring--going awry, someone leaks and it comes out that Oswald was being framed by a switched bullet? Was the payoff at that point worth that risk? If there were multiple officers at large who knew the bullet was steel-jacketed, what was the risk one would blow the whistle on the switch to a copper-jacketed one?  

But there ought to be a way to easily check--compare photos of the bullet the night of the Walker shot, to the copper-coated evidence bullet in the Archives today, see if its the same bullet by comparing closeup photos. Simple enough, right? Photos of the bullet taken immediately and also that weekend at the crime lab, right? Except supposedly there are no photos? Really? Shouldn't there have been photos? Were there photos? Is it believable that no photos would be taken of that bullet? But if there were photos, what happened to them? If there were photos and those have been disappeared, that raises the suspicion-meter for me.

But I don't know--what was customary practice on taking photographs of key physical evidence such as a Walker bullet by the DPD in 1963? Do you or anyone else know?