Why I Believe the Government's Case Against Oswald is BS --- Part III

[Gil Jesus]

Reason # 3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.

To prove someone guilty, a prosecutor must prove that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of an alleged crime.
They must be able to show that the evidence was handled properly and was not contaminated or tampered with.
If law enforcement does not properly handle evidence, the evidence can be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, that test results are faulty or inaccurate, or that evidence was planted at the scene of a crime.

In a typical case, a police officer will collect evidence at the crime scene and give it to a forensics technician. The technician then analyzes the evidence, documenting any tests that were performed on the evidence.
When he has finished testing the evidence, he turns it over to an evidence clerk, who stores the evidence until it is needed for another test or to be presented at trial.
To prove chain of custody at trial, law enforcement must be able to identify, at all times in the chain of custody, a particular person who is in control of a piece of evidence. This is done through an evidence log.

A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence.
A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence.
The log should also include signatures of the people who were in possession of the evidence, the date and time the evidence was transferred, the manner in which the evidence was transferred, and the security conditions while the evidence was being handled or stored.
If there are any discrepancies in the chain of custody and law enforcement cannot prove who had the evidence at a particular time, the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the evidence declared inadmissible so that it cannot be used to try to convict the defendant.

The chain of custody can be broken if a custody form is labeled incorrectly, if a transfer of evidence takes an unreasonable amount of time, or if there is reason to believe the evidence was tampered with.
https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/
In this case, there's plenty of reason to believe that the evidence was tampered with.

A. evidence logs were never implemented for ANY of the evidence in order to establish a chain of custody.

From the weapons to the spent shells to the paper "gunsack" to the fingerprints to the jacket found in the parking lot, no evidence logs were ever implemented for any of the major evidence in this case.
The lack of evidence logs leaves a void in the chain of custody at the point of discovery.

For example, the chain of custody of the "magic bullet", CE 399, begins with the fifth person who allegedly handled it.

The chain of custody of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene begins with the second or third person who allegedly handled them.
On two of those shells, the initials "RD" appear, markings that do not correspond to anyone in the shells' alleged chain of custody. Another shell has the intitals "DO" or "DC", markings that also do not correspond to anyone in known the chain of custody for that shell.

And the probability of evidence tampering becomes more evident when you take into account that the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from Off. Tippit's body.

The three spent rifle shells recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository were allegedly removed from the scene by Det. Richard Sims, although he testified that he never took possession of them. ( 7 H 163 )

And the person who found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot was never identified. The discovery was attributed to police Capt. W.W. Westbrook, but he testified that he was NOT the one who found it.
The evidence logs are significant because the normal procedure is for the first person who handles the evidence to initiate the log. The log is required to establish the chain of custody which may be challenged by the defense at trial.

Since all of the physical evidence was collected on November 22nd, the evidence logs SHOULD have been filled out at that time. The fact that the case never went to trial is irrelevant to the existence of the evidence logs because the evidence log is filled out at the time the evidence is discovered, not during the trial.

With the absence of evidence logs, the breaks in the chain of custody, and the inconsistencies in the evidence, there was an opportunity for authorities to tamper with that evidence.
But there was one more thing that could prove the evidence authentic: if the persons who discovered the items were able to positively identify the items currently in evidence as the items they found.

B. the items currently in the government's possession were never positively identified by witnesses as the items they found or handled.

Much of the evidence against Oswald, from the rifle to the spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene, was found by someone other than the Dallas Police.
One would expect that given the mandate of the Katzenbach memo that, "the evidence was such that he ( Oswald ) would have been convicted at trial", the authorities would have been particularly diligent in their handling of the evidence.
This was not so.

In fact, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone, who found the rifle on the sixth floor, could not identify CE 139 as the rifle he found. ( 3 H 294 )

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, credited with finding the three spent rifle shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, never positively identified the shells currently in evidence as the shells he found. In fact, he testified that he never got close enough to the shells to see what caliber they were. ( 3 H 286 ) 

Four spent .38 shells found at the Tippit murder scene were found by witnesses, not police. And when shown the shells currently in evidence, NONE of those witnesses could identify those shells as the shells they found. ( CE 2011 )
Without the positive identification of the people who found them and combined with the lack of an evidence log, I cannot accept this "evidence" as being authentic.

C. failing to secure the crime scenes and photographing evidence as found.

Another shortcoming of the way police handled the evidence was that the crime scenes were not immediately secured and evidence they claimed to have found in their searches was never photographed in place.
This is a common procedure at a crime scene: secure the scene and then start processing it. These crime scenes were never secured. The Press was allowed in the TSBD and there were people roaming all over the Tippit murder scene.

A photograph taken after the assassination shows that traffic was allowed access to Elm St. just 10 minutes after the killing.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/traffic-on-elm-st.png

How does that happen ? Who ordered Elm St. open to traffic ?
Dealey Plaza was a crime scene and traffic should have been detoured away from Elm St. until police had an opportunity to fully process the scene.
Police should have searched the plaza for missed bullets with metal detectors. If anything was found, it should have been photographed in place, marked and secured. The same goes with pieces of the President's skull. Precise measurements should have been taken to pinpoint the exact place where the evidence landed.

Likewise, the Tippit murder scene was not secured. The proof of that is that witnesses found and even handled the spent shells. This never should have been allowed.

Witnesses were allowed within a few feet of the Tippit cruiser.

 

The failure to secure the crime scenes allowed them to become contaminated.
Crime scene contamination was not the only problem this case had.

Pieces of evidence which police claimed to have found were never photographed in place.
Police claimed to have found a paper "gunsack" in the sixth floor "sniper's nest", but the crime scene photographs show no such thing.
Police claimed to have found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene, but never photographed it as found.
Not only did police not provide photographic proof of the evidence they said they found, once evidence was in their hands, they handled it in a most haphazard way.

D. failing to secure the evidence collected.

One example of how the Dallas Police mishandled evidence is with the three spent shells found on the sixth floor.
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney was the one who found the shells. he told the Warren Commission that, "Capt. Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them." ( 3 H 289 )
This is highly irregular for anyone, a police captain included, to contaminate a crime scene. By picking those shells up before his ID Bureau had a chance to dust them for fingerprints, he ruined any chance they might have of retrieving prints from the shells.

Lt. Day testified that after he had processed them at the scene, "the three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims ( Detective Richard Sims ) took possession of them." ( 4 H 253, 4 H 257 )
Day said that he put the three shells in an envelope and marked the envelope with his name and date. ( ibid. )
But Sims testified that he never took possession of the shells. ( 7 H 163 ) But later, he reverses that, saying he "didn't remember who brought the hulls to the city hall" when he testified earlier and that, "I talked to Capt. Fritz and E.L. Boyd my partner and refreshed my memory." ( 7 H 183 )

And just like that, Sims brought the shells from the TSBD to the police station.
The envelope went from Det. Sims to Capt. Fritz to Det. Dhority to Lt. Day.
But the shells were placed in an envelope that was never sealed. ( 4 H 254, 256 )

Lt. Day testified that he placed the shells in an envelope that was not sealed and when he got the envelope back that evening at 10pm, the envelope was still unsealed. ( 4 H 256 )
Oddly, although Day had dusted the shells for prints at the crime scene and found none, Fritz requested that he dust them again for prints when they were brought to him that evening. ( 7 H 401 )
Day testified that he did not mark the shells at the crime scene, ( 4 H 255 ) but marked them when they were returned to him at 10pm that evening before turning them over to FBI agent Vincent Drain. ( 4 H 257 )

On June 8, 1964 the three shells were returned to Dallas and lo and behold, Lt. Day swore in an affidavit that he found his mark on the shells. ( 7 H 402 )
Apparently, the lighting in Dallas was better than the lighting in Washington.

In that same affidavit, Day "could not remember" if he marked the shells at the sixth floor window or in his office. ( ibid. )
But two of Capt. Fritz's stooges, R.L. Studebaker and R.M. Sims, "were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window." ( ibid. )
It's amazing how the weak memory of these police officers can be "refreshed" by speaking to other police officers.
Suffice it to say that both Studebaker and Sims along with Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz, played major roles in the mishandling of the evidence.

This series of events casts doubt on whether the shells currently in evidence are the same shells found on the sixth floor.
Having been placed in an unsealed envelope that remained unsealed, offered an opportunity for police to tamper with the evidence by substituting 6.5 shells for the shells found on the sixth floor.
And it would certainly explain why the shells would have been dusted twice for fingerprints---because they were two different sets of shells.

The way the authorities handled the evidence gave them an opportunity to tamper with it. Any examination of the case against Oswald must include a close examination of the conduct of the authorities.
The validity of a criminal case depends on the authentication of the evidence and the credibility of those bringing that case to trial.
The fact that the prosecutorial system was corrupt, combined with the way the authorities handled Oswald and the way the authorities handled the evidence should be enough to give any reasonable and prudent person pause about the validity of the case against him.

But there was more to it than that.
There was also the way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Coming in Part IV: REASON #4 -- The way the authorities handled the witnesses

Edited December 10, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Pete Mellor]

Gil, Your usual thorough summation of the legal process.  Which I note has not been challenged by the Oswald guilty advocates.

Please excuse my deviation from your topic, but knowing of your law enforcement background I have a general question, not related to this case, but which I have read.  Being from U.K., ballistics is not a subject I am familiar with.

Q1) Do U.S. police forces use hollow point bullets?

Q2) Do these type of bullets fragment upon hitting a victim and therefore do not penetrate a body?  (So that a 2nd innocent person is not hit.)

[Pat Speer]

On 12/10/2023 at 2:45 AM, Gil Jesus said:

Reason # 3. The way the authorities handled the evidence.

To prove someone guilty, a prosecutor must prove that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of an alleged crime.
They must be able to show that the evidence was handled properly and was not contaminated or tampered with.
If law enforcement does not properly handle evidence, the evidence can be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, that test results are faulty or inaccurate, or that evidence was planted at the scene of a crime.

In a typical case, a police officer will collect evidence at the crime scene and give it to a forensics technician. The technician then analyzes the evidence, documenting any tests that were performed on the evidence.
When he has finished testing the evidence, he turns it over to an evidence clerk, who stores the evidence until it is needed for another test or to be presented at trial.
To prove chain of custody at trial, law enforcement must be able to identify, at all times in the chain of custody, a particular person who is in control of a piece of evidence. This is done through an evidence log.

A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence.
A typical evidence log will include the date and time the evidence was collected, the name of the investigator, the location where the evidence was collected, the reason the evidence was collected, relevant serial numbers, a description of the evidence, and the method that was used to collect the evidence.
The log should also include signatures of the people who were in possession of the evidence, the date and time the evidence was transferred, the manner in which the evidence was transferred, and the security conditions while the evidence was being handled or stored.
If there are any discrepancies in the chain of custody and law enforcement cannot prove who had the evidence at a particular time, the chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the evidence declared inadmissible so that it cannot be used to try to convict the defendant.

The chain of custody can be broken if a custody form is labeled incorrectly, if a transfer of evidence takes an unreasonable amount of time, or if there is reason to believe the evidence was tampered with.
https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/
In this case, there's plenty of reason to believe that the evidence was tampered with.

A. evidence logs were never implemented for ANY of the evidence in order to establish a chain of custody.

From the weapons to the spent shells to the paper "gunsack" to the fingerprints to the jacket found in the parking lot, no evidence logs were ever implemented for any of the major evidence in this case.
The lack of evidence logs leaves a void in the chain of custody at the point of discovery.

For example, the chain of custody of the "magic bullet", CE 399, begins with the fifth person who allegedly handled it.

The chain of custody of the shells found at the Tippit murder scene begins with the second or third person who allegedly handled them.
On two of those shells, the initials "RD" appear, markings that do not correspond to anyone in the shells' alleged chain of custody. Another shell has the intitals "DO" or "DC", markings that also do not correspond to anyone in known the chain of custody for that shell.

And the probability of evidence tampering becomes more evident when you take into account that the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene do not match the bullets removed from Off. Tippit's body.

The three spent rifle shells recovered from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository were allegedly removed from the scene by Det. Richard Sims, although he testified that he never took possession of them. ( 7 H 163 )

And the person who found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot was never identified. The discovery was attributed to police Capt. W.W. Westbrook, but he testified that he was NOT the one who found it.
The evidence logs are significant because the normal procedure is for the first person who handles the evidence to initiate the log. The log is required to establish the chain of custody which may be challenged by the defense at trial.

Since all of the physical evidence was collected on November 22nd, the evidence logs SHOULD have been filled out at that time. The fact that the case never went to trial is irrelevant to the existence of the evidence logs because the evidence log is filled out at the time the evidence is discovered, not during the trial.

With the absence of evidence logs, the breaks in the chain of custody, and the inconsistencies in the evidence, there was an opportunity for authorities to tamper with that evidence.
But there was one more thing that could prove the evidence authentic: if the persons who discovered the items were able to positively identify the items currently in evidence as the items they found.

B. the items currently in the government's possession were never positively identified by witnesses as the items they found or handled.

Much of the evidence against Oswald, from the rifle to the spent shells found at the Tippit murder scene, was found by someone other than the Dallas Police.
One would expect that given the mandate of the Katzenbach memo that, "the evidence was such that he ( Oswald ) would have been convicted at trial", the authorities would have been particularly diligent in their handling of the evidence.
This was not so.

In fact, Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone, who found the rifle on the sixth floor, could not identify CE 139 as the rifle he found. ( 3 H 294 )

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney, credited with finding the three spent rifle shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building, never positively identified the shells currently in evidence as the shells he found. In fact, he testified that he never got close enough to the shells to see what caliber they were. ( 3 H 286 ) 

Four spent .38 shells found at the Tippit murder scene were found by witnesses, not police. And when shown the shells currently in evidence, NONE of those witnesses could identify those shells as the shells they found. ( CE 2011 )
Without the positive identification of the people who found them and combined with the lack of an evidence log, I cannot accept this "evidence" as being authentic.

C. failing to secure the crime scenes and photographing evidence as found.

Another shortcoming of the way police handled the evidence was that the crime scenes were not immediately secured and evidence they claimed to have found in their searches was never photographed in place.
This is a common procedure at a crime scene: secure the scene and then start processing it. These crime scenes were never secured. The Press was allowed in the TSBD and there were people roaming all over the Tippit murder scene.

A photograph taken after the assassination shows that traffic was allowed access to Elm St. just 10 minutes after the killing.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/traffic-on-elm-st.png

How does that happen ? Who ordered Elm St. open to traffic ?
Dealey Plaza was a crime scene and traffic should have been detoured away from Elm St. until police had an opportunity to fully process the scene.
Police should have searched the plaza for missed bullets with metal detectors. If anything was found, it should have been photographed in place, marked and secured. The same goes with pieces of the President's skull. Precise measurements should have been taken to pinpoint the exact place where the evidence landed.

Likewise, the Tippit murder scene was not secured. The proof of that is that witnesses found and even handled the spent shells. This never should have been allowed.

Witnesses were allowed within a few feet of the Tippit cruiser.

 

The failure to secure the crime scenes allowed them to become contaminated.
Crime scene contamination was not the only problem this case had.

Pieces of evidence which police claimed to have found were never photographed in place.
Police claimed to have found a paper "gunsack" in the sixth floor "sniper's nest", but the crime scene photographs show no such thing.
Police claimed to have found "Oswald's jacket" under a car in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene, but never photographed it as found.
Not only did police not provide photographic proof of the evidence they said they found, once evidence was in their hands, they handled it in a most haphazard way.

D. failing to secure the evidence collected.

One example of how the Dallas Police mishandled evidence is with the three spent shells found on the sixth floor.
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney was the one who found the shells. he told the Warren Commission that, "Capt. Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them." ( 3 H 289 )
This is highly irregular for anyone, a police captain included, to contaminate a crime scene. By picking those shells up before his ID Bureau had a chance to dust them for fingerprints, he ruined any chance they might have of retrieving prints from the shells.

Lt. Day testified that after he had processed them at the scene, "the three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims ( Detective Richard Sims ) took possession of them." ( 4 H 253, 4 H 257 )
Day said that he put the three shells in an envelope and marked the envelope with his name and date. ( ibid. )
But Sims testified that he never took possession of the shells. ( 7 H 163 ) But later, he reverses that, saying he "didn't remember who brought the hulls to the city hall" when he testified earlier and that, "I talked to Capt. Fritz and E.L. Boyd my partner and refreshed my memory." ( 7 H 183 )

And just like that, Sims brought the shells from the TSBD to the police station.
The envelope went from Det. Sims to Capt. Fritz to Det. Dhority to Lt. Day.
But the shells were placed in an envelope that was never sealed. ( 4 H 254, 256 )

Lt. Day testified that he placed the shells in an envelope that was not sealed and when he got the envelope back that evening at 10pm, the envelope was still unsealed. ( 4 H 256 )
Oddly, although Day had dusted the shells for prints at the crime scene and found none, Fritz requested that he dust them again for prints when they were brought to him that evening. ( 7 H 401 )
Day testified that he did not mark the shells at the crime scene, ( 4 H 255 ) but marked them when they were returned to him at 10pm that evening before turning them over to FBI agent Vincent Drain. ( 4 H 257 )

On June 8, 1964 the three shells were returned to Dallas and lo and behold, Lt. Day swore in an affidavit that he found his mark on the shells. ( 7 H 402 )
Apparently, the lighting in Dallas was better than the lighting in Washington.

In that same affidavit, Day "could not remember" if he marked the shells at the sixth floor window or in his office. ( ibid. )
But two of Capt. Fritz's stooges, R.L. Studebaker and R.M. Sims, "were present at the window when the hulls were picked up, state I marked them as they were found under the window." ( ibid. )
It's amazing how the weak memory of these police officers can be "refreshed" by speaking to other police officers.
Suffice it to say that both Studebaker and Sims along with Lt. Day and Capt. Fritz, played major roles in the mishandling of the evidence.

This series of events casts doubt on whether the shells currently in evidence are the same shells found on the sixth floor.
Having been placed in an unsealed envelope that remained unsealed, offered an opportunity for police to tamper with the evidence by substituting 6.5 shells for the shells found on the sixth floor.
And it would certainly explain why the shells would have been dusted twice for fingerprints---because they were two different sets of shells.

The way the authorities handled the evidence gave them an opportunity to tamper with it. Any examination of the case against Oswald must include a close examination of the conduct of the authorities.
The validity of a criminal case depends on the authentication of the evidence and the credibility of those bringing that case to trial.
The fact that the prosecutorial system was corrupt, combined with the way the authorities handled Oswald and the way the authorities handled the evidence should be enough to give any reasonable and prudent person pause about the validity of the case against him.

But there was more to it than that.
There was also the way the authorities handled the witnesses.

Coming in Part IV: REASON #4 -- The way the authorities handled the witnesses

The standards you describe were not everyday practice in 1963 Dallas, or most anywhere else. Essentially, if a cop was willing to say it was the evidence collected, it would be put into the record as the evidence collected. I understand that is not your point, that this sloppiness does not prove hanky-panky, and that it only leaves room for doubt about possible hanky-panky. But I don't think readers should assume that sloppiness in itself proves the evidence was faked.

I would disagree with one of your points, however. While researching fingerprints I was surprised to find that fingerprints are almost never found on shell casings, and that very few police departments even examine them. So...Fritz was not actually wrong to pick up and examine the shells before Day's arrival. He needed to know what kind of rifle they should be looking for, etc... And yikes, that's about the only time I will defend Fritz. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Stu Wexler]

Sherry Fiester made the same point Pat made in her book. The DPD made all of the mistakes Gil highlighted and more. But those just weren't standard norms and expectations many law enforcement agencies in 63.

[Greg Doudna]

47 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:

Sherry Fiester made the same point Pat made in her book. The DPD made all of the mistakes Gil highlighted and more. But those just weren't standard norms and expectations many law enforcement agencies in 63.

It means trust that police did not cook evidence, or as they say in the UK, "stitch someone up", was on the honor system, which usually worked except in the cases it didn't.

 

[Gil Jesus]

The point I'm trying to make is that all of these "mistakes" allowed them the opportunity to tamper with the evidence.

By not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's, there was plenty of opportunity to substitute evidence.

I disagree with the argument that these practices were not used in 1963.

They knew enough to photograph the three shells as (allegedly) found on the sixth floor.

Why didn't they photograph the gunsack ? Why didn't the photograph the jacket under the car ?

Why did they dust the three shells TWICE for fingerprints ? Why did they dust two sets of curtain rods for fingerprints ?

They knew enough to secure the crime scene on the sixth floor. Why didn't they secure the Tippit murder scene ?

You're talking ranking officers at the scenes, Lieutenants and Captains, and they don't know what they're doing ?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Mark Ulrik]

14 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The point I'm trying to make is that all of these "mistakes" allowed them the opportunity to tamper with the evidence.

By not crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's, there was plenty of opportunity to substitute evidence.

I disagree with the argument that these practices were not used in 1963.

They knew enough to photograph the three shells as (allegedly) found on the sixth floor.

Why didn't they photograph the gunsack ? Why didn't the photograph the jacket under the car ?

Why did they dust the three shells TWICE for fingerprints ? Why did they dust two sets of curtain rods for fingerprints ?

They knew enough to secure the crime scene on the sixth floor. Why didn't they secure the Tippit murder scene ?

You're talking ranking officers at the scenes, Lieutenants and Captains, and they don't know what they're doing ?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

You could at least have tried to establish a proper baseline before accusing the police of nefariously deviating from their usual practices. Apart from that, it's probably safe to say that no one was prepared for the investigation of the century.