So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?
Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?
The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.
It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.
So, you are saying that it was planted.
For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD
So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him. But he didn't. He was broke. He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth. Why would he do that?
We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.
Plenty of evidence. The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511). The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.
The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
- "And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly,
and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing
up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder
high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over
now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the
waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol."
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?Not so fast.... First of all, it was not one description by an "unknown DPD officer". If I recall correctly, there were at least six or seven reports which all described the bullet in the same way. The first of those reports was written on 4/10/63 by Detectives Van Cleave & McElroy. On the day of the crime, they described the bullet as a "steel jacket". They also say that the bullet was given, at the scene, to Dot. B.G. Brown of the CSSS. There is no mention of an officer named B.G. Norvall in that report and I couldn't find any document generated by Norvall about this matter. In his WC testimony, Joseph Nicol said nothing about finding initials on the bullet, except for his own. Nicol was also not able to positively identify the bullet as having been fired by the MC rifle. The best he could do was a "probable". So, I really wonder where you got the story of a police officer named Norvall initialling the bullet and Nicol confirming it was there. And then there is the memo written by Jevons to Conrad on 3/27/64 in which it says that SA Heiberger advised that
"the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot"As far as Walker himself, he wrote to the U.S. Attorney General on 02/12/79 that the bullet shown by Robert Blakey's Committe is
a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. Walker actually described it as a "hunk of lead", which is clearly not what we see on the photographs of CE573.
Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?Most likely, if the scenario I proposed is correct.
The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been. You are missing the point. I asked you if you didn't think it was odd that all the bullets and fragments were
given to the FBI by others who
told the FBI lab where the items allegedly came from. It happened on three different occassions. Back in 1963 nobody, except perhaps for Frazier, would probably have known this and he wasn't talking to anybody. So, by today's standards do you consider this odd, yes or no?
It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.Oh, but there is. Take for example the white jacket (that later turned gray) found under a car in Oak Cliff. It was found by an unidentified officer who pointed it out to Captain Westbrook. The latter then went to the Texas Theater and allegedly gave the jacket to yet another unidentified officer to take it to DPD HQ. The jacket then shows up, about two hours later, again in Westbrook's possession and it carries markings of officers who were not even near the parking lot where the jacket were found. Yet, they still marked it as if they were part of a chain of custody, which in reality simply did not exist.
Another example is the discovery of the BY photos. DPD officers first searched Ruth Paine's home on Friday afternoon. A day later they returned with a search warrant and this is when they claim they found the BY photos. The problem is that this second search took place in the afternoon and earlier that day Fritz had already shown Oswald a blow up of one of the photos. Even worse, Michael Paine testified that he was shown a BY photo by an FBI agent on Friday evening. This is confirmed by Fritz who told Oswald that he already knew where the photo was taken, which is information that could only have come from Michael Paine.
Add to this that the FBI told the Warren Commission in CE2011 that S.A. Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men could not positively identify the bullet but they thought it was the right one (I'm paraphrasing). This of course contradicts the Airtel written by SAC Shanklin in Dallas who merely said both men could not identify the bullet! And let's not forget that Odum is on record saying that he never had CE399 or showed it to anyone.
So, you are saying that it was planted. Again, I'm saying that it must have been planted, if the scenario I proposed is correct. I'm merely stating that there is no solid chain of custody for the bullet now in evidence as CE399 and that it's evidentiary life started in Washington. There most certainly is circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that the bullet found at Parkland was substituted for the one we now know as CE399. You may want to ignore that, but I won't.
For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD You are going completely off the rails here. Oswald's trip to Irving may well have been an attempt to convince Marina to live with him again. Marina and Ruth Paine both believe that this was his reason for the trip. There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 for Oswald to collect. There also is no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. What there is, are two witnesses who actually saw the package he carried and they described it in such a way that it couldn't possibly have contained a broken down MC rifle.
So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him. But he didn't. He was broke. He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth. Why would he do that? Why would you even think that there would have to be someone to persuade Oswald to do something? The mere fact that Oswald left most of his money, after Marina turned him down, points exactly in the direction of a man wanting to provide for his children. If he really planned to kill Kennedy, he would have kept the money as it could provide him the means to escape. And what makes you think that Oswald lied about buying a revolver in Fort Worth. They never checked if he was telling the truth. They visited some 400 dry-cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans area to get more information about the jacket, but nobody ever bothered to check the gun dealers in Fort Worth. Go figure!
We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.You are refering to Michaelis Exhibit 4? That document does indeed have the name A. Hidell on it, but I fail to see how you can conclude from it that Oswald collected the revolver. If you believe that Oswald used a false name to collect this revolver, you also must believe that anybody else could have done exactly the same, right? Remember, in the scenario I proposed Oswald was being set up. All that was really required to do so succesfully was to associate him somehow with the alleged murder weapons. Now, let's assume for a moment that, in early January 1963, he simply filled out the order form as a favor to somebody and allowed that person to use his p.o. box for the purchase. We don't know where and with whom Oswald was 24/7 for months prior to the assassination, so it can not be ruled out. There could very well have been somebody we know nothing about in the background who manipulated Oswald.
Plenty of evidence. The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511). The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.You mean the bullets they "found" in his pocket hours after he was arrested? There is no doubt in my mind that the revolver purchased at Seaport Traders was the one used to kill Tippit. The problem is, once again, that there is no chain of custody for the revolver they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater. The revolver was
given to Hill when he got in the car that drove Oswald to DPD HQ. He was told this was the revolver taken from Oswald, but he had no way to check if this was true. He then walked around with that revolver for two hours before he took it to the DPD lunchroom where he had some officers (who were not involved in the chain of custody) mark it with their initials.
The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
- "And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly,
and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing
up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder
high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over
now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the
waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol."
[/b]
So it's another one of those "the cop said so" arguments? Where is the corroboration?
