A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Andrew Mason]

You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.

There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.

Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?

Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed. Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

Do tell.  What "other evidence"?


Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.

4 H 260:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.

Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

[John Iacoletti]

There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.

Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?

Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed.

What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.

  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

oh, I'm sure that no matter what circumstances it had been found in, you would deduce that it was tied to the assassination -- merely because it was matched to the rifle that you think was the murder weapon.

4 H 260:

Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.

Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.

[Andrew Mason]

It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.

You really don't know the difference, do you? If I base my conclusion on evidence, it is no longer an assumption.

I assess the possible causes of water on my deck and I conclude that the only reasonably possible cause is rain.  If I was concerned that there might be some other cause (which has never occurred, but let's say that is a 1/100 possibility) I can easily look at other things, such as the street. Now you are going to say, ok, but a street sweeper could have washed the street. But that is only about 1/100 possibility. So the probability that both could have happened, conservatively, is now 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000.  If I was still concerned about that possibility, I could look at the sidewalks and my lawn.  Oh, you would say, perhaps a neighbour hosed down the sidewalks too.  Ok, let's say that is about a 1/100 possibility.  Now to have all three occur together (all three being independent) is 1/1,000,000.  At that point even you would have to concede that it rained.

Now with Oswald, it is not that there is absolute proof from Klein's that the gun was picked up by Oswald. Klein's documents form part of the evidence. Let's say it is a 1/100 chance that one of Klein's orders is not processed properly and does not get to the destination.  We have the backyard photos that show a gun identical to the MC C2766 in Oswald's hands shortly after the guns should have arrived in Oswald's mailbox. We also have evidence of a long package being brought to the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. Then you have a palm print on the gun that cannot be excluded as coming from Oswald.  Then you have the fact that Oswald was not with anyone at the time of the assassination.  Then you have him leaving the TSBD. Then you have him hurrying home and then leaving quickly.  Then you have a person like him seen shooting Officer Tippit. Then you have him carrying a gun in the Texas Theater.  Then you have him saying "Well, it's all over now" as he is arrested.  Even if the probability that each of these events had innocent explanations was large, say 1/10, the probability that all innocent explanations occurred together becomes vanishingly small.  That is how proof beyond a reasonable doubt occurs.

The same thing occurs with DNA matching.  The standard DNA fingerprint in the FBI's CODIS system measures the length of 13 small sections of DNA from areas that are highly variable between individuals (plus one marker for sex). The length of tandem repeats in the regions of DNA being examined are not unique. They are actually quite common ? some regions may have only 5 or 10 length variations so the chance of another individual chosen at random from the population having the same ?bar? match for a particular marker may be as high as 20%. The key however, is the evidence that the lengths of these regions of DNA vary widely within the population AND that the length of DNA of one marker is independent of the length of another.  The probability that two people of the same sex will have the exact same lengths of DNA sequences at each locus is the product of 13 probabilities, each of which is about 1/5 to 1/20. That results in a very small number: in the order of 1/5¹³ (1 in 1.2 billion) to 1/20¹³ (1 in 82 million billion).

But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?

One does not have to assume anything.  One just has to assess Frazier's evidence, along with all the other evidence and determine whether the possibility that Frazier was part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth is reasonable.

What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.

For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.

Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.

If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.

Ok. But the point is the same:  who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope and what is the possibility, in light of all the rest of the evidence, that Oswald/Hidell's order did not make it through Klein's system?

[John Iacoletti]

You really don't know the difference, do you?

You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.

It's easy. One just has to find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Frazier was not part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth.

Who said he was?

For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.

Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?

Ok. So who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope?

Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.  I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"

[Andrew Mason]

You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.

So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Who said he was?
Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.  The bullet fired from the C2766 rifle could not have been "accidentally" made up and then "accidentally" thought to have originated from being found at Parkland and the real bullet found by Tomlinson then misplaced and never found. Why would the FBI fabricate evidence unless they were part of some plan to frame Oswald? What other explanation do you offer if CE399 was not found at Parkland?

Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?

It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.

You're right. That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that C2766 was used to fill the order and the date that it was was processed. Silly me.

I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"

Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.  That was for the handgun.  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order for the rifle was postmarked March 12.  It was received March 13 and processed by Klein's and shipped on March 20. According to the post office, it would have taken a day to travel to Dallas by train so the earliest it physically arrived in the Dallas post office would be late on March 21. A card would have been placed in Oswald's box the next day, March 22 at the earliest, which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22  - or the 23rd if the post office was open SaPersonay.  In any event, he would likely would have picked it up by Monday, March 25. Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.

assumption
1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.

What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.  O.P. Wright said the bullet he saw had a pointed tip.  An elevator repairman named Nathan Pool told the HSCA that he actually found the stretcher bullet (which he also described as pointed) and gave it to Tomlinson.  Also, there's the story that Secret Service agent Sam Kinney supposedly told his friend Gary Loucks that he found a bullet in the limo and set it on a stretcher at Parkland.

It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.

That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that the order was processed as written.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?

Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.

Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?

  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order was shipped on March 20.

Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

A card would have been place in Oswald's box a day later, March 22 which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22 but more likely March 25.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?

Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.

That's not what I said was wasting time.  What's wasting time is all the misinformation you're propagating that requires correction, like the "Klein's stamp" on the envelope or Marina's supposed handwriting identification.

But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.

And besides, since the FBI was monitoring his mail at this time, wouldn't they have known about this rifle package from Klein's if one was ever actually shipped?

[Andrew Mason]

Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.

So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.

So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.

The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's. That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box, that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?

We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?

During her WC testimony.

Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?

Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.

Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.

[John Iacoletti]

So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

If the only information you have is that your deck is wet, then no.  You would have no basis for your "high probability" declaration.

So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

No.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm asking you how you know the bullet that Todd handed Frazier is the same bullet that Tomlinson found.

The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.

Granted.  But one point of similarity is an "unable to identify".

  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.

When did Carl Day ever attempt to match the print that he "found"?  All he did was send an index card to Washington several days later with a print on it and claim that he "didn't have time" to photograph it or cover it with cellophane like he did with the other prints, and that he "forgot" to give it to, or even to mention it to the FBI agent he gave all the evidence to.

It boggles my mind that you don't find any of that to be the slightest bit suspicious.

  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's.

That's an overstatement.  Day just said that the unidentifiable trigger guard prints "appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald".  He didn't say what he based that impression on.

That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box,

For the umpteenth time, there is no evidence that shows the gun was shipped anywhere.

that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

How does holding a package tell you anything about a rifle?

We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Who's "we"?  The only thing that makes this evidence "fit together" is the assumptions you make in order to make it fit.  And please, dispense with your strawman that anyone thinks all the evidence (such as it is) is false.  The evidence is what it is.  It's the conclusions you make from the evidence that either are or are not justified.

During her WC testimony.

Please quote Marina ever saying anything in her WC testimony about identifying Oswald's handwriting on the Seaport Traders coupon.

Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

What is your evidence that there ever was such a card?

Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.

You have no basis for your assumption that the rifle in the photo is "identical".  You also don't know that the photo was taken "a few days later".  You're connecting dots that you don't even have.