An Easy Shot ?
the Limo Fragments did NOT come from the head shot
the Rifle in the Window was NOT a Carcano
See No Evil
Hear No Evil
Oswald did not know the motorcade route
Oswald was "a rather poor shot"
Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor during the shooting
threatening of witnesses
Marina & "Hidell"
Problems with Marina's testimony against her
the Dallas Police falsified evidence against Oswald
The "Misfired" Round
Bullets in the Pocket
Proof the FBI lied in their Reports
the Warren Commission predetermined Oswald's guilt
The Cab Ride
The Lunchroom Encounter
The WC alters timing
More evidence that Oswald was on the first floor
The Paper Gunsack
Evidence the "Gunsack was never on the 6th
Evidence the "Gunsack" was made on
the afternoon of 11/22/63
Evidence the rifle was never in the "Gunsack"
Evidence the bag Oswald brought to work contained
Evidence Oswald had not fired a rifle
Evidence Oswald had not fired a handgun
Evidence the Depository rifle was not part of
the February shipment to Klein's
Evidence that Oswald was at work when the money
order for the rifle was purchased and the envelope mailed
Evidence that the "$ 21.45" entry on
Klein's bank account statement was not the "Hidell" money order
Evidence that Oswald's handwriting was easily
Evidence the rifle in the "Backyard
Photos" is not the Depository Rifle
Evidence that the Depository Rifle had not been
fired on 11/22/63
Evidence that Klein's Sporting Goods did not
mount the scope on the Depository Rifle
Oswald could not afford to order the weapons
The Rifle Ammo
The Spent Shells
that affidavits were falsified
Proof the bullets recovered from Tippit's body did not match the bullets in evidence
that the police lineups were unfair
that the Tippit killer's jacket was white
News video shows the jacket was white
Problems with the gray jacket's chain of custody
Evidence that the witnesses described the jacket
of the Tippit murderer as white
Evidence that the police radio description of the
jacket found was white
Evidence that the witnesses refused to identify the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore
Skeptical witness identification of the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore
More problems with the evidence
Evidence the unfired .38 rounds came from police
William A. Smith & Jimmy Burt
B.M. "Pat" Patterson
The "Walker" bullet
Problems with the Chain of Custody of CE 573
that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK
Gen. Walker to HSCA: "Walker bullet"
not Walker bullet
The Spent Rifle Shells
In his testimony before the Warren Commission,
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney told the Commission that it was he who
discovered the three spent shells in the "sniper's nest" on the sixth
floor of the TSBD:
Mr. MOONEY. IF I remember correctly, I
went in there from this angle right here right through here. There could be a
space. There is a space there I squeezed in between here, and that is when I got
into the opening, because the minute I squeezed through there there lay the
shells. ( 3 H 285 )
As the one who discovered the shells,
Mooney should have marked them at the scene. In his testimony, he said that
Capt. Fritz picked them up and examined them:
"Captain Fritz picked up the
cartridges, began to examine them....." (
3 H 289 )
Captain Fritz should have also marked
them at the scene.
Lt. Day testified that he took the three shells and put them in an envelope,
then gave the envelope to Det. Richard Sims:
Mr. BELIN. All right. You have mentioned
these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of
Mr. DAY. At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The
three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of
( 4 H 253 )
Both Day and Sims should have marked the
shells at the scene.
The shells should have been marked by 4 officers before they had even left the
building, establishing a chain of custody.
Day testified that when the envelope was returned to him at about 10:00 pm on
the night of the assassination, there were only two shells in it and at that
time he marked the two shells:
"About 10 o'clock in the evening this
envelope came back to me with two hulls in it."
Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put any such
initials, on the hull itself?
Mr. DAY. At about 10 o'clock when I noticed it back in the identification bureau
in this envelope.
( 4 H 254 )
Day was forced to admit that the envelope had not been sealed:
Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed?
Mr. DAY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had it been sealed when you gave it to Mr. Sims?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; no. ( ibid. )
Sims couldn't remember if he handed the envelope to Capt. Fritz or just put it
on his desk:
Mr. BELIN. Where were these hulls when you
last saw them, or saw the envelope in which they were?
Mr. SIMS. In Captain Fritz' office, I believe.
Mr. BELIN. Were they just laying on his desk, or in his physical possession?
Mr. SIMS. In this envelope.
Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope on his desk?
Mr. SIMS. I don't remember if I actually gave them to him or put them there on
the desk in front of him.
Mr. BELIN. But he was there when you left there?
Mr. SIMS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And that is the last time you saw them?
Mr. SIMS. Yes. ( 7 H 186 )
When asked whether or not he marked the shells, Sims couldn't remember:
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not
you ever initialed the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. I don't know if I initialed the hulls or not. (
Sims was never shown the shells and
asked to find his mark.
Likewise, Mooney was never shown the
shells and asked to identify them during his testimony. He was instead,
shown a picture of shells lying on the floor ( CE 510 ) and identified them as
the shells he found:
Mr. BALL. We will get to that in a moment.
Now, I show you 510.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 510 for
Mr. BALL. Is that the empty shells you found?
Mr. MOONEY. Yes, sir. ( 3 H 286 )
There's no way that Mooney could positively identify the shells in a photograph
as the EXACT shells he found. In fact, there's
no way Mooney could positively identify the shells he found without physically
examining them for his mark.
Another anomaly is exactly when the shells were dusted for fingerprints. Det.
Sims testified that Lt. Day dusted the shells at the scene:
Mr. SIMS. I was over there, I believe,
when they finished up with the pictures, and I picked the three hulls up and
laid them on what I believed to be a box of books there near the window, and
Lieutenant Day dusted them for fingerprints. (
7 H 183 )
But the affidavit of C.N. Dhority ( 7 H 380 ) says the shells were dusted at the
police station on the night of the 22nd:
"The night of November 22, 1963
Captain J. W. Fritz gave me three 6.5 rifle hulls and told me to give them to
Lt. J. C. Day in the Crime Lab. Captain J. W. Fritz told me to have Lt. Day to
dust them for prints and return one of the 6.5 hulls to him. I took these three
6.5 rifle hulls to Lt. Day and gave them to him in an envelope which had been
previously marked by Det. R. M. Sims. Lt. Day dusted the shells for prints and
gave me one back. I returned this 6.5 shell back to Captain J. W. Fritz."
Either we have here evidence that two different
sets of rifle shells were dusted for prints, or someone is lying about when they
were dusted. The first set was dusted after 1pm at the TSBD and the second set
at 10pm at Dallas Police Headquarters as the evidence was being collected to be
turned over to Vincent Drain.
BTW, Day testified that the shell that homicide retained was CE 543, the dented
Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what
Commission Exhibit 543 is?
Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found
at the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. DAY. I think it is.
Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is?
Mr. DAY. It has the initials "G. D." on it, which is George Doughty,
the captain that I worked under.
Mr. BELIN. Was he there at the
Mr. DAY. No, sir;
this hull came up, this hull
that is not marked came up, later. I didn't send that.
Mr. BELIN. This was----
Mr. DAY. That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide
division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun.
Mr. BELIN. You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that
was retained in your possession for a while?
Mr. DAY. It is the one that I did not see again.
Mr. BELIN. It appears to be flattened out here. Do you know or have you any
independent recollection as to whether or not it was flattened out at the small
end when you saw it?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don't.
( 4 H 255 )
How does Doughty's become the only mark on a
shell found at a scene where he wasn't even present ?
We may never know. Although this crucial part of the evidence
contained his initials, Doughty
was never called to testify before the Commission. In a strange chain
of events, the people who had custody of the evidence never marked it, but the
evidence had the marks of persons who never had custody.
Day appeared before the Commission and testified
on this subject on April 22, 1964. The next day, he wrote the memo saying that
Capt. Doughty didn't remember marking the shells. On June 8th, the shells arrive
back in Dallas to be examined by the very men who may or may not have marked
them and lo and behold DAY'S MARKS
WERE ON THE SHELLS---ALL OF THEM !!!
Finally, Day revises his story again, this time reporting that although he can't
remember if he marked the shells at the scene or at 10pm that night, two
detectives who were present with him at the scene say that he marked them there.
Funny they never said it in testimony.
They flew the shells back to Dallas to have their marks "identified" ?
Of course, they would never have marked them on June 8th, would they ?
Just the fact that Mooney's mark is
not on the shells not only denies an established chain of custody, it
disqualifies them as evidence.
In addition, the absence of marks from Fritz, Sims and Studebaker and Day's
confusion of when and where he marked them, indicates that the shells were not
marked at the scene.
That the shells were placed in an envelope unsealed that remained unsealed until
it was turned over to the FBI is especially disturbing and leaves open the
possibility that the shells were substituted.
With all of these factors, it's difficult to imagine that these shells would
have been admitted in court as evidence.
The Shell Game
Author's Note: The original article was first posted at the
JFK-Lancer website in January 2005, and published in the March, 2005 edition of
the Dealey Plaza Echo, UK and is available for viewing
on line at the Mary Ferrell website.
The following is an updated version.
The Warren Commission based its conclusion that three shots had
been fired on the existence of the three shells found in the TSBD. (Commission
Exhibits 543, 544 and 545) It reported that two of the cartridge cases had marks
"produced by the chamber of Oswald's rifle", one which contained marks
produced by the Carcano's magazine follower and the other had markings from the
bolt of the Depository rifle. Two cases had markings indicating that they had
been loaded into a rifle at least twice. The third had been loaded into a rifle
at least three times.
When the rifle was found, an unfired
round was in the chamber, ejected when Capt. Fritz operated the bolt. This is an
important detail when we examine evidence linking the rifle shells to the rifle.
CE 543 - The Dented Shell
This cartridge (Commission Exhibit 543) had a dent on its lip
which would have made it impossible for it to have contained a bullet prior to
its being fired. Therefore, either one of two possibilities existed: either the
shell received the dent prior to the shooting and was not connected to it
(implying that it was planted at the scene -- evidence of a conspiracy) or the
shell was in fact evidence and was dented somehow after its bullet had been
spent. Faced with a mandate to dispel rumors of a conspiracy, the Commission at
first assumed that this cartridge received its dent upon being ejected from the
rifle and falling onto the floor. However, solid brass cartridges don't dent
when they hit the floor, as any hunter will tell you. The FBI reported to the
Commission that the dent was made during the firing sequence, WHILE THE BOLT WAS
PULLED BACKWARD, after the shot had been fired. This seemed reasonable enough to
the Commission to explain the existence of the dented lip, but on closer
examination, the evidence does not support this conclusion.
The Commission, for its part, published a photo of this
exhibit from the side with the dented lip away from the camera. ( 17
H 241 )
Problems with the bolt markings
First of all, this cartridge did not
have the characteristic marking on its side (an indentation) which the Carcano's
bolt produced on EVERY cartridge loaded into the firing chamber (
Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 Dec.1964 ) , indicating
that it had NEVER been inside the rifle's firing chamber, let alone been fired
from it. Since it hadn't been in the firing chamber of the Depository rifle,
this cartridge was never fired from it, which means that it could NOT
have had the markings of the firing pin of the rifle as well. I say this because
it is impossible for this shell to have the markings of the firing pin of the
rifle without having been in the firing chamber.
CE 543 contained three sets of markings on the base which were NOT produced by the Depository
rifle. And its extractor and ejector marks could not be determined to have
been caused by the Depository rifle.
sensible conclusion, based on the absence of the bolt and firing pin markings,
is that this shell had nothing to do with the assassination of John F. Kennedy
and was planted at the scene of the crime. And this may be the reason that the
Dallas Police hesitated in sending this shell to the FBI for examination.
Problems with the primer
Secondly, at the primer, where the firing pin strikes the case,
CE 543 contained a more concave indentation than the other two, indicating that
it had been empty when "fired" from that other rifle. Only empty
shells exhibit this type of characteristic.
The FBI reproduced this effect ( CE 557 --- 557A below ) when it loaded an empty shell into the
Depository rifle. ( American Opinion 19, Feb 1976, pg. 5-9)
It contained the same deep impression on the primer that CE
543 contained. CE 557 also contained the "dent" in the lip, caused by
slamming an empty shell forward into the firing chamber, proof that CE 543
contained no bullet when it was loaded and "fired from a rifle other than
the Depository rifle.
As it had with CE 543, the Commission-published photo of CE
557 is from the side with the dented lip away from the camera. ( 17
H 249 )
Thirdly, CE 543 contained markings caused by the magazine follower
Depository weapon. When the Depository Carcano was tested by the FBI, it was
found that the magazine follower marked only the last cartridge in the
last cartridge in the clip of the Depository rifle when found on November 22nd
was an unfired round ( CE 141 ).
What this all means is that CE 543 was a cartridge
which was loaded into another rifle three times and at some point was "fired". The
comparison tests conducted by the FBI supported the conclusion that CE
543 was never in the firing chamber of the Depository rifle and as a
result of the lack of an indentation which the bolt was known to have caused on
EVERY shell fired using it, this shell was not
through the bolt action and therefore
shell was never fired from the Depository rifle on November 22nd or at any other
As I previously mentioned, this cartridge remained in the possession of the
Dallas Police until November 28th, five days after the other two shells had been
turned over to the FBI for examination. It should be noted that a
behind-the-scenes struggle for possession of the evidence existed between the
DPD and the FBI. Capt. Fritz refused to release it, and Chief Curry backed him
up. Only after Lyndon Johnson called Fritz and ordered him to do so ("You
have your man, the investigation is over") did Chief Curry and Capt. Fritz
finally agree to release it.
Despite this agreement, the DPD did not give the FBI all of its evidence on
November 23rd, withholding CE 543 and three of the four bullets removed from the
body of Officer Tippit.
One would have to question the motive of the Dallas Police for
withholding evidence from the FBI in two murders cases which were officially
Nevertheless, this struggle for the possession of the evidence
likewise may have been a reason for not turning in CE 543 on November 23rd.
CE 544 & CE 545
Of the three cases found in the TSBD, only one, CE 544, had
markings produced by the bolt of the Depository rifle. In addition, CE 544 had the markings of the firing chamber.
But its extractor and ejector marks, like those of the dented shell, could not
be identified as having been caused by the Depository rifle.
Likewise, CE 545 did show evidence of being in the firing chamber of the
Depository rifle, but did not have the markings of
the bolt of Oswald's rifle nor did it have the marking of the firing pin, strong
evidence that this shell had not been fired from the Depository rifle. The
absence of markings from the bolt indicate that the shell was never ejected
the absence of the marking of the firing pin indicated that it had not been
fired from the Depository rifle. It did have the marking of the
magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip.
From the Hoover report ( above ) we can see that all three of the shells had been loaded into "a weapon" multiple
The dented shell, CE 543, had been "loaded into and
extracted from a weapon at least three times". Its extractor and ejector
marks could not be identified as having come from the Depository rifle. It
contained markings on its base that the Depository rifle did not make. At the
same time, it lacked markings made by the Depository rifle's bolt, firing
chamber and firing pin. And it had the marking of the
which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it
was not on November 22, 1963.
CE 544 had been "loaded into and extracted from a
weapon at least twice". It did have markings made by the bolt and firing
chamber of the Depository rifle, but like the other shells, its extractor and
ejector markings could not be identified with the alleged murder weapon. In
addition, the FBI could not determine if the bolt and chamber marks were made at
the same time.
Like CE 544, CE 545 had
been "loaded into and extracted from a weapon at least twice".
Like the other shells, its extractor and ejector markings could not be
identified with the alleged murder weapon. And like CE 544, it had the markings
of the chamber of the Depository rifle on it. And like CE 543, it also had the marking of the
magazine follower, which marked only the last shell in the clip, which it
was not on November 22, 1963. And as they could not determine if the bolt and
chamber marks were made at the same time on CE 544, the FBI could not determine
if the chamber marks and the magazine follower marks were done at the same time
on CE 545.