The JFK Assassination

An Easy Shot ?

Evidence the Limo Fragments did NOT come from the head shot

Evidence the Rifle in the Window was NOT a Carcano

See No Evil

Hear No Evil

Evidence Oswald did not know the motorcade route

Evidence Oswald was "a rather poor shot"

Evidence Oswald was on the 1st floor during the shooting

FBI threatening of witnesses

W.W. Litchfield

Marina Oswald

Marina's Credibility

Marina & "Hidell"

Problems with Marina's testimony against her husband

Proof the Dallas Police falsified evidence against Oswald

The "Misfired" Round

Bullets in the Pocket

Proof the FBI lied in their Reports

Proof 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 floor

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 his lunch

The Paraffin Tests

Evidence Oswald had not fired a rifle

Evidence Oswald had not fired a handgun

The Rifle

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 forgeable

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

Evidence that Oswald could not afford to order the weapons

The Rifle Ammo

The Searches

The Spent Shells

The Witness








The Tippit Murder

Evidence that affidavits were falsified

Ted Callaway

Sam Guinyard

William Whalley

Proof the bullets recovered from Tippit's body did not match the bullets in evidence

Evidence that the police lineups were unfair

Evidence 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

The Handgun


The Witnesses

William A. Smith & Jimmy Burt

B.M. "Pat" Patterson






The Walker Shooting

The "Walker" bullet

Problems with the Chain of Custody of CE 573

Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK

Gen. Walker to HSCA: "Walker bullet" not Walker bullet

 The "Walker Note"

  The Witness





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 identification?

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 them.

( 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.
( ibid. )

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 identification.)

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 shell:

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 scene?

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.

It reeks evidence tampering.

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.

The only 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 of the 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 clip. 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 ejected through the bolt action and therefore this shell was never fired from the Depository rifle on November 22nd or at any other time.

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 closed.

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 and 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 times.

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 magazine follower, 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.