A Game-Changing Document

[Charles Collins]

This is not a "letter of transmittal", if such a thing exists.
It is the document used when "specimens" from a crime scene are first admitted/submitted into evidence.

If this were indeed a letter of transmittal it would include all the evidence being transferred to the FBI at that time but it does not.
As you say, the evidence had already been handed over to the FBI on the 22nd (with no letter of transmittal), and had been thoroughly tested in the laboratories in Washington. So everyone knew what evidence this was which means, if this is just a letter of transmittal,  there was no need to helpfully point out that this evidence was "from 6th floor Texas School Book Depository" on the document. Everyone knew where it came from. There was no need to note the hulls came "from 6th floor window. This has already been established and has nothing to do with the transferral.
Indeed, there is no need to point out the location of this crime was "Elm + Houston", there is no need to point out the nature of the crime is "Murder" and that it occurred on "11-22-63". The FBI probably knew this already.
All these details are required if these are items being submitted as evidence from a crime scene but totally unnecessary if it is simply the transfer of evidence the FBI has already tested and already has documentation for.

Where are the "Q" numbers already assigned to the shells?
Where is the "K" number already assigned to the rifle?
They're not on this document because they are yet to be assigned to these pieces of evidence.

Why, after the signatures of Day and Studebaker, must it be noted that this evidence was "from scene"?
Is it in case the FBI had forgotten where it came from or is it because this evidence had literally just come from the scene of the crime?

We can be certain that this is not a "letter of transmittal".
It is the submission into evidence of items related to the crime in question.

It is definitely a source of frustration that Day writes the number "2" in different ways - one with a loop at the bottom and one without. The following is a close up of the digit in question:



Is it a two or a seven? Note at the bottom of the digit a "tail". Here is the number "7" from the document:



Note, there is no "tail" at the bottom. Here is a different number "2" from the date assigned to the "Nature of Offence":



Note the "tail" at the bottom. Certainly more pronounced but it is clear to see, the digit under question is a "2" and not a "7". In the CSS document below (again dealing with the submission of items into evidence) we see Day's penchant for using different types of "2" and we also see more examples of the number "7", without the "tail":



This document is an example of the logging of evidence, as is the document in the OP.
I would be interested to see another example of a letter of transmittal.

Letters of transmittal are very common in the business world. I have processed thousands of them over the years. They are typically form letters in which one simply fills in the blanks. I don’t know whether or not the DPD had anything specifically named a letter of transmittal back in 1963. What I said was this form “appears to be something similar to what I would call a letter of transmittal”. The 1963 DPD was not a commercial business entity, but rather a governmental entity which likely used their own custom made forms. It appears to me that they chose to use that particular form to document the transfer of the items to the FBI on 11/27/63. Thanks to Mitch Todd for the link to the better scan it can be clearly seen that the date is most definitely, without question, 11/27/63.
You can continue to believe whatever your heart desires. But in my opinion what you have posted is pure nonsense.

[Dan O'meara]

Letters of transmittal are very common in the business world. I have processed thousands of them over the years. They are typically form letters in which one simply fills in the blanks. I don’t know whether or not the DPD had anything specifically named a letter of transmittal back in 1963. What I said was this form “appears to be something similar to what I would call a letter of transmittal”. The 1963 DPD was not a commercial business entity, but rather a governmental entity which likely used their own custom made forms. It appears to me that they chose to use that particular form to document the transfer of the items to the FBI on 11/27/63. Thanks to Mitch Todd for the link to the better scan it can be clearly seen that the date is most definitely, without question, 11/27/63.
You can continue to believe whatever your heart desires. But in my opinion what you have posted is pure nonsense.

I had taken the document Krusch reproduced in good faith but it appears Mitch's post has revealed it as a forgery.
There can be no doubt the document posted by Mitch is dated 11/27/63.
It is interesting that Mr Krusch is offering a very large cash reward to anyone who can successfully challenge his claims. Considering his claims appear to be based on a forgery it should be easy money.

[Charles Collins]

I had taken the document Krusch reproduced in good faith but it appears Mitch's post has revealed it as a forgery.
There can be no doubt the document posted by Mitch is dated 11/27/63.
It is interesting that Mr Krusch is offering a very large cash reward to anyone who can successfully challenge his claims. Considering his claims appear to be based on a forgery it should be easy money.

If someone did actually manage to collect any money from Krusch, that would be a game-changer.

[Gerry Down]

These items were in fact transferred to the FBI on both dates (11/22/63 and 11/27/63). They were returned to the DPD (on 11/24/63, iirc) after the initial FBI examination. Subsequently, mostly due to the murder of LHO later in the day on 11/24/63, the FBI was given all of the evidence. The second transfer of these items from the DPD to the FBI took place in the early hours of 11/27/63.

The FBI taking the evidence twice is often portrayed as something suspicious. Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

[Charles Collins]

The FBI taking the evidence twice is often portrayed as something suspicious. Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Absolutely, because this case was the jurisdiction of Texas and Dallas. Therefore, they had the responsibility of bringing LHO and all of the evidence to trial. They didn’t have to let the FBI examine any of the evidence. But they decided to cooperate with the FBI’s request and let them borrow the evidence under the condition that they would return all of it after a day.

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Because the FBI was directed to investigate the assassination and the murder of LHO. If I remember correctly, LBJ was part of the decision to put the FBI in that position. Again, the Dallas authorities didn’t have to turn everything over without a court order. But they wanted to cooperate, much like they wanted to cooperate with the press.

[Gerry Down]

Are you suggesting that if LHO had not been killed on Nov 24th 1963 after the FBI had returned the evidence, that the FBI would never have taken the evidence again on Nov 27th?

Absolutely, because this case was the jurisdiction of Texas and Dallas. Therefore, they had the responsibility of bringing LHO and all of the evidence to trial. They didn’t have to let the FBI examine any of the evidence. But they decided to cooperate with the FBI’s request and let them borrow the evidence under the condition that they would return all of it after a day.

Why would Oswalds murder warrant the evidence being taken by the FBI for a second time?

Because the FBI was directed to investigate the assassination and the murder of LHO. If I remember correctly, LBJ was part of the decision to put the FBI in that position. Again, the Dallas authorities didn’t have to turn everything over without a court order. But they wanted to cooperate, much like they wanted to cooperate with the press.

This is interesting. Because Malcolm blunt in his recent videos has been making a big deal about the fbi taking the evidence twice. The way he phrases it is the fbi unofficially took the evidence early on Nov 23rd, only returned some of it on Nov 24th (ie they hid some of it) and then they 'officially' took the evidence on Nov 27th with of course the stuff they hid on Nov 23rd not being catalogued when the evidence was handed over on Nov 27th. He cites it as an unofficial handing over of evidence and an official handing over of evidence.

[Charles Collins]

This is interesting. Because Malcolm blunt in his recent videos has been making a big deal about the fbi taking the evidence twice. The way he phrases it is the fbi unofficially took the evidence early on Nov 23rd, only returned some of it on Nov 24th (ie they hid some of it) and then they 'officially' took the evidence on Nov 27th with of course the stuff they hid on Nov 23rd not being catalogued when the evidence was handed over on Nov 27th. He cites it as an unofficial handing over of evidence and an official handing over of evidence.

Does Malcolm Blunt “make a big deal” of this because he has some credible evidence that some of the evidence was actually “hidden” by the FBI? Or is he just jumping to conclusions about some possible imagined wrong doings like Barry Krusch obviously did regarding the DPD document in the original post of this thread?