Marilyn Sitzman

[Lance Payette]

On page two of the thread Josiah Thompson asked Thomas H. Purvisabout that chamber mark in the thread that Lance provided the link to. Here’s part of his answer:

Since CE543 did not show indications of the dent and the live round did, then this tended to serve as further circumstantial evidence that CE543 came from the first shot fired in the assassination shot sequence.


Thomas provides what seems to me to be a reasonable answer READ THE THREAD.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9276-an-unfired-cartridge/page/2/

Yes, Purvis seemed quite knowledgeable to me, although the late Robert Prudhomme dismissed his analysis as "bull crap." As I understood what Purvis was saying, the chamber marks (or lack thereof) would vary according to the thermal conditions in the chamber, with the first shot obviously being in the "coolest" chamber and thus the least likely to be marked by the chamber wall. I don't want to pretend to more expertise than I have (pretty much none!), but I did look at several online forensic discussions and manuals and they seemed consistent with what Purvis was saying. I would logically think that the possibility of reload ammunition being used and/or the quality of the rifle might also be significant.

FWIW, here is Michael Griffith's piece on CE 543, which quotes Thompson on the "chamber marks" issue: https://maryferrell.org/archive/essays/mgriffith/dent.pdf

As you seem to be, I am always skeptical of arguments that purport to be CONCLUSIVE when there are so many potential variables. This is true of both LN and CT arguments. Six Seconds in Dallas had been published more than ten years before the HSCA firearms panel examined CE 543, but they do not seem to have noted the chamber marks issue at all (they did discuss extractor marks, which are different).

[Jake Maxwell]

It bears repeating... "bang, bang" could not come from one bolt action rifle...

[Charles Collins]

Yes, Purvis seemed quite knowledgeable to me, although the late Robert Prudhomme dismissed his analysis as "bull crap." As I understood what Purvis was saying, the chamber marks (or lack thereof) would vary according to the thermal conditions in the chamber, with the first shot obviously being in the "coolest" chamber and thus the least likely to be marked by the chamber wall. I don't want to pretend to more expertise than I have (pretty much none!), but I did look at several online forensic discussions and manuals and they seemed consistent with what Purvis was saying. I would logically think that the possibility of reload ammunition being used and/or the quality of the rifle might also be significant.

FWIW, here is Michael Griffith's piece on CE 543, which quotes Thompson on the "chamber marks" issue: https://maryferrell.org/archive/essays/mgriffith/dent.pdf

As you seem to be, I am always skeptical of arguments that purport to be CONCLUSIVE when there are so many potential variables. This is true of both LN and CT arguments. Six Seconds in Dallas had been published more than ten years before the HSCA firearms panel examined CE 543, but they do not seem to have noted the chamber marks issue at all (they did discuss extractor marks, which are different).

Thanks Lance, I have seen Michael Griffith around this forum from time to time. So, I didn’t need to guess what his position would be. His piece does contain some information that I find helpful. I agree with your skepticism regarding “conclusive” arguments. Listening to reason is typically not a part of their arguments. At this point in time I want to continue to investigate some more. I might even have to obtain a Carcano rifle to experiment with before I can form a solid opinion. I have been wanting one for a while now. This discussion might just be the catalyst that makes it happen….