Why the Tippit bullets could not be matched to Oswald's revolver

[John Corbett]

The fact that the bullets recovered from Tippit's body could not be ballistically matched to Oswald's revolver has long been one of the CT excuses for denying that Oswald killed Tippit. Never mind that two different makes of bullets, Winchesters and Remingtons, were recovered and Oswald had both of those in his possession when arrested. Never mind that those bullets had the same twist characteristics as the test bullets fired from Oswald's handgun. CTs believe the fact the bullets couldn't be positively matched to Oswald's handgun somehow exonerates Oswald in the Tippit killing.

The handgun Oswald carried had an interesting history. It was manufactured by Smith and Wesson for the Lend Lease program for shipment to the UK prior to the US entering the war. It was based on the popular S&W Model 10 which they introduced in 1898 and was the most common service revolver for police departments for decades. It is the gun that popularized the .38 Special round. Since it was being made for the UK it was chambered for the British .38-200 round. The 200 indicated the number of grains in the round. It was called the Model Victory even though it used the Model 10 frame. Whereas the .38 Special had a diameter of .357 inches, the British .38-200 had a diameter of .361 inches. At the end of the war, all Lend Lease firearms were returned to the US. Those .38 handguns were all rechambered for the more popular .38 Special round and Oswald's revolver had been converted to a 2-inch snub nose. Even though it received a shorter barrel, it retained the .361 diameter it was originally equipped for. That .004 inch difference between the diameter of .38 Special rounds and the bore of the barrel of Oswald's gun prevented a consistent marking on the bullets making ballistic matching impossible. Even consecutive test bullets fired from the gun could not be ballistically matched to each other.

CTs believe that the lack of a positive match somehow exonerates Oswald which is ludicrous. While the bullets could not be matched to Oswald's gun, the recovered shells all could be. A firing pin will make a unique mark on the primer of a shell allowing a spent shell to be matched to a particular firearm. The recovered shells from the scene of Tippit's murder were all positively matched to the gun in Oswald's possession when he was arrested. In addition, numerous witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter in the Tippit murder or the man the saw fleeing the scene with gun in hand. A jacket belonging to Oswald was found a short distance away. Taking into account ALL the evidence, it becomes laughable for anyone to deny Oswald was Tippit's killer.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is yet another blundering post in which you have (1) merely paraphrased claims you've read on pro-WC websites and (2) ignored documented facts that contradict those claims.

For starters, you don't even understand the nature of the mismatch between the shells found at the scene and the bullets allegedly removed from Tippit's body. The four shells found at the scene were two Winchester-Western shells and two Remington-Peters shells, but the four bullets that were allegedly removed from Tippit were three Winchester-Western bullets and one Remington-Peters bullet. We're not talking about a failure to "ballistically match" the shells and the bullets with Oswald's revolver, but about the fact that the wrong number of Winchester-Western bullets was found in Tippit's body and the wrong number of Remington-Peters bullets was found in Tippit's body, if we assume the bullets came from the shells found at the scene (and this is not to mention the problems with the chain of evidence of the four bullets supposedly removed from Tippit's body). 

Of course, you say nothing about the fact that not one of the four shells entered into evidence had Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells. So, umm, were they both "mistaken" about having marked two of the shells, even though they were ordered to mark the shells? Their marks did not appear on the shells entered into evidence because those shells were not the same shells found at the crime scene but were later switched with the original shells, rendering the striation and primer-mark "evidence" as not only worthless but as proof of fraud.

This brings us to another fact that you have ignored: the fact that the shells found at the scene were originally identified as .38 automatic shells, which are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. This is why the first police radio broadcast on the suspect said "the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." The police officer who initially identified the four shells at the scene as .38 AUTO shells was Sergeant Gerald Hill, an 8-year veteran of the Dallas police force and a military veteran who had served in the Korean War. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber automatic shells because he picked up one of them and examined it, and he added that he looked on the bottom of the shell. This is significant because, as mentioned, .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Go read any ballistic handbook and it will tell you it is easy to distinguish between .38 AUTO shells and revolver shells.

Your claims about the eyewitness identifications and the jacket found at the scene were refuted decades ago. I'm certain you haven't read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the jacket.

For readers who want to get a better idea of the flimsy, fraudulent nature of the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, I recommend my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice. I provide a good summary of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder in my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald" .

People who read either or both of my articles after reading your OP are going to see that you either don't know about or have purposely ignored numerous facts that contradict your claims about the Tippit shooting.

[John Corbett]

This is yet another blundering post in which you have (1) merely paraphrased claims you've read on pro-WC websites and (2) ignored documented facts that contradict those claims.

For starters, you don't even understand the nature of the mismatch between the shells found at the scene and the bullets allegedly removed from Tippit's body. The four shells found at the scene were two Winchester-Western shells and two Remington-Peters shells, but the four bullets that were allegedly removed from Tippit were three Winchester-Western bullets and one Remington-Peters bullet. We're not talking about a failure to "ballistically match" the shells and the bullets with Oswald's revolver, but about the fact that the wrong number of Winchester-Western bullets was found in Tippit's body and the wrong number of Remington-Peters bullets was found in Tippit's body, if we assume the bullets came from the shells found at the scene (and this is not to mention the problems with the chain of evidence of the four bullets supposedly removed from Tippit's body). 

Since you obviously get all of your information from kook websites, it's not surprising you are ignorant of the perfectly plausible explanation for the discrepancy between the makes of the bullets and the shells. There is a very real possibility Oswald fired 5 or 6 shots at Tippit, hitting him with 4, three Winchesters and one Remington. Only four of the shells were recovered, two of each. It is perfectly plausible that 1 or 2 shells were not found since the people who recovered the shells didn't know how many shots Oswald had fired.

Your lack of critical thinking skills prevents you from recognizing that the same discrepancy between shells and bullets exists no matter who fired the shots and thus would need explaining. The WC provided a perfectly plausible explanation. If you have one as good or better as to why that discrepancy exists, please post that so the rest of us can weigh it against the one provided by the WC.

Of course, you say nothing about the fact that not one of the four shells entered into evidence had Sergeant W. E. Barnes' or Patrolman J. M. Poe's initials on it, even though both men said they marked two of the shells. So, umm, were they both "mistaken" about having marked two of the shells, even though they were ordered to mark the shells? Their marks did not appear on the shells entered into evidence because those shells were not the same shells found at the crime scene but were later switched with the original shells, rendering the striation and primer-mark "evidence" as not only worthless but as proof of fraud.

As Detective Leavelle pointed, it was not uncommon for uniformed officers to claim they had followed proper procedures when they had not. The fact remains the shells found at the scene could only have been fired by the revolver in Oswald's possession when he was arrested, a revolver he tried to use to kill one of the arresting officers.

Once again, due to your poor critical thinking skills, you find it more probable that officers of the DPD engaged in a deliberate cover up of the assassination than that a uniformed officer forgot to do something he was supposed to do.

This brings us to another fact that you have ignored: the fact that the shells found at the scene were originally identified as .38 automatic shells, which are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. This is why the first police radio broadcast on the suspect said "the suspect is armed with an automatic .38." The police officer who initially identified the four shells at the scene as .38 AUTO shells was Sergeant Gerald Hill, an 8-year veteran of the Dallas police force and a military veteran who had served in the Korean War. In a 1986 interview, Hill said he knew the shells were .38-caliber automatic shells because he picked up one of them and examined it, and he added that he looked on the bottom of the shell. This is significant because, as mentioned, .38 automatic shells are marked ".38 AUTO" on the bottom. Go read any ballistic handbook and it will tell you it is easy to distinguish between .38 AUTO shells and revolver shells.

And again, you find it more probable that the DPD would engage in a cover up of the JFKA than that a cop would misidentify the shells and later refuse to acknowledge his error. The far more likelihood is he assumed the shells were found in a cluster which would be expected with a semiauto handgun. He failed to considered the likelihood that the shooter had manually dumped the shells on the ground in order to reload. Critical thinking just isn't your strong suit.

Your claims about the eyewitness identifications and the jacket found at the scene were refuted decades ago. I'm certain you haven't read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the jacket.

Groundbreaking? <chuckle> Windbreaking would be a more apt description.

Yes, we know you can invent cockamamie excuses to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt. You have done that countless times over the course of decades.

For readers who want to get a better idea of the flimsy, fraudulent nature of the case against Oswald in the Tippit shooting, I recommend my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit? A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice. I provide a good summary of the problems with the case against Oswald in the Tippit murder in my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald" .

People who read either or both of my articles after reading your OP are going to see that you either don't know about or have purposely ignored numerous facts that contradict your claims about the Tippit shooting.

People who read your articles will have wasted a chunk of their lives that they will never get back.