JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on February 02, 2019, 08:29:18 PM
-
The four shells found at the scene (two by Benavides, one by each of the Davis sisters) were designated Q-74, Q-75, Q-76 and Q-77 by the FBI.
At the Tippit scene, Officer Joe Poe was approached by Domingo Benavides. Benavides said that he saw the cop-killer discard some shells and that Benavides picked them up by placing in a Winston cigarette wrapper. Benavides brought this Winston wrapper, with two shells in it, to Poe.
When Sergeant Gerald Hill arrived at the scene, Poe offered the shells to him. Hill told Poe that he should keep them, to minimize the chain of possession. Hill told Poe to be sure to mark them and then give them members of the crime lab when they arrived.
After receiving the news that the possible suspect was inside the Texas Theater, many of the officers at the Tippit scene raced off for the theater. Poe remained behind with Detective Jim Leavelle and a handful of others.
Poe showed Leavelle the two spent shells that had been recovered at the scene and asked Leavelle if he wanted them. Leavelle told Poe to give them to Sergeant Pete Barnes, who was the crime lab officer at the scene. Leavelle declined taking possession of the shells in order to minimize the chain of possession.
Before leaving the scene, Poe turned the two shells over to crime lab Sergeant Barnes.
Now, here's where it gets interesting.
In April of 1964, the Warren Commission asked Poe and Barnes to identify the two shells they had handled at the Tippit scene.
Poe, when asked by the Warren Commission if he had marked the shells, replied "I couldn't swear to it. No sir." Poe then stated that he may have marked the shells but that his marking was hard to read. Poe identified the two shells (designated by the FBI as Q-75 and Q-77) as the two shells that he gave to Barnes.
However, Barnes identified Q-74 and Q-75 as the two shells that he received from Poe.
In June of 1964 the Warren Commission asked the FBI to interview Poe and Barnes again, in an attempt to address the differences. This time, Barnes told the FBI that the two shells given to him by Poe were Q-74 and Q-77 (as opposed to Q-74 and Q-75, as he told the Commission back in April). Poe told the FBI, after studying all four of the shells, that he couldn't find his mark on any of them and therefore, he could not positively identify any of the shells as being the same ones that he had received from Benavides.
So, we have Poe's reluctance to swear that he marked the shells. We also have a lack of Poe's identifiable mark in any of the four shells.
In 1996, Jim Leavelle told Dale Myers that Poe did not mark the shells. Leavelle said "Poe did not mark them. There was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept there until trial."
Leavelle said that Poe was afraid that he would get in trouble for failing to mark the evidence. This would explain why Poe said that he may have marked the shells but couldn't find his markings because the shells were difficult to read. Poe said that the shells had been obliterated with markings by himself, the Crime Scene Search Section, The FBI, etc.
In reality, the shells were not "obliterated" with markings at all.
Leavelle goes on to tell Myers "Sometimes, officers think they are doing the right thing and get in over their heads. But, I talked to Poe. He said that he didn't remember marking them. But, that is something we didn't do back then. I didn't do it. He didn't do it. I didn't ask him to do it. When I was out there and Poe offered the shells to me, I said no, just go ahead and put them in the envelope and send them on to the crime lab and let them work with them from there."
Crime lab Lieutenant J.C. Day confirmed that the 1963 Dallas Police Department did not have a consistent policy regarding the marking of evidence. Much of the ballistic evidence in the Kennedy assassination was marked by the Crime Scene Search Section, but some was not. There was a lack of consistency.
Shortly after Benavides handed the two shells over to Poe, crime lab Sergeant Barnes arrived at the scene and began collecting evidence. Crime lab senior officer Captain George Doughty was with him. Remember, Poe first offered the shells to Leavelle, who declined and told Poe to turn the shells over to the crime lab. To me, it is very reasonable that Poe simply did not mark the shells in light of the crime lab's presence at Tenth and Patton.
Both Doughty and Detective Dhority both selected Q-74 and Q-77 as the two shells they had handled.
-
All four spent cartridges were traced to V510210 (CE-143). Both Cortland Cunningham and Joseph D. Nicol did not rule out that CE-602-05 (bullets recovered from Tippit's body) could have been fired from CE-143 and Nicol traced CE-603 to CE-143 to the exclusion of all other weapons. Case closed, buddy. Jack Ruby did the whole world a favor by eliminating that little commie rat ;D
-
All four spent cartridges were traced to V510210 (CE-143). Both Cortland Cunningham and Joseph D. Nicol did not rule out that CE-602-05 (bullets recovered from Tippit's body) could have been fired from CE-143 and Nicol traced CE-603 to CE-143 to the exclusion of all other weapons. Case closed, buddy. Jack Ruby did the whole world a favor by eliminating that little commie rat ;D
No, that's not justice really. Or my definition of it. Oswald deserved a trial; just because he didn't believe in the rule of law, just because he rejected our ideas of democracy (remember he wrote that the US economic and political systems were "slave" systems), doesn't mean we should too.
In any case, I think a trial would have answered most of these questions that people have. He would have revealed himself to what he really was: an angry disaffected person. I think he'd use the trial to put the US system on trial; he wanted the communist lawyer John Abt for that very specific reason. To be sure the conspiracy crowd - elements of them - would still believe in his innocence. If he was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they'd deny it was him. We know the type. They have an almost emotional attachment to the guy; notice they call him "Lee" and "poor old Lee"? Very odd.
-
All four spent cartridges were traced to V510210 (CE-143). Both Cortland Cunningham and Joseph D. Nicol did not rule out that CE-602-05 (bullets recovered from Tippit's body) could have been fired from CE-143 and Nicol traced CE-603 to CE-143 to the exclusion of all other weapons. Case closed, buddy. Jack Ruby did the whole world a favor by eliminating that little commie rat ;D
All four spent cartridges were traced to V510210 (CE-143)
That's Good....So these cartridges were fired in the revolver....... Now please verify WHEN the spent cartridges were fired in the revolver V 510210..... Since the cartridges have not conclusively been identified as the same spent shells that Benavides picked up at the scene, how have you determined that the shells weren't fired in that revolver AFTER 11/22/63 ?? I would hasten to remind you that the tuft of fibers on the butt plate of the came from the shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST ....but that was NOT the shirt that he was wearing at the TSBD that morning, because he'd gone to his room and changed his clothes before going to the theater. Which leads to the undeniable conclusion that the tuft of fibers got caught on the butt plate AFTER both the rifle and the arrest shirt were in the hands of the police.
-
Leavelle said that Poe was afraid that he would get in trouble for failing to mark the evidence. This would explain why Poe said that he may have marked the shells but couldn't find his markings because the shells were difficult to read. Poe said that the shells had been obliterated with markings by himself, the Crime Scene Search Section, The FBI, etc.
So Poe was a liar then? Why should anything he said be believed?
Leavelle goes on to tell Myers "Sometimes, officers think they are doing the right thing and get in over their heads. But, I talked to Poe. He said that he didn't remember marking them. But, that is something we didn't do back then. I didn't do it. He didn't do it. I didn't ask him to do it. When I was out there and Poe offered the shells to me, I said no, just go ahead and put them in the envelope and send them on to the crime lab and let them work with them from there."
Great. Let's see the initialed envelope then and a chain of custody for that.
Crime lab Lieutenant J.C. Day confirmed that the 1963 Dallas Police Department did not a consistent policy regarding the marking of evidence. Much of the ballistic evidence in the Kennedy assassination was marked by the Crime Scene Search Section, but some was not. There was a lack of consistency.
So there's no reason then to think that Q-74 and Q-77, or Q-74 and Q-75, or Q-75 and Q-77, or the three shells that Gerald Hill described (or whatever the story-du-jour is) were the shells allegedly picked up from the scene by Benavides.
-
So Poe was a liar then? Why should anything he said be believed?
Great. Let's see the initialed envelope then and a chain of custody for that.
So there's no reason then to think that Q-74 and Q-77, or Q-74 and Q-75, or Q-75 and Q-77, or the three shells that Gerald Hill described (or whatever the story-du-jour is) were the shells allegedly picked up from the scene by Benavides.
Crime lab Lieutenant J.C. Day confirmed that the 1963 Dallas Police Department did not a consistent policy regarding the marking of evidence. Much of the ballistic evidence in the Kennedy assassination was marked by the Crime Scene Search Section, but some was not. There was a lack of consistency.
So there's no reason then to think that Q-74 and Q-77, or Q-74 and Q-75, or Q-75 and Q-77, or the three shells that Gerald Hill described (or whatever the story-du-jour is) were the shells allegedly picked up from the scene by Benavides.
Thumb1: Ya got that right, Mr I....
-
All four spent cartridges were traced to V510210 (CE-143). Both Cortland Cunningham and Joseph D. Nicol did not rule out that CE-602-05 (bullets recovered from Tippit's body) could have been fired from CE-143 and Nicol traced CE-603 to CE-143 to the exclusion of all other weapons. Case closed, buddy. Jack Ruby did the whole world a favor by eliminating that little commie rat ;D
Cite the evidence that you used to reach this conclusion.
-
So Poe was a liar then? Why should anything he said be believed?
Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?
Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.
Poe was not a liar.
-
So there's no reason then to think that Q-74 and Q-77, or Q-74 and Q-75, or Q-75 and Q-77, or the three shells that Gerald Hill described (or whatever the story-du-jour is) were the shells allegedly picked up from the scene by Benavides.
There's no reason to think that Q-75 was a shell picked up by Benavides because that shell was picked up by Virginia Davis,
-
There's no reason to think that Q-75 was a shell picked up by Benavides because that shell was picked up by Virginia Davis,
There's no reason to think that Q-75 was picked up by Virginia Davis either.
-
Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?
Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.
Poe was not a liar.
According to Bill Brown, "Poe said that the shells had been obliterated with markings by himself". If he knew he didn't mark the shells as Leavelle indicates then Poe was a liar (and/or Leavelle was).
-
There's no reason to think that Q-75 was picked up by Virginia Davis either.
Actually, there is.
What reason is there to think that Q-75 was not picked up by Virginia Davis? (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11653#relPageId=9&tab=page) Other than it's just not convenient for you?
-
According to Bill Brown, "Poe said that the shells had been obliterated with markings by himself". If he knew he didn't mark the shells as Leavelle indicates then Poe was a liar (and/or Leavelle was).
That's not accurate. Leavelle said that Poe told him that he didn't remember marking the shells. When Poe talked with Dale Myers in 1996, he thought that he may have marked them but that he couldn't be sure because if he had marked the shells then his initials had been obliterated by marks that had been added after his own. ?There were so many scratches in there you couldn?t tell,...the Crime Scene Search Section put their mark. They were turned into the FBI and they put their mark. The lab put their mark. So, I couldn?t tell mine.?
-
Actually, there is.
"Dhority supposedly told Odum so" is your good reason?
Unfortunately, Dhority had no first hand knowledge where the shell he identified was even found.
-
"Dhority supposedly told Odum so" is your good reason?
Unfortunately, Dhority had no first hand knowledge where the shell he identified was even found.
Nope. Dhority was shown the shell casing by Bardwell Odum and he positively identified it as the one that he obtained form Virginia Davis on Nov 22, 1963.
-
Nope. Dhority was shown the shell casing by Bardwell Odum and he positively identified it as the one that he obtained form Virginia Davis on Nov 22, 1963.
What do you mean, "nope"? All you're doing is just restating the claim.
-
What do you mean, "nope"? All you're doing is just restating the claim.
I'm giving you the fact as it is recorded in an official FBI document. That document does not say that "Dhority supposedly told Odum".
-
I'm giving you the fact as it is recorded in an official FBI document. That document does not say that "Dhority supposedly told Odum".
Being written in an "official FBI document" doesn't confer any special truth to the claim.
That's indeed what the document says. Some anonymous author claims that Dhority told Odum something. Was this ever confirmed by Dhority, Odum, or Davis?
-
No, that's not justice really. Or my definition of it. Oswald deserved a trial; just because he didn't believe in the rule of law, just because he rejected our ideas of democracy (remember he wrote that the US economic and political systems were "slave" systems), doesn't mean we should too.
In any case, I think a trial would have answered most of these questions that people have. He would have revealed himself to what he really was: an angry disaffected person. I think he'd use the trial to put the US system on trial; he wanted the communist lawyer John Abt for that very specific reason. To be sure the conspiracy crowd - elements of them - would still believe in his innocence. If he was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they'd deny it was him. We know the type. They have an almost emotional attachment to the guy; notice they call him "Lee" and "poor old Lee"? Very odd.
I agree that even lowlifes like Oswald deserve their day in court but can you imagine what would have happened if Oswald's trial had turned out like that of Jack Ruby! I mean, it couldn't be any plainer who hot Oswald and even his guilty verdict was overturned on appeal due to technicalities.
-
Being written in an "official FBI document" doesn't confer any special truth to the claim.
That's indeed what the document says. Some anonymous author claims that Dhority told Odum something. Was this ever confirmed by Dhority, Odum, or Davis?
Once again the mysterious CE2011 is used to "support" a claim that can not be supported in any other way. How convenient?...
-
Once again the mysterious CE2011 is used to "support" a claim that can not be supported in any other way. How convenient?...
The fact is.... Nobody can verify with 100% certainty that the shells in the archives are the exact same shells that were allegedly picked up at the scene...
BTW... Did you send a PM ..... I received notice but no message....
-
The fact is.... Nobody can verify with 100% certainty that the shells in the archives are the exact same shells that were allegedly picked up at the scene...
BTW... Did you send a PM ..... I received notice but no message....
BTW... Did you send a PM ..... I received notice but no message....
Yes, I replied to your message. It seems the pm system isn't working correctly.
-
BTW... Did you send a PM ..... I received notice but no message....
Yes, I replied to your message. It seems the pm system isn't working correctly.
Ok ...I thought that perhaps you were using invisible ink......
-
The fact is.... Nobody can verify with 100% certainty that the shells in the archives are the exact same shells that were allegedly picked up at the scene...
The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene. It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that. It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.
-
The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene. It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that. It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.
Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.
Huh??....Are you living in Iran?..... It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene.... And I say allegedly because I believe only ONE of the shells was picked up while the police were there on the scene .
-
Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.
Huh??....Are you living in Iran?..... It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene.... And I say allegedly because I believe only ONE of the shells was picked up while the police were there on the scene .
It's the prosecutions responsibility to demonstrate that theses shells are in fact the same shells that were allegedly found at the scene....
Exactly right, Walt and in this case this goes for the LNs as well, as they are the one making the claim. But instead of proving their case, they try shift the burden of proof around to a "unless you prove me wrong, I am automatically right" scenario. It's truly pathetic and weak.
-
The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene. It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that. It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.
That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.
-
That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.
But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
When you claim it with so much certainty, I am beginning to think that I might have missed something. Please explain how it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the shells now in evidence are the same ones that were collected at the scene.
Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.
Calling somebody unreasonable simply because he does not agree with your opinion is what's really unreasonable. I mean, c'mon, isn't this kind of whining just tantamount to admitting that your arguments are simply not convincing enough? You wouldn't be one of those people who think they are always right, would you? Perhaps you should try to accept that your arguments simply might not always be as conclusive or persuasive as you think they are.
-
The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene. It is one thing to As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.' and moan about what you believe to be a lack of validity of the evidence; any kook can do that. It is another thing entirely to actually do something about it by proving that the shells are not authentic.
I have shown it and the LNers complained until it was removed. The point of course is the burden is on the LNers to suport the claim that they are the same shells. Well?
-
I have shown it and the LNers complained until it was removed. The point of course is the burden is on the LNers to suport the claim that they are the same shells. Well?
Can you show that the shells are not the same shells without posting a huge and rambling post ?... I can see that there is no unbroken chain from Poe to the DA. and that's a fact....
-
That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.
That's exactly right. The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp. Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters. Now it is up to the kooks to prove Dhority and Doughty wrong.
-
That's exactly right. The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp. Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters. Now it is up to the kooks to prove Dhority and Doughty wrong.
It's 55 years out. Dhority and Doughty are both deceased. We don't have documents signed by those two officials in which they confirm their identification of the shells. They may exist somewhere. Who knows? But it would make no difference to some CTs if they did exist. How could we be sure that those really were their signatures? "Handwriting 'analysis' is biased and unscientific". Don't you know?
-
It's 55 years out. Dhority and Doughty are both deceased. We don't have documents signed by those two officials in which they confirm their identification of the shells. They may exist somewhere. Who knows? But it would make no difference to some CTs if they did exist. How could we be sure that those really were their signatures? "Handwriting 'analysis' is biased and unscientific". Don't you know?
Just amazing. When you are done whining, shall we get back to the actual evidence and have a look at what Dhority told the WC in his testimony?
Mr. DHORITY. Well, there were quite a few people in the house there. but we were told to contact Virginia Davis and her sister, Jeanette Davis.
Mr. BALL. And, did you talk to them?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did they give you anything?
Mr. DHORITY. Virginia gave me a .38 hull.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell you where she got it?
Mr. DHORITY. I believe that she said that she found it in her front yard, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?
Mr. DHORITY. We carried them down to the police department and took affidavits off of them and they went to the lineup.
<>
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you do with the empty hull that was given to you, that Virginia gave you?
Mr. DHORITY. I gave it to Lieutenant Day in the crime lab.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether or not Virginia or Jeanette Davis found an empty shell--did she tell you she found an empty shell--Jeanette Davis?
Mr. DHORITY. I don't recall--it seems like she told me she had found one earlier and gave it to the police out there, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Gave it to the police that day?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes; I believe so.
What's not there, of course is that Dhority, at any time identified the shell he had received from Virginia Davis and passed on to Lt Day.
It seems nobody needs to prove Dhority wrong as he never identified the shell in the first place......
As for Doughty it's even worse as there is no record at all of his interaction with the Davis sisters.
So, what was the proof again that the shells now in evidence are indeed the ones Dhority and Doughty received from the Davis sisters?
-
Just amazing. When you are done whining, shall we get back to the actual evidence and have a look at what Dhority told the WC in his testimony?
Mr. DHORITY. Well, there were quite a few people in the house there. but we were told to contact Virginia Davis and her sister, Jeanette Davis.
Mr. BALL. And, did you talk to them?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did they give you anything?
Mr. DHORITY. Virginia gave me a .38 hull.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell you where she got it?
Mr. DHORITY. I believe that she said that she found it in her front yard, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?
Mr. DHORITY. We carried them down to the police department and took affidavits off of them and they went to the lineup.
<>
Mr. BALL. Now, what did you do with the empty hull that was given to you, that Virginia gave you?
Mr. DHORITY. I gave it to Lieutenant Day in the crime lab.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether or not Virginia or Jeanette Davis found an empty shell--did she tell you she found an empty shell--Jeanette Davis?
Mr. DHORITY. I don't recall--it seems like she told me she had found one earlier and gave it to the police out there, as well as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Gave it to the police that day?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes; I believe so.
What's not there, of course is that Dhority, at any time identified the shell he had received from Virginia Davis and passed on to Lt Day.
It seems nobody needs to prove Dhority wrong as he never identified the shell in the first place......
As for Doughty it's even worse as there is no record at all of his interaction with the Davis sisters.
So, what was the proof again that the shells now in evidence are indeed the ones Dhority and Doughty received from the Davis sisters?
When FBI Agent Cortland Cunningham testified before the WC he demonstrated how the spent shells were extracted from the 38 caliber S&W revolver. He pushed the cylinder to the left and out of the revolver frame and then pushed the extractor rod to the rear and pushed all of the spent shells out in one action. All of the spent shells were in his hand. (and a lot of burned gunpowder was also in his hand)
The man who shot Tippit walked away removing ONE SHELL AT A TIME.... The shells that were recovered were found widely scattered . It should be obvious to any intelligent and rational person that the man who shot Tippit was NOT using a S&W revolver.
HOWEVER ...The "experts" have sworn that the spent shells WERE FIRED IN THE S&W that was allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater. SO, since the "experts" have verified that the spent shells were fired in the S&W and Tippit's killer was NOT using a S&W .....Then WHEN were these shells fired in that S&W???
P.S.... Lee Oswald's hand would have been liberally coated with burned gunpowder if he had fired the S&W revolver that was allegedly in his belt at the theater.
-
The fact is.... Nobody has proved that the shells in evidence were NOT the shells collected at the scene.
So what? The onus is on the person claiming that a particular piece of evidence is valid to demonstrate its validity. Why is it that there are provenance problems with every piece of purported evidence in this case?
-
That isn't how it works though. But the fact is that the shells in evidence are the shells that were collected at the scene.
Believing that on faith and demonstrating that it's actually true are two different things.
It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Those who refuse to accept that fact are simply not reasonable people and it's pointless to try to reason with them.
Otherwise known as proof by repeated assertion of the claim.
-
When you claim it with so much certainty, I am beginning to think that I might have missed something. Please explain how it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the shells now in evidence are the same ones that were collected at the scene.
Because "cop said so" is enough for some people to believe something "beyond any reasonable doubt". Which ignores the many examples throughout history of police misconduct.
-
That's exactly right. The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp. Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters. Now it is up to the kooks to prove Dhority and Doughty wrong.
Given that neither Doughty or Dhority retrieved any shells from the scene, I'm not sure what you think that proves.
-
When FBI Agent Cortland Cunningham testified before the WC he demonstrated how the spent shells were extracted from the 38 caliber S&W revolver. He pushed the cylinder to the left and out of the revolver frame and then pushed the extractor rod to the rear and pushed all of the spent shells out in one action. All of the spent shells were in his hand. (and a lot of burned gunpowder was also in his hand)
The man who shot Tippit walked away removing ONE SHELL AT A TIME.... The shells that were recovered were found widely scattered . It should be obvious to any intelligent and rational person that the man who shot Tippit was NOT using a S&W revolver.
HOWEVER ...The "experts" have sworn that the spent shells WERE FIRED IN THE S&W that was allegedly taken from Lee Oswald in the theater. SO, since the "experts" have verified that the spent shells were fired in the S&W and Tippit's killer was NOT using a S&W .....Then WHEN were these shells fired in that S&W???
P.S.... Lee Oswald's hand would have been liberally coated with burned gunpowder if he had fired the S&W revolver that was allegedly in his belt at the theater.
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
Shell casings do not get that hot. Certainly not hot enough to prevent their being removed without burning one's hand.
-
Given that neither Doughty or Dhority retrieved any shells from the scene, I'm not sure what you think that proves.
That's debatable, depending on whether you want to play word games.
The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp. Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters.
-
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
Shell casings do not get that hot. Certainly not hot enough to prevent their being removed without burning one's hand.
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
First off... Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the killer ...And he said the man had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head appear to be flat....Lee Oswald's mug shot shows that he had a very pronounced tapered skull at the rear.....Benavides definitely was NOT describing the back of Lee Oswald's head.
Second.... You obviously know nothing about the S&W revolver ....The rim of the shells are recessed into the cylinder ...... They can't be merely picked out and removed with your fingers....Since the 38 in question was an old revolver that had been modified to fire 38 special ammo the chambers in the cylinder were oversize and too large in diameter to hold the 38 special cartridges tightly,... and this sloppy fit allowed the 38 spec cartridges to balloon in the chambers when they were fired. This "ballooning" of the shells caused them to stick in the chambers and made them difficult to extract even by using the extractor, and impossible to remove with your fingers....
Bottom line... The killer was NOT Lee Oswald.....and the killer was not using a Smith and Wesson revolver....
-
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
Shell casings do not get that hot. Certainly not hot enough to prevent their being removed without burning one's hand.
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
Cortland Cunningham's palm was covered with burned gunpowder when he extracted the spent shells from the S&W revolver.....Lee Oswald had NO gunpowder residue on his hands.... There was only a TRACE of nitrates..... And the nitrites could have came from dozens of sources.
-
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
First off... Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the killer ...And he said the man had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head appear to be flat....Lee Oswald's mug shot shows that he had a very pronounced tapered skull at the rear.....Benavides definitely was NOT describing the back of Lee Oswald's head.
Second.... You obviously know nothing about the S&W revolver ....The rim of the shells are recessed into the cylinder ...... They can't be merely picked out and removed with your fingers....Since the 38 in question was an old revolver that had been modified to fire 38 special ammo the chambers in the cylinder were oversize and too large in diameter to hold the 38 special cartridges tightly,... and this sloppy fit allowed the 38 spec cartridges to balloon in the chambers when they were fired. This "ballooning" of the shells caused them to stick in the chambers and made them difficult to extract even by using the extractor, and impossible to remove with your fingers....
Bottom line... The killer was NOT Lee Oswald.....and the killer was not using a Smith and Wesson revolver....
Since the S&W holds six cartridges and all cartridges are removed in a single stroke of the extractor then simply math tells us that something is not right about the tale of Tippit's murder....
There is controversy about the number of shots fired by the killer..... Some reports say there were more than four bullets fired at Tippit.....But only three spent shells were recovered at the scene..... The S&W revolver extracts all shells , whether spent or live, when the extractor is pushed. So there may be as many as three spent shells unaccounted for..... If the gun had been a S&W then it's highly unlikely that those shells wouldn't have been found near the scene just as the three that allegedly were found at the scene.
-
Oswald was removing the shells manually because one of them had split, preventing the removal of them all at once by the extractor.
First off... Domingo Benavides DESCRIBED the killer ...And he said the man had his hair cut in a fashion that made the back of his head appear to be flat....Lee Oswald's mug shot shows that he had a very pronounced tapered skull at the rear.....Benavides definitely was NOT describing the back of Lee Oswald's head.
Second.... You obviously know nothing about the S&W revolver ....The rim of the shells are recessed into the cylinder ...... They can't be merely picked out and removed with your fingers....Since the 38 in question was an old revolver that had been modified to fire 38 special ammo the chambers in the cylinder were oversize and too large in diameter to hold the 38 special cartridges tightly,... and this sloppy fit allowed the 38 spec cartridges to balloon in the chambers when they were fired. This "ballooning" of the shells caused them to stick in the chambers and made them difficult to extract even by using the extractor, and impossible to remove with your fingers....
Bottom line... The killer was NOT Lee Oswald.....and the killer was not using a Smith and Wesson revolver....
I just read something interesting in a document about Lee Oswald's arrest.......There were three live cartridges in the revolver that ALLEGEDLY was taken from Lee in the theater....What's interesting is the fact that Tippit's killer was NOT Lee Oswald, and the killer was NOT using a S&W revolver..... But THREE spent shells were found at the scene and there were THREE live rounds in the S&W revolver....... And three of Hoover's "Extra Special, special agents were in the theater at the time...
I just read something interesting in a document about Lee Oswald's arrest.......
(https://harveyandlee.net/Tippit/images/Davenport.jpg)
Notice that THREE cartridges were recovered......
-
I just read something interesting in a document about Lee Oswald's arrest.......There were three live cartridges in the revolver that ALLEGEDLY was taken from Lee in the theater....What's interesting is the fact that Tippit's killer was NOT Lee Oswald, and the killer was NOT using a S&W revolver..... But THREE spent shells were found at the scene and there were THREE live rounds in the S&W revolver....... And three of Hoover's "Extra Special, special agents were in the theater at the time...
There were SIX live rounds in the S&W revolver that was removed from Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre, not just three.
-
There were SIX live rounds in the S&W revolver that was removed from Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre, not just three.
That's NOT what this DPD Supplementary Offense Report says...... The report says....
"At 3:30 pm Capt Fritz of the Homocide Bureau advised officers to take the 38 S&W snubnose (ser # 510210) that was used in the shooting and three live 38 shells and also turned these over to Capt Doughty"
-
That's debatable, depending on whether you want to play word games.
The case has been very clearly laid out as to how the shells are authentic, a point that these two clowns fail to grasp. Both Dhority and Doughty would testify that the shells in evidence are the shells turned over to them by each of the Davis sisters.
Setting aside the fact that the Davis sisters-in-law couldn't identify them as the same shells, how do you know the shells that the Davis sisters-in-law allegedly handed to Dougherty and Doughty had anything to do with Tippit's murder?
-
Setting aside the fact that the Davis sisters-in-law couldn't identify them as the same shells, how do you know the shells that the Davis sisters-in-law allegedly handed to Dougherty and Doughty had anything to do with Tippit's murder?
We have to ASSUME that the shells that Benavides and the girls found were from the killer's gun..... But we also have to ASSUME that the shells presented to the WC are the same shells that were picked up at the murder scene.
And while I do believe that Benavides and the Davis girls found a couple of shells at the scene....I seriously doubt that the shells that were presented to the WC are those same shells.