Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
Richard Smith and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305  (Read 636 times)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« on: July 30, 2018, 03:33:02 AM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

****************************************


The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired a shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963,with his alleged 40” Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C). There is no evidence for this claim to show it is even remotely correct and the bullet they put forth has no chain of custody for it.  Let’s look at the chain of custody issue for Commission Exhibit (CE) 573 in this post.

*****************************

The WC concluded LHO fired at EAW with really no evidence that could show this claim was correct. Here is what they wrote in their own Report (WCR).

Quote on

Based on (1) the contents of the note which Oswald left for his wife on April 10, 1963, (2) the photographs found among Oswald's possessions, (3) the testimony of firearms identification experts, and (4) the testimony of Marina Oswald, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to take the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963. (WCR, p. 187)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

So we see the full weight of the “evidence” the WC used to conclude that LHO fired a shot at EAW. Of course they had to IGNORE things like the only witness saw TWO men fleeing from the scene , that no ballistic expert could show the claimed bullet, CE 573, was fired from LHO’s alleged rifle, CE 139, and that there was NO chain of custody for CE 573 at all. In case the WC defenders have a problem with my second issue then please read this.

Quote on

Although the Commission recognizes that neither expert [FBI expert Robert Frazier & Superintendent of  Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation Joseph Nicol] was able to state that the bullet which missed General Walker was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others, this testimony was considered probative when combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting. (Ibid)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Their last comment is laughable as they claim this finding is “probative” when linked with other testimony linking LHO to the shooting, but this is after they just said they could NOT show his alleged rifle fired the bullet at EAW! If you can’t link his alleged weapon to the shooting then how can you say he did the shooting? Does this make any sense to you?

The irony is on page 183 of their own report they mentioned the ONLY witness said he saw two men fleeing the scene!


Quote on

At approximately 9 p.m., on April 10, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, an active and controversial figure on the American political scene since his resignation from the U.S. Army in 1961, narrowly escaped death when a rifle bullet fired from outside his home passed near his head as he was seated at his desk. There were no eyewitnesses, although a 14-year-old boy in a neighboring house claimed that immediately after the shooting he saw two men, in separate cars, drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home. A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men around the house peeking in windows." General Walker gave this information to the police before the shooting, but it did not help solve the crime. (WCR, p. 183)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

After they say “there were no eyewitnesses” they mentioned THERE WAS AN EYEWITNESS who saw TWO MEN fleeing the scene of the shooting! Then we see a friend of EAW said he saw “two men around the house peeking in windows” and this would support the statement made by Walter Coleman. This is pure WC irony at work here.

Now, for the chain of custody issue. The WC claimed CE 573 was found at the shooting by the Dallas Police Department (DPD) on the night of April 10, 1963. Here is  a picture of CE 573.

CE 573:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The first thing we have to look at is CE 1953 as this is a FBI report dated June 10, 1964, that recounts this issue. On the first page of the report it says this about the discovery and the first handoff of the chain of custody.

Quote on

On May 28, 1964, B.G. Brown, police officer assigned to the Crime Scene Search Section (CSSS), Dallas, Texas, Police Department, advised that on the night of April 10, 1963, he was dispatched to 411 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas, to conduct a crime scene search in connection with a shooting at that residence….After his arrival at the residence, Patrolman B.G. Norvell HANDED Brown A BULLET, which Norvell stated HE HAD FOUND among some papers and literature in the room next to the room where General Walker had been sitting at the time of the shooting. (CE 1953, p. 757) (Emphasis mine)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

So we see that Patrolman Norvell found the bullet and gave it to Officer Brown of the CSSS for processing. Sounds like we are set, right? Not so fast. In the same report on the next page (same page in HistoryMatters.com display) we see this comment.

Quote on

On May 28, 1964, Don McElroy, Detective, Burglary and Theft Squad, Dallas, Texas, Police Department,…In the room next to where General Walker had been sitting, Mr. McElroy stated HE FOUND a spent bullet among some papers and literature. Mr. McElroy stated he picked up the bullet and later gave it to Officer B.G. Brown, of the Crime Scene Search Section, Dallas Police Department. (Ibid) (Emphasis mine)

Quote off

So now we have a second person who claimed to find the bullet among papers and literature. He too claimed to give it to Brown so we can’t say he found it and gave it to Norvell who gave it to Brown. Norvell would get corroboration from his partner, D.P. Tucker, that he found it as the same report says this.

Quote on

At the residence while investigating the shooting, which included interviews of General Walker and other persons at the residence and conducting a search of the area, Officer Norvell found a bullet in a battered condition which apparently had been the bullet fired through the window which barely missed General Walker. Officer Tucker stated that officer Norvell FOUND this bullet in the room adjoinng the room where General Walker was sitting at the time the shot was fired. There was a hole in the wall near where General Walker had been sitting.  In the adjacent room, Norvell FOUND the bullet among some papers and literature and later gave this bullet to Dectective D. E. McElroy. McElroy advised Norvell and Tucker that he, McElroy, would give the bullet to the Dallas Police Crime LABORATORY. (CE 1953, p. 758) (Emphasis mine)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

So we see Norvell’s account is corroborated by Tucker, except for the part where he says he gave the bullet to McElroy. We now have three different accounts of the chain of custody in the SAME REPORT. Then, according to Tucker, McElroy said he would give the bullet to the LABORATORY and NOT the CSSS. We also see Tucker said he was not sure that Norvell had marked the bullet before giving it to McElroy. This is important as it seems according to the report that Norvell RESIGNED from the DPD on May 4, 1963. This is less than a month after this shooting. This is all confusing and would shoot down any claim of a chain of custody in a court of law, thus, NONE of these men were called before the WC to give testimony. That pretty much tells us all we need to know about this bullet and its claimed involvement in the shooting attempt on EAW.

In March 1964 there was a meeting between WC staff lawyer Melvin Eisenberg and FBI spectrographic experts John Gallagher and Henry Heiberger. In a memorandum outlining the points discussed was the following.


Quote on

SA Heiberger said that the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was DIFFERENT from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot. (FBI Document #62-109060-2845) (Emphasis mine)

Quote off

This clearly shows the claimed Walker bullet, CE 573, did NOT match the limousine fragment alleged to have come from CE 139, thus, the same rifle could not be claimed to have been used for both shootings. This means either LHO had a second rifle (really first since they never showed he owned CE 139) or he did NOT shoot at Walker as claimed or he did shoot at Walker BUT NOT AT JFK. This report makes it clear, CE 139 (which had no ties to LHO anyway based on the evidence) could NOT be linked to BOTH crimes.

Researcher George Michael Evica wrote about this back in 1975 when he said the following.


Quote on

the bullet recovered in the assassination attempt on General Walker does NOT match either CE 399 or two fragments recovered from President Kennedy’s limousine; the Warren Commission’s linking of Lee Harvey Oswald to the General Walker assassination attempt is SERIOUSLY weakened.

Quote off

Needless to say, Heiberger was NOT called to testify by the WC and Gallagher was never asked about the Walker bullet when he testified. The man who was shot at, EAW, always said CE 573 was NOT the bullet that he saw on the night of April 10, 1963. He would tell the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) the following.

Quote on

The bullet before your select committee called the Walker bullet is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963. The bullet you have was not gotten from me or taken out of my house by anyone at anytime.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

In addition to this he had his lawyer, Joseph Dinsmore Murphy, write the Deputy Attorney General, Robert Keuch, on June 7, 1979, with concerns he had about the HSCA’s investigation into this matter. He mentioned that EAW had held the bullet found in his own hands when the police officer who found it showed it to him. The letter says this about this matter.

Quote on

The spent bullet in question was retrieved by a police officer and shown to Mr. Walker who HELD IT IN HIS HANDS and EXAMINED it. It is more probable than not that a person of this experience would know and recognize the bullet that was fired at him when he and the Dallas police retrieved and examined the spent bullet at the time of the attempted assassination on him.

]http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf

Quote off

Finally, EAW would say this to the HSCA regarding the bullet they showed on television (CE 573) during their hearings.

Quote on

The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G.Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. I saw the hunk of lead, picked up by a policeman in my house, and I took it from him and I inspected it carefully. There is no mistake. There has been a substitution for the bullet fired by Oswald and taken out of my house.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

We see that the bullet presented to us, CE 573, had NO clear chain of custody for it. We see it could NOT be tied to the alleged murder weapon, CE 139, so it was either NOT used for the JFK shooting or NOT used for the Walker shooting. It really matters little since there is NO evidence showing LHO owned it anyway. Finally, we see the man the bullet was fired at, EAW, said CE 573 was NOT the bullet he held and saw on the night of April 10, 1963, and he had thirty years of military experience.

Once again, we see evidence in the twenty-six volumes (and elsewhere) sink the WC’s conclusion.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2018, 04:00:07 AM by Rob Caprio »

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« on: July 30, 2018, 03:33:02 AM »


Online Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 586
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2018, 05:04:24 AM »
Quote
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Among the glaring questions....
Why would it have been necessary to take pictures of Gen Walkers house?
If it was so necessary to photographically enshrine his dastardly deeds ...where are his pictures of the JFK parade snipers view?
How did LHO get over to the Oak Lawn area and get back to Oak Cliff sporting his rifle?
Wrapped in a blanket? Rather conspicuous is it not?
Oh he buried it after the shot? Where? Well supposedly, he took a picture of that too.
For some incredible reason ...according to the Report...Oswald photographed the stash site 7/10ths of a mile away from the Mt Vernon Ave Generals house and concealed the rifle there in the bushes by some railroad tracks.
All that trouble for a missed shot :D

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2018, 04:06:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Among the glaring questions....
Why would it have been necessary to take pictures of Gen Walkers house?
If it was so necessary to photographically enshrine his dastardly deeds ...where are his pictures of the JFK parade snipers view?
How did LHO get over to the Oak Lawn area and get back to Oak Cliff sporting his rifle?
Wrapped in a blanket? Rather conspicuous is it not?
Oh he buried it after the shot? Where? Well supposedly, he took a picture of that too.
For some incredible reason ...according to the Report...Oswald photographed the stash site 7/10ths of a mile away from the Mt Vernon Ave Generals house and concealed the rifle there in the bushes by some railroad tracks.
All that trouble for a missed shot :D

Also, if he left a supposed note for his alleged shooting of EAW why didn't he leave one for JFK?

Online Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2018, 04:30:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, if he left a supposed note for his alleged shooting of EAW why didn't he leave one for JFK?

Great plan: Leave a note for Marina 5 hours before the motorcade started.
 ::)

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1929
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2018, 09:46:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great plan: Leave a note for Marina 5 hours before the motorcade started.
 ::)

Who said what you wrote besides yourself?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2018, 09:46:09 PM »


Online Tom Sorensen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2018, 07:02:47 AM »
Mrs. OSWALD. He said only that he had taken very good aim, that it was just chance that caused him to miss. He was very sorry that he had not hit him.
I asked him to give me his word that he would not repeat anything like that. I said that this chance shows that he must live and that he should not be shot at again. I told him that I would save the note and that if something like that should be repeated again, I would go to the police and I would have the proof in the form of that note.


Um, the wife beater forgot to reclaim the note?

Online Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2018, 04:49:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who said what you wrote besides yourself?

Why did you ask why Oswald wouldn't leave a note on 11.22.63

I explained why that would be foolhardy
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 05:41:28 AM by Bill Chapman »

Online Tom Sorensen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2018, 06:41:49 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Why did you ask why Oswald wouldn't leave a note on 11.22.63

I explained why that would be foolhardy

Rob didn't suggest leaving it under the tea cup...

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2018, 06:41:49 AM »


Online Steve Howsley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 196
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2018, 07:01:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, if he left a supposed note for his alleged shooting of EAW why didn't he leave one for JFK?

He did in the form of a wedding ring.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2018, 02:05:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He did in the form of a wedding ring.

And nearly all of his money. Marina said the night he allegedly went to shoot Walker that he left her money on that occasion too.

This is where the Oswald apologists say he always left her money.

The evidence - circumstantial, eyewitness and physical combined - points to Oswald as the assassin of JFK. Any counter explanation is so far fetched and dubious that we can reject it. And it's why the apologists for Oswald have to use legal explanations to toss out the evidence. Imagine discussing any other event in history where one side uses legal technicalities to throw out information about that event? It's absurd. It's only done here in an attempt to clear Oswald and not determine, as best as we can, what happened.

People think great events need great causes and they won't or can't believe that a nobody like Oswald could change history so dramatically. But history sometimes turns on small events done by small people. This is an example of it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #305
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2018, 02:05:11 PM »