Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 9, 2021 22:35:10 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/b3ef9b689a.jpg
In this post we will look at the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). The Warren Commission (WC) claimed he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), but as we will see they could NOT show his alleged revolver, or him, had anything to do with the crime.
***************************************
Cortland Cunningham of the FBI was asked to examine the ballistic evidence in the JDT shooting. He would find there was NO match between the bullets taken from JDT’s BODY and the alleged murder weapon. He would also discover the shell casings in evidence could NOT be matched to those bullets removed from JDT’s body either!
Cunningham was given FOUR (CE 602, 603, 604 & 605) bullets to examine. They allegedly came from the body of Officer Tippit (I have to use this word since you will soon see he ONLY received ONE bullet in a timely fashion leaving open the question of tampering for the other three) and would be compared to the alleged murder weapon allegedly found on the person of LHO when he was arrested.
Here is the testimony regarding this aspect.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four bullets in plastic cases marked C-251, C-252, Q-13, and C-253, which have also certain other markings on them, and I ask you if you are familiar with these bullets. (My Note: These are the FBI’s numbers for the four bullets.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on these bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record. I would like to state these four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. (My Note: We have NO way of knowing this for sure as you will soon see.)
When did you receive these bullets, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Q-13 bullet was delivered to the Laboratory the first time on the morning of November 23d, and it was delivered to the Laboratory by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas office of the FBI.
My Note: Q-13 is the same as CE-602.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. By the way, it was returned go Dallas, and then it was returned to the Laboratory, delivered again by Special Agent Vincent Drain, of the Dallas office, also, Special Agent Warren De Brueys. They delivered our Q-13 a second time on November 27th.
This is misleading as you will see. The OTHER bullets were NOT received until March 16, 1964. Why NOT?
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive what are now marked 603, 604, and 605, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were received in the FBI Laboratory on March 16th of this year, and they were submitted to the Laboratory by the Dallas office of the FBI.
Mr. EISENBERG. When were they examined?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were examined on March 17, 1964.
Why did it take so long to get these other ones? What could have happened to the evidence in this time to render it inadmissible? Lack of chain of custody for one comes to mind.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the great time difference between the receipt and examination of the first bullet and the receipt and examination of the last three bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At your request, you asked us to postpone the examination of these three bullets in order to facilitate other examinations you wished more expedited than the examinations of these bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now you are explaining the time between the receipt and the examination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why these three bullets—
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, between. the first submission and the second?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; between the submission of the first bullet, and the submission to you of the second three bullets.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is my understanding the first bullet was turned over to the FBI office in Dallas by the Dallas Police Department. They reportedly said this was the only bullet that was recovered, or that they had. Later at the request of this Commission, we went back to the Dallas Police Department and found in their files that they actually had three other bullets.
Can you believe this? WC defenders love to use Nicol as he claimed one of the bullets could be matched to CE-143. (Even if it could, and it couldn’t, who cares since CE-143 is NOT tied to LHO with evidence?) But with this chain of custody you have to wonder where they got these other three bullets! Supposedly they were found in the “DPD files”, but how come they did NOT find them when they found CE-602?
Now they move onto the bread and butter stuff as IF nothing had happened out of the ordinary!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you examine these four bullets to determine whether they had been fired in the revolver, Exhibit No. 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the four bullets which have just been marked into evidence to determine whether those four bullets had been fired in the revolver, No. 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Here we see a FBI ballistic expert could NOT match ANY of the bullets to LHO’s alleged revolver. And this was after some obvious shenanigans by the DPD with the bullets.
What about the cartridge cases in evidence, do they match?
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun—
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.
His solution of either one bullet missing or them NOT finding one of the CORRECT cartridge cases opens the door for many tampering questions. How could they hand over four bullets and NOT have one of them be from the body of JDT? How could they submit a cartridge case that was NOT found? These are serious questions, thus, the WC would IGNORE those possibilities and go get Nicol to lie.
Also, the last time I looked cartridge cases did NOT kill people, bullets did and they have NO match!
Now, it is time for the really damning stuff.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not. (3 H 473)
Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun.
Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that. (3 H 482)
Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they COULD have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been.
However, No conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT SIMILARITIES TO EFFECT AN IDENTIFICATION.
Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, THESE BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED BY ANOTHER WEAPON?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. THAT IS CORRECT. Either this weapon or ANOTHER WEAPON THAT HAS THE SAME RIFLING CHARACTERISTICS. (3 H 483)
Poof. There goes the WC’s claims of LHO shooting JDT! Cunningham would get a lot of support too!
FROM THE HSCA Testimony:
Mr. EDGAR. Regarding CE-143, Oswald's revolver, do your test-fired bullets match, microscopically, with CE-602, 603, 604, and 605?
Mr. LUTZ. Are these the bullets that were recovered from Officer Tippit?
Mr. EDGAR. These were the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.
Mr. LUTZ. Our microscopic examination and comparison of these bullets failed to positively identify this revolver as the one that fired those bullets. (1 HSCA 486)
From the HSCA Report:
"As for the evidence in the Tippit shooting, the bullets removed from the officer's body could not be linked ot Oswald's revolver.” (1 HSCA 443)
"Regarding the evidence from the Tippit shooting, the bullets removed from the officer's body could not be positively identified with Oswald's revolver." (7 HSCA 357)
"....The panel was unable to conclude that the Tippit bullets were fired from the CE 143 revolver." (7 HSCA 381)
The *CLAIMS* made in the WCR are NOT supported by the ACTUAL evidence in this case.
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/b3ef9b689a.jpg
In this post we will look at the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT). The Warren Commission (WC) claimed he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO), but as we will see they could NOT show his alleged revolver, or him, had anything to do with the crime.
***************************************
Cortland Cunningham of the FBI was asked to examine the ballistic evidence in the JDT shooting. He would find there was NO match between the bullets taken from JDT’s BODY and the alleged murder weapon. He would also discover the shell casings in evidence could NOT be matched to those bullets removed from JDT’s body either!
Cunningham was given FOUR (CE 602, 603, 604 & 605) bullets to examine. They allegedly came from the body of Officer Tippit (I have to use this word since you will soon see he ONLY received ONE bullet in a timely fashion leaving open the question of tampering for the other three) and would be compared to the alleged murder weapon allegedly found on the person of LHO when he was arrested.
Here is the testimony regarding this aspect.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four bullets in plastic cases marked C-251, C-252, Q-13, and C-253, which have also certain other markings on them, and I ask you if you are familiar with these bullets. (My Note: These are the FBI’s numbers for the four bullets.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on these bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, they are.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record. I would like to state these four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. (My Note: We have NO way of knowing this for sure as you will soon see.)
When did you receive these bullets, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Q-13 bullet was delivered to the Laboratory the first time on the morning of November 23d, and it was delivered to the Laboratory by Special Agent Vincent Drain of the Dallas office of the FBI.
My Note: Q-13 is the same as CE-602.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. By the way, it was returned go Dallas, and then it was returned to the Laboratory, delivered again by Special Agent Vincent Drain, of the Dallas office, also, Special Agent Warren De Brueys. They delivered our Q-13 a second time on November 27th.
This is misleading as you will see. The OTHER bullets were NOT received until March 16, 1964. Why NOT?
Mr. EISENBERG. When did you receive what are now marked 603, 604, and 605, Mr. Cunningham?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were received in the FBI Laboratory on March 16th of this year, and they were submitted to the Laboratory by the Dallas office of the FBI.
Mr. EISENBERG. When were they examined?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were examined on March 17, 1964.
Why did it take so long to get these other ones? What could have happened to the evidence in this time to render it inadmissible? Lack of chain of custody for one comes to mind.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain the great time difference between the receipt and examination of the first bullet and the receipt and examination of the last three bullets?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At your request, you asked us to postpone the examination of these three bullets in order to facilitate other examinations you wished more expedited than the examinations of these bullets.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now you are explaining the time between the receipt and the examination?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain why these three bullets—
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Oh, between. the first submission and the second?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; between the submission of the first bullet, and the submission to you of the second three bullets.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, it is my understanding the first bullet was turned over to the FBI office in Dallas by the Dallas Police Department. They reportedly said this was the only bullet that was recovered, or that they had. Later at the request of this Commission, we went back to the Dallas Police Department and found in their files that they actually had three other bullets.
Can you believe this? WC defenders love to use Nicol as he claimed one of the bullets could be matched to CE-143. (Even if it could, and it couldn’t, who cares since CE-143 is NOT tied to LHO with evidence?) But with this chain of custody you have to wonder where they got these other three bullets! Supposedly they were found in the “DPD files”, but how come they did NOT find them when they found CE-602?
Now they move onto the bread and butter stuff as IF nothing had happened out of the ordinary!
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, did you examine these four bullets to determine whether they had been fired in the revolver, Exhibit No. 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am sorry.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the four bullets which have just been marked into evidence to determine whether those four bullets had been fired in the revolver, No. 143?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired--these bullets themselves--had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald's revolver.
Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
Here we see a FBI ballistic expert could NOT match ANY of the bullets to LHO’s alleged revolver. And this was after some obvious shenanigans by the DPD with the bullets.
What about the cartridge cases in evidence, do they match?
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun—
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
Representative BOGGS. And you cannot--having the cartridge case and the bullet--you cannot match them up?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.
His solution of either one bullet missing or them NOT finding one of the CORRECT cartridge cases opens the door for many tampering questions. How could they hand over four bullets and NOT have one of them be from the body of JDT? How could they submit a cartridge case that was NOT found? These are serious questions, thus, the WC would IGNORE those possibilities and go get Nicol to lie.
Also, the last time I looked cartridge cases did NOT kill people, bullets did and they have NO match!
Now, it is time for the really damning stuff.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not. (3 H 473)
Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun.
Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that. (3 H 482)
Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they COULD have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics--they could have been.
However, No conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT SIMILARITIES TO EFFECT AN IDENTIFICATION.
Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne's question negatively, THESE BULLETS COULD HAVE BEEN FIRED BY ANOTHER WEAPON?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. THAT IS CORRECT. Either this weapon or ANOTHER WEAPON THAT HAS THE SAME RIFLING CHARACTERISTICS. (3 H 483)
Poof. There goes the WC’s claims of LHO shooting JDT! Cunningham would get a lot of support too!
FROM THE HSCA Testimony:
Mr. EDGAR. Regarding CE-143, Oswald's revolver, do your test-fired bullets match, microscopically, with CE-602, 603, 604, and 605?
Mr. LUTZ. Are these the bullets that were recovered from Officer Tippit?
Mr. EDGAR. These were the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.
Mr. LUTZ. Our microscopic examination and comparison of these bullets failed to positively identify this revolver as the one that fired those bullets. (1 HSCA 486)
From the HSCA Report:
"As for the evidence in the Tippit shooting, the bullets removed from the officer's body could not be linked ot Oswald's revolver.” (1 HSCA 443)
"Regarding the evidence from the Tippit shooting, the bullets removed from the officer's body could not be positively identified with Oswald's revolver." (7 HSCA 357)
"....The panel was unable to conclude that the Tippit bullets were fired from the CE 143 revolver." (7 HSCA 381)
The *CLAIMS* made in the WCR are NOT supported by the ACTUAL evidence in this case.