Post by Gil Jesus on Jul 11, 2022 7:08:33 GMT -5
by Gil Jesus (2022)
The evidence proves that the "nick" was not made by a firing pin, the weapon never misfired and that the "click" was heard during the struggle and not when Oswald was disarmed. It may have been made by other means, i.e. one of the theater seats.
Not only does the evidence "debunk" the Dallas Police's version of the gun misfiring, it also calls into question the entire Dallas Police version of what happened in the Texas Theater.
There was at least one theater patron who cast doubt on Oswald being the source of the weapon.
George Applin, told the FBI that "one of the two (either Oswald or McDonald) had a pistol in his right hand." (CD 87, pg. 558)
The Commission avoided mentioning this FBI interview of Applin. It didn't make it into the 26 volumes.
Years later in an interview with reporter Earl Golz, Applin went one step further, telling Golz that he believed "the revolver Oswald came up with came out of the officer's holster".
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png
The Commission also cited shoe store clerk Johnny Brewer, the man who allegedly saw Oswald acting suspicious and followed him to the Texas Theater. Brewer was in the Texas Theater and allegedly pointed out Oswald to the police.
The Commission said, "Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull a revolver...." (Report, p. 179)
In fact, he testified never even saw Oswald pull the gun.
Mr. BELIN Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. Brewer. No. (7 H 6)
In other words, at least in the case of Brewer, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witness testified to.
McDonald's Movement: Evidence Of Planting?
Support of Applin's belief that the weapon came from McDonald and not Oswald comes in the form of McDonald's movement when confronting Oswald.
The proper procedure for frisking an individual is to start at the shoulders and work your way down the body. This is why Oswald raised his arms when McDonald approached. he expected to be searched from the shoulders down.
But McDonald didn't do that. Instead, he went right for Oswald's waist. McDonald testified:
"It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not." (3 H 303)
Natural? No that's not the way it's done.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband?
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald's waist. (3 H 300)
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
"..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn't get it out. " (Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39)
Why not? Why did he not display an intent to use it?
Who would have handed McDonald an empty weapon to plant on Oswald?
Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald's commanding officer in another division. (7 H 112) So they were well acquainted with each other.
Because the police version contains discrepancy after discrepancy, one would think that the truth might be found in the statements of the 20-24 theater patrons who witnessed the arrest of Oswald and were allegedly interviewed by Dallas Police.
Mr. ELY. ...Captain, you had mentioned that you had left orders for someone to take the names of everybody in the theater, and you also stated you do not have this list; do you know who has it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lt. Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list. (7 H 118)
Lt. Cunningham was never called to testify.
The remaining patrons' names and anything they may have told police cannot be found in the official record. That's too many witnesses for it to have been an honest mistake. What could they have told the police that the police would not want in the public record?
There were (false) reports in the foreign press that the revolver had a bent firing pin and the pin had been bent purposely by police after the Tippit murder so that none of their officers would be in danger of being shot when they planted the weapon on Oswald.
Knowing how the weapon operates, it doesn't make sense.
What does make sense is that if the police were going to plant a weapon on Oswald, it would have been less work and a lot safer for their officers to plant an empty revolver on him.
An Empty Weapon?
And there is circumstantial evidence that the revolver was empty when it was brought into the police station.
The official version has Det. Bob Carroll yanking the weapon out of an ocean of humanity and sticking it in his waistband. Then, when they got outside and get into the cruiser to take Oswald to police headquarters, he handed the gun to Sgt. Gerald Hill.
The seating in the car had Det. Carroll driving, Sgt. Hill in the middle of the front seat, Off. K.E. Lyons in the front passenger seat. In the rear left to right were Det. Paul Bentley, Oswald and Off. Charles T. Walker. (7 H 54)
Sgt. Hill testified that when Carroll handed him the weapon, he opened it in the car, verified it was loaded, saw the cartridge with the "indentation", assumed it had misfired and that he didn't unload the weapon until they got to the police station. (7 H 55)
He also testified that when he looked at the cartridges in the cylinder, one had a mark that looked like it had been made by the hammer and that ALL of the cartridges had indentations:
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL. Right, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right, then, would you tell us what happened? What was said and what was done?
Mr. HILL. Then I broke the gun open to see how many shells it contained and how many live rounds it had in it.
Mr. BELIN. How many did you find?
Mr. HILL. There were six in the chambers of the gun. One of them had an indention in the primer that appeared to be caused by the hammer. There were five others. All of the shells at this time had indentions (sic.) (Ibid.)
Why on earth wouldn't he immediately unload the weapon if he suspected it had misfired or was defective? How could he be so sure that the gun would not go off accidently on the way to the station?
Sgt. Hill's credibility was less than stellar. He testified that the revolver and cartridges were in his possession from the time Bob Carroll handed him the weapon until he transferred possession of both to Lt. Baker. (7 H 56)
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that when he put Oswald in the interrogation room, HE had possession of the handgun:
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, and we went back there and one of the detectives said, put him in this room. I put him in the room, and he (the detective) said, "Let the uniformed officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A.J.Hidell on it. (7 H 41)
So Hill committed perjury when he testified that he never relinquished possession of the handgun.
As did the only witness to corroborate Sgt. Hill's testimony that he unloaded the revolver, Detective Bob Carroll, who at first testified that Hill had unloaded the weapon in the police car on the way to the station. (7 H 22)
In fact, the Commission never established exactly WHEN or WHERE Carroll saw Hill unload the weapon, only that it was unloaded in his presence. (7 H 22-23)
Detective Carroll is a character of questionable integrity as well. On the one hand he testified that he didn't see anyone hit Oswald (7 H 20), on the other he admits to hitting Oswald "up side his head".
In addition, the other officers in the car, Bentley and Lyons, were never called to testify and Walker was never asked if Hill unloaded the weapon in the car. Why not?
Sgt. Hill testified that when they brought Oswald into the Homicide office, he asked Lt. Baker if he wanted the weapon:
"I asked Baker at this time, who was Detective T. L. Baker, if he wanted the pistol, and he said, 'No; hold on to it until later.'" ( 7 H 59 )
So here you have the alleged murder weapon, a weapon that may have been used to kill one of your own officers, and you're not receiving it into evidence ?
Why would you not receive the alleged murder weapon ?
Because it was empty. That's why Baker told Hill to "hold on to it".
Hold on to it until we find some cartridges.
The Weapon Arrives In Capt. Westbrook's Office
Capt. Westbrook testified that he was present when the weapon was brought into his office.
Mr. BALL. Were you in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir; it was brought to my office when it shouldn't have been.
Mr. BALL. But it was brought to your office?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; it was. (7 H 118)
Westbrook implies that he was present when the weapon was marked and names "Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more " as having marked the weapon. ( ibid. )
He then testifies that he never saw the gun unloaded.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the gun unloaded?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; I didn't see it unloaded. When I saw it, the gun was laying on Mr. McGee's desk and the shells were out of it. (ibid.)
Westbrook testified that while Hill and the others were marking the weapon, he went down to Fritz's office to tell him the gun was in his office and then Fritz sent someone (Lt. Baker) to get it. (ibid.)
Why would Westbrook leave his office and walk down to Homicide to tell them the weapon was in his office when Lt. Baker already knew that Westgate's sergeant, Sgt. Hill, had possession of the revolver?
Didn't they have any phones in that building?
Why didn't Westbrook order Sgt. Hill, in whose possession the weapon was since its recovery from Oswald, to take the revolver and cartridges down to homicide, thus maintaining the chain of custody?
The answer is because the weapon was empty and they didn't have the cartridges. That's why Westbrook went Fritz's office. They needed cartridges.
Baker didn't just go up to Westgate's office to retrieve the handgun, he brought those cartridges to Westbrook's office for them to mark.
Dallas Officer Ray Hawkins testified that he was present in the personnel office and observed McDonald mark the weapon and the weapon was empty at that time.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the pistol at the personnel bureau?
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald mark it?
Mr. HAWKINS. Did I see McDonald mark it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; McDonald, and I believe Sergeant Hill marked it or possibly Bob Carroll. There were, I believe, two people who marked it.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody unload the gun?
Mr. HAWKINS. No, sir; not unload it. I believe the gun was unloaded whenever I got there..... (7 H 95)
So Hawkins' testimony is that he was present when the revolver was marked, he named the officers who marked it and that the revolver was empty when he got there.
Of course, this makes sense. No one in their right mind would risk marking a loaded weapon, especially one they believed had recently misfired and could go off at any time.
Therefore, the weapon HAD to have been empty when it was marked.
If Capt. Westbrook was present when the weapon was brought into his office, observed Sgt. Hill and others mark it and Hawkins observed the same marking and testified that the weapon was empty when they marked it, then the revolver was empty when they brought it into Westbrook's office.
If the weapon was empty and was planted on Oswald, where did they get the cartridges from ? One source may have been from the property recovered from none other than Officer J.D. Tippit.
A Timing And Number Coincidence?
The record shows that Oswald was in the Homicide office by 2:15 pm.
Hill testified that he didn't mark the weapon and six cartridges until "approximately 4 pm", about an hour and 45 minutes later. (7 H 54)
How long does it take to mark evidence? When you don't have the cartridges, it takes as long as it takes to find some.
And find some they did.
Thirty five minutes after eleven unfired rounds from JD Tippit were turned in to the station by Officer W.R. Bardin (Dallas Police Box 9, pg. 8), Hill marked the six rounds he allegedly unloaded from the revolver and Detective Elmer Boyd "found" five unfired rounds in the pants pocket of Oswald.
Of course, the "Oswald-did-it" crowd will claim it all a coincidence: that 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds attributed to Oswald just happened into evidence after 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds were recovered from the possessions of JD Tippit. All a coincidence. Nothing to see here, folks.
Of course, this scenario of mine could have been disproven by the testimony of Lt. Baker. Was the weapon empty when first presented to him by Sgt. Hill ? Did he bring six unfired cartridges to Westbrook's office? The only problem is that Baker was never called to testify. Why not ?
Lt. Baker was a link in the chain of possession of the revolver used to kill J.D. Tippit and the unfired cartridges proving it had been reloaded after the murder and he wasn't even on the witness list to testify to his actions that day?
It's unconscionable.
Then there is the credibility of Officer McDonald, the officer who struggled with Oswald in the theater, the one who stuck the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the primer preventing the cartridge from being fired. The one who expressed no pain from the injury he would have received from such a heroic action and an injury for which there is no record he received medical attention for.
In his report, McDonald stated that he "marked the pistol and six rounds at Central Station." (Dallas Police Box 2, pg. 317)
But in his testimony, he told the Commission that he only marked one round.
Mr. BALL - I will show you four that are marked as--we will give these four an exhibit number. Do you know whether or not they were shells similar to that?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; they were .38 caliber. Now, I didn't mark all of these shells, myself.
Mr. BALL - Did you mark any of them?
Mr. McDONALD - I recall marking one. (3 H 301-302)
When I was a young boy, my Dad once told me that "when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said."
These officers not only couldn't remember details, their version of the arrest of Oswald contains discrepancy after discrepancy.
Under those circumstances, with the police version questionable, one would expect to find corroboration or rejection for it in the statements of patrons who witnessed the arrest.
At least one patron thought the revolver came from Officer McDonald. Either the other theater patrons were never interviewed by police or they were interviewed and those interviews were discarded. What those witnesses saw will never be known. Those interviews simply do not exist in the public record.
On that note one must assume that whatever they told police did not conform to the police version of events, for if they did, they would have been included in the evidence that Oswald entered the theater armed and attempted to pull his weapon when confronted by Officer McDonald.
Then there is the physical evidence that did not support the police version of events.
The FBI determined that the nick on the cartridge shell did not come from the firing pin of the revolver or the firing pin of any other revolver.
So it had to be man-made.
The FBI also found that the weapon did not misfire---ever.
The handling of the revolver indicates a questionable chain-of-possession.
And there is the "coincidence" that the same number and caliber of unfired cartridge shells recovered from J.D. Tippit were removed from "Oswald's" weapon and his pants pocket 35 minutes later.
Just one of the many "coincidences" in this case.
Finally, out of all the questions Capt. Fritz asked Oswald, Fritz never asked Oswald one single question about the five unfired rounds allegedly found in his pocket. (4 H 230) Was that just an oversight or did Fritz not have any questions about them because he knew where they came from?
The evidence proves that the "nick" was not made by a firing pin, the weapon never misfired and that the "click" was heard during the struggle and not when Oswald was disarmed. It may have been made by other means, i.e. one of the theater seats.
Not only does the evidence "debunk" the Dallas Police's version of the gun misfiring, it also calls into question the entire Dallas Police version of what happened in the Texas Theater.
There was at least one theater patron who cast doubt on Oswald being the source of the weapon.
George Applin, told the FBI that "one of the two (either Oswald or McDonald) had a pistol in his right hand." (CD 87, pg. 558)
The Commission avoided mentioning this FBI interview of Applin. It didn't make it into the 26 volumes.
Years later in an interview with reporter Earl Golz, Applin went one step further, telling Golz that he believed "the revolver Oswald came up with came out of the officer's holster".
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/golz-applin.png
The Commission also cited shoe store clerk Johnny Brewer, the man who allegedly saw Oswald acting suspicious and followed him to the Texas Theater. Brewer was in the Texas Theater and allegedly pointed out Oswald to the police.
The Commission said, "Johnny Brewer testified he saw Oswald pull a revolver...." (Report, p. 179)
In fact, he testified never even saw Oswald pull the gun.
Mr. BELIN Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. Brewer. No. (7 H 6)
In other words, at least in the case of Brewer, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witness testified to.
McDonald's Movement: Evidence Of Planting?
Support of Applin's belief that the weapon came from McDonald and not Oswald comes in the form of McDonald's movement when confronting Oswald.
The proper procedure for frisking an individual is to start at the shoulders and work your way down the body. This is why Oswald raised his arms when McDonald approached. he expected to be searched from the shoulders down.
But McDonald didn't do that. Instead, he went right for Oswald's waist. McDonald testified:
"It was just natural that my hand went to his waist for a weapon, which was my intent anyway, whether he raised his hands or not." (3 H 303)
Natural? No that's not the way it's done.
Combine this with what George Applin told Earl Golz that he believed the revolver came from McDonald, and the evidence seems to support a planting of the revolver.
Is this why Oswald threw a punch at McDonald, because he stuffed a revolver in his waistband?
McDonald testified that Oswald drew the weapon as he put his hand on Oswald's waist. (3 H 300)
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that Oswald did not immediately pull the revolver when he knocked McDonald back against the seats.
"..it stayed there for a second or two. He didn't get it out. " (Testimony of C.T. Walker, 7 H 39)
Why not? Why did he not display an intent to use it?
Who would have handed McDonald an empty weapon to plant on Oswald?
Capt. W.R Westbrook.
McDonald and Capt. Westbrook knew each other. In fact, Westbrook was previously McDonald's commanding officer in another division. (7 H 112) So they were well acquainted with each other.
Because the police version contains discrepancy after discrepancy, one would think that the truth might be found in the statements of the 20-24 theater patrons who witnessed the arrest of Oswald and were allegedly interviewed by Dallas Police.
Mr. ELY. ...Captain, you had mentioned that you had left orders for someone to take the names of everybody in the theater, and you also stated you do not have this list; do you know who has it?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No; possibly Lt. Cunningham will know, but I don't know who has the list. (7 H 118)
Lt. Cunningham was never called to testify.
The remaining patrons' names and anything they may have told police cannot be found in the official record. That's too many witnesses for it to have been an honest mistake. What could they have told the police that the police would not want in the public record?
There were (false) reports in the foreign press that the revolver had a bent firing pin and the pin had been bent purposely by police after the Tippit murder so that none of their officers would be in danger of being shot when they planted the weapon on Oswald.
Knowing how the weapon operates, it doesn't make sense.
What does make sense is that if the police were going to plant a weapon on Oswald, it would have been less work and a lot safer for their officers to plant an empty revolver on him.
An Empty Weapon?
And there is circumstantial evidence that the revolver was empty when it was brought into the police station.
The official version has Det. Bob Carroll yanking the weapon out of an ocean of humanity and sticking it in his waistband. Then, when they got outside and get into the cruiser to take Oswald to police headquarters, he handed the gun to Sgt. Gerald Hill.
The seating in the car had Det. Carroll driving, Sgt. Hill in the middle of the front seat, Off. K.E. Lyons in the front passenger seat. In the rear left to right were Det. Paul Bentley, Oswald and Off. Charles T. Walker. (7 H 54)
Sgt. Hill testified that when Carroll handed him the weapon, he opened it in the car, verified it was loaded, saw the cartridge with the "indentation", assumed it had misfired and that he didn't unload the weapon until they got to the police station. (7 H 55)
He also testified that when he looked at the cartridges in the cylinder, one had a mark that looked like it had been made by the hammer and that ALL of the cartridges had indentations:
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said as the driver of the car, Bob Carroll, got in the car, he handed this gun to you?
Mr. HILL. Right, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right, then, would you tell us what happened? What was said and what was done?
Mr. HILL. Then I broke the gun open to see how many shells it contained and how many live rounds it had in it.
Mr. BELIN. How many did you find?
Mr. HILL. There were six in the chambers of the gun. One of them had an indention in the primer that appeared to be caused by the hammer. There were five others. All of the shells at this time had indentions (sic.) (Ibid.)
Why on earth wouldn't he immediately unload the weapon if he suspected it had misfired or was defective? How could he be so sure that the gun would not go off accidently on the way to the station?
Sgt. Hill's credibility was less than stellar. He testified that the revolver and cartridges were in his possession from the time Bob Carroll handed him the weapon until he transferred possession of both to Lt. Baker. (7 H 56)
But Officer C.T. Walker testified that when he put Oswald in the interrogation room, HE had possession of the handgun:
Mr. WALKER. We took him up the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, and we went back there and one of the detectives said, put him in this room. I put him in the room, and he (the detective) said, "Let the uniformed officers stay with him." And I went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card in there with a picture of him and the name A.J.Hidell on it. (7 H 41)
So Hill committed perjury when he testified that he never relinquished possession of the handgun.
As did the only witness to corroborate Sgt. Hill's testimony that he unloaded the revolver, Detective Bob Carroll, who at first testified that Hill had unloaded the weapon in the police car on the way to the station. (7 H 22)
In fact, the Commission never established exactly WHEN or WHERE Carroll saw Hill unload the weapon, only that it was unloaded in his presence. (7 H 22-23)
Detective Carroll is a character of questionable integrity as well. On the one hand he testified that he didn't see anyone hit Oswald (7 H 20), on the other he admits to hitting Oswald "up side his head".
In addition, the other officers in the car, Bentley and Lyons, were never called to testify and Walker was never asked if Hill unloaded the weapon in the car. Why not?
Sgt. Hill testified that when they brought Oswald into the Homicide office, he asked Lt. Baker if he wanted the weapon:
"I asked Baker at this time, who was Detective T. L. Baker, if he wanted the pistol, and he said, 'No; hold on to it until later.'" ( 7 H 59 )
So here you have the alleged murder weapon, a weapon that may have been used to kill one of your own officers, and you're not receiving it into evidence ?
Why would you not receive the alleged murder weapon ?
Because it was empty. That's why Baker told Hill to "hold on to it".
Hold on to it until we find some cartridges.
The Weapon Arrives In Capt. Westbrook's Office
Capt. Westbrook testified that he was present when the weapon was brought into his office.
Mr. BALL. Were you in the personnel office at a time that a gun was brought in?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir; it was brought to my office when it shouldn't have been.
Mr. BALL. But it was brought to your office?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes; it was. (7 H 118)
Westbrook implies that he was present when the weapon was marked and names "Officer Jerry Hill and a couple or three more " as having marked the weapon. ( ibid. )
He then testifies that he never saw the gun unloaded.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the gun unloaded?
Mr. WESTBROOK. No, sir; I didn't see it unloaded. When I saw it, the gun was laying on Mr. McGee's desk and the shells were out of it. (ibid.)
Westbrook testified that while Hill and the others were marking the weapon, he went down to Fritz's office to tell him the gun was in his office and then Fritz sent someone (Lt. Baker) to get it. (ibid.)
Why would Westbrook leave his office and walk down to Homicide to tell them the weapon was in his office when Lt. Baker already knew that Westgate's sergeant, Sgt. Hill, had possession of the revolver?
Didn't they have any phones in that building?
Why didn't Westbrook order Sgt. Hill, in whose possession the weapon was since its recovery from Oswald, to take the revolver and cartridges down to homicide, thus maintaining the chain of custody?
The answer is because the weapon was empty and they didn't have the cartridges. That's why Westbrook went Fritz's office. They needed cartridges.
Baker didn't just go up to Westgate's office to retrieve the handgun, he brought those cartridges to Westbrook's office for them to mark.
Dallas Officer Ray Hawkins testified that he was present in the personnel office and observed McDonald mark the weapon and the weapon was empty at that time.
Mr. BALL. Did you see the pistol at the personnel bureau?
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BALL. Did you see McDonald mark it?
Mr. HAWKINS. Did I see McDonald mark it?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir; McDonald, and I believe Sergeant Hill marked it or possibly Bob Carroll. There were, I believe, two people who marked it.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody unload the gun?
Mr. HAWKINS. No, sir; not unload it. I believe the gun was unloaded whenever I got there..... (7 H 95)
So Hawkins' testimony is that he was present when the revolver was marked, he named the officers who marked it and that the revolver was empty when he got there.
Of course, this makes sense. No one in their right mind would risk marking a loaded weapon, especially one they believed had recently misfired and could go off at any time.
Therefore, the weapon HAD to have been empty when it was marked.
If Capt. Westbrook was present when the weapon was brought into his office, observed Sgt. Hill and others mark it and Hawkins observed the same marking and testified that the weapon was empty when they marked it, then the revolver was empty when they brought it into Westbrook's office.
If the weapon was empty and was planted on Oswald, where did they get the cartridges from ? One source may have been from the property recovered from none other than Officer J.D. Tippit.
A Timing And Number Coincidence?
The record shows that Oswald was in the Homicide office by 2:15 pm.
Hill testified that he didn't mark the weapon and six cartridges until "approximately 4 pm", about an hour and 45 minutes later. (7 H 54)
How long does it take to mark evidence? When you don't have the cartridges, it takes as long as it takes to find some.
And find some they did.
Thirty five minutes after eleven unfired rounds from JD Tippit were turned in to the station by Officer W.R. Bardin (Dallas Police Box 9, pg. 8), Hill marked the six rounds he allegedly unloaded from the revolver and Detective Elmer Boyd "found" five unfired rounds in the pants pocket of Oswald.
Of course, the "Oswald-did-it" crowd will claim it all a coincidence: that 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds attributed to Oswald just happened into evidence after 11 unfired .38 caliber rounds were recovered from the possessions of JD Tippit. All a coincidence. Nothing to see here, folks.
Of course, this scenario of mine could have been disproven by the testimony of Lt. Baker. Was the weapon empty when first presented to him by Sgt. Hill ? Did he bring six unfired cartridges to Westbrook's office? The only problem is that Baker was never called to testify. Why not ?
Lt. Baker was a link in the chain of possession of the revolver used to kill J.D. Tippit and the unfired cartridges proving it had been reloaded after the murder and he wasn't even on the witness list to testify to his actions that day?
It's unconscionable.
Then there is the credibility of Officer McDonald, the officer who struggled with Oswald in the theater, the one who stuck the webbing of his hand between the firing pin and the primer preventing the cartridge from being fired. The one who expressed no pain from the injury he would have received from such a heroic action and an injury for which there is no record he received medical attention for.
In his report, McDonald stated that he "marked the pistol and six rounds at Central Station." (Dallas Police Box 2, pg. 317)
But in his testimony, he told the Commission that he only marked one round.
Mr. BALL - I will show you four that are marked as--we will give these four an exhibit number. Do you know whether or not they were shells similar to that?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir; they were .38 caliber. Now, I didn't mark all of these shells, myself.
Mr. BALL - Did you mark any of them?
Mr. McDONALD - I recall marking one. (3 H 301-302)
When I was a young boy, my Dad once told me that "when you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said."
These officers not only couldn't remember details, their version of the arrest of Oswald contains discrepancy after discrepancy.
Under those circumstances, with the police version questionable, one would expect to find corroboration or rejection for it in the statements of patrons who witnessed the arrest.
At least one patron thought the revolver came from Officer McDonald. Either the other theater patrons were never interviewed by police or they were interviewed and those interviews were discarded. What those witnesses saw will never be known. Those interviews simply do not exist in the public record.
On that note one must assume that whatever they told police did not conform to the police version of events, for if they did, they would have been included in the evidence that Oswald entered the theater armed and attempted to pull his weapon when confronted by Officer McDonald.
Then there is the physical evidence that did not support the police version of events.
The FBI determined that the nick on the cartridge shell did not come from the firing pin of the revolver or the firing pin of any other revolver.
So it had to be man-made.
The FBI also found that the weapon did not misfire---ever.
The handling of the revolver indicates a questionable chain-of-possession.
And there is the "coincidence" that the same number and caliber of unfired cartridge shells recovered from J.D. Tippit were removed from "Oswald's" weapon and his pants pocket 35 minutes later.
Just one of the many "coincidences" in this case.
Finally, out of all the questions Capt. Fritz asked Oswald, Fritz never asked Oswald one single question about the five unfired rounds allegedly found in his pocket. (4 H 230) Was that just an oversight or did Fritz not have any questions about them because he knew where they came from?