Post by Rob Caprio on Jun 19, 2024 20:27:26 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2025
www.nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2453765006.jpg
assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/4/8/5/4/c/54c085fa-bf52-11e3-9bdd-34641bda4e1c.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that 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 article.
*****************************
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0106a.gif
Conclusion.--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)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0106a.htm
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0106a.gif
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.)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0106a.htm
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 as they mentioned the ONLY witness said he saw two men fleeing the scene!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0104a.gif
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)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0104a.htm
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: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0395a.gif
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; p. 1 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm
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., p. 2 in original) (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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0395b.gif
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 adjoining 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 Detective 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; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395b.htm
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)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62320#relPageId=54
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.
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9891#relPageId=178
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
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/walker-to-blakey-9-12-78.png
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.
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
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.
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.
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
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.
CE 573 had NO chain of custody just like most of the other evidence in the JFK assassination case. This is basic police procedure, but it was lacking in this very important case. Why?
There is no evidence to show that LHO fired a shot at EAW just as there is none that shows he fired at JFK.
www.nationalvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2453765006.jpg
assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/4/8/5/4/c/54c085fa-bf52-11e3-9bdd-34641bda4e1c.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that 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 article.
*****************************
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0106a.gif
Conclusion.--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)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0106a.htm
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0106a.gif
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.)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0106a.htm
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 as they mentioned the ONLY witness said he saw two men fleeing the scene!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0104a.gif
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)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0104a.htm
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: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0395a.gif
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; p. 1 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm
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., p. 2 in original) (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
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0395b.gif
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 adjoining 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 Detective 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; p. 3 in original) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395b.htm
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)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62320#relPageId=54
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.
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9891#relPageId=178
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
gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/walker-to-blakey-9-12-78.png
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.
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
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.
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.
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf
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.
CE 573 had NO chain of custody just like most of the other evidence in the JFK assassination case. This is basic police procedure, but it was lacking in this very important case. Why?
There is no evidence to show that LHO fired a shot at EAW just as there is none that shows he fired at JFK.