Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 5, 2020 22:30:14 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
image.ibb.co/ivPUZS/CE5.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963. They had very little evidence to go with to show this was correct and as we have seen in this series NONE of it supported the claim that LHO fired at EAW.
This post will look at the key piece of evidence—Commission Exhibit (CE) 573—and see what the experts said about this bullet and whether it could be linked to LHO or not.
******************************************
The WC Report (WCR) said this about CE 573 and its ties to CE 139.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0293b.gif
However, while the bullet COULD HAVE BEEN fired from the C2766 rifle, it was severely mutilated and in Frazier's opinion could not be identified as having been fired or not fired from that rifle. Nicol agreed that a positive identification could not be made, but concluded there was a “fair probability” that the bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullets. (WCR, APPENDIX X, p. 562) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293b.htm
Quote off
This whole statement is a farce based on what FBI Expert Robert Frazier would say about this issue in his WC testimony that the WC had access to!
Mr. EISENBERG - In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr. EISENBERG - And why is that?
Mr. FRAZIER – There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.
And yet, the WC wrote it was PROBABLE that it COULD HAVE come from CE 139! Talk about IGNORING your own evidence, huh? Since the FBI would NOT tell them what they wanted to hear they turned again to Joseph Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois, to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have one of which we have also been calling K-l?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572….Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification.
However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.
Here we see the “see-saw” game the WC played as he said he could NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY CE 573 as having come from CE 139, but then played the “could have” game. As Frazier said, either you can MATCH something or you cannot.
We have something else to break the game of the WC too. They used the FBI who relied on Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and claimed this showed beyond all doubt that LHO was guilty, but did it? IN this area it most certainly did NOT and we had to wait many years to find this out as it took until 1975 for researcher George Michael Evica to uncover the NAA testing of CE 573. It showed that it was NOT a match for CE 399 and the two limousine fragments. This means they could NOT have come from the same batch of ammunition LHO would have had access to (and again, the WC never showed he had access to any ammunition). Thus, he could NOT have fired CE 573 and CE 399 (plus the two limousine fragments).
Additional lack of support would come from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Report were we find this comment written.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pages/HSCA_Vol1_0224a.gif
The FBI was unable, however, to link the bullet fired at General Walker with the rifle…(HSCA I, p. 443)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0224a.htm
Quote off
In any court in the land this would cause the District Attorney to drop the case as you would NOT be able to show the person you are trying was the shooter. In addition, you could NOT even show LHO owned or had access to CE 139 (alleged murder weapon) so there would be NO tie to the defendant. In all reality the case would NOT even get to court with this lack of evidence showing LHO was involved.
The HSCA would further show that the EAW bullet could NOT be tied to CE 139 or LHO.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.gif
(223)...a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found...The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm
Quote off
The testimony of firearms expert Andrew Newquist before the HSCA would further show they were unable to match CE 573 to CE 139.
Mr. MCDONALD. Were you able to reach a conclusion as to what rifle fired CE-573, the Walker bullet?
Mr. NEWQUIST. No, we were not, due to the distortion of CE-573, and lacking a significant correspondence of individual characteristics with the test, no conclusion could be reached. However, no significant difference was observed from CE-573 to CE-572, no gross difference was noted to indicate that it had not been fired from it.
Mr. MCDONALD. But what you are saying is, through distortion, because of impact, the peculiar identifying marks were not able to be found by your panel on CE-573?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. MCDONALD. And was this the conclusion that the FBI reached in 1963?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
They reached the SAME CONCLUSION the FBI did in 1963, and yet, the WC would still allege that LHO was the man that fired at EAW! This issue, and all the other ballistic evidence and reports, show LHO was NOT guilty of the crimes he was accused of. This is why the WC did NOT publish the ballistic reports in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits as they would have sunk their Report immediately. It took Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by private citizens (many by Harold Weisberg) to get these reports released. When you are accusing someone of THREE acts of violence with a rifle and handgun, how do you NOT publish the ballistic reports to show you are correct in your claims? Well, that is the answer, isn’t it? They KNEW the ballistic reports showed LHO was NOT guilty, thus, they BURIED them. There is NO other reason to hide these reports from the American people.
This one issue is a microcosm of how the WC IGNORED what their OWN evidence showed to claim LHO was guilty. They were set on finding him guilty NO matter what and NOT a “fact-finding committee” for the truth as they claimed.
Therefore, their conclusion is SUNK.
image.ibb.co/ivPUZS/CE5.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) on the night of April 10, 1963. They had very little evidence to go with to show this was correct and as we have seen in this series NONE of it supported the claim that LHO fired at EAW.
This post will look at the key piece of evidence—Commission Exhibit (CE) 573—and see what the experts said about this bullet and whether it could be linked to LHO or not.
******************************************
The WC Report (WCR) said this about CE 573 and its ties to CE 139.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0293b.gif
However, while the bullet COULD HAVE BEEN fired from the C2766 rifle, it was severely mutilated and in Frazier's opinion could not be identified as having been fired or not fired from that rifle. Nicol agreed that a positive identification could not be made, but concluded there was a “fair probability” that the bullet had been fired from the same rifle as the test bullets. (WCR, APPENDIX X, p. 562) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0293b.htm
Quote off
This whole statement is a farce based on what FBI Expert Robert Frazier would say about this issue in his WC testimony that the WC had access to!
Mr. EISENBERG - In other words, you won't make an identification unless you feel enough marks are present to constitute a basis for a positive identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is right, and I would not report any type of similarities unless they were sufficient for an identification, because unless you can say one bullet was fired from the same barrel as a second bullet, then there is room for error, and in this field of firearms identification, we try to avoid any possible chance of error creeping in.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you avoid the category of "probable" identification?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; we never use it, never.
Mr. EISENBERG - And why is that?
Mr. FRAZIER – There is no such thing as a probable identification. It either is or isn't as far as we are concerned.
And yet, the WC wrote it was PROBABLE that it COULD HAVE come from CE 139! Talk about IGNORING your own evidence, huh? Since the FBI would NOT tell them what they wanted to hear they turned again to Joseph Nicol, Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation for the State of Illinois, to tell them what they wanted to hear.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have one of which we have also been calling K-l?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572….Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification.
However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.
Here we see the “see-saw” game the WC played as he said he could NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY CE 573 as having come from CE 139, but then played the “could have” game. As Frazier said, either you can MATCH something or you cannot.
We have something else to break the game of the WC too. They used the FBI who relied on Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) and claimed this showed beyond all doubt that LHO was guilty, but did it? IN this area it most certainly did NOT and we had to wait many years to find this out as it took until 1975 for researcher George Michael Evica to uncover the NAA testing of CE 573. It showed that it was NOT a match for CE 399 and the two limousine fragments. This means they could NOT have come from the same batch of ammunition LHO would have had access to (and again, the WC never showed he had access to any ammunition). Thus, he could NOT have fired CE 573 and CE 399 (plus the two limousine fragments).
Additional lack of support would come from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Report were we find this comment written.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pages/HSCA_Vol1_0224a.gif
The FBI was unable, however, to link the bullet fired at General Walker with the rifle…(HSCA I, p. 443)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0224a.htm
Quote off
In any court in the land this would cause the District Attorney to drop the case as you would NOT be able to show the person you are trying was the shooter. In addition, you could NOT even show LHO owned or had access to CE 139 (alleged murder weapon) so there would be NO tie to the defendant. In all reality the case would NOT even get to court with this lack of evidence showing LHO was involved.
The HSCA would further show that the EAW bullet could NOT be tied to CE 139 or LHO.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.gif
(223)...a correspondence of individual identifying characteristics was not found...The panel concluded that the Walker bullet was too damaged to allow conclusive identification of the bullet with a particular firearm. (HSCA VII, p. 380)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0195b.htm
Quote off
The testimony of firearms expert Andrew Newquist before the HSCA would further show they were unable to match CE 573 to CE 139.
Mr. MCDONALD. Were you able to reach a conclusion as to what rifle fired CE-573, the Walker bullet?
Mr. NEWQUIST. No, we were not, due to the distortion of CE-573, and lacking a significant correspondence of individual characteristics with the test, no conclusion could be reached. However, no significant difference was observed from CE-573 to CE-572, no gross difference was noted to indicate that it had not been fired from it.
Mr. MCDONALD. But what you are saying is, through distortion, because of impact, the peculiar identifying marks were not able to be found by your panel on CE-573?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
Mr. MCDONALD. And was this the conclusion that the FBI reached in 1963?
Mr. NEWQUIST. That is correct.
They reached the SAME CONCLUSION the FBI did in 1963, and yet, the WC would still allege that LHO was the man that fired at EAW! This issue, and all the other ballistic evidence and reports, show LHO was NOT guilty of the crimes he was accused of. This is why the WC did NOT publish the ballistic reports in the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits as they would have sunk their Report immediately. It took Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by private citizens (many by Harold Weisberg) to get these reports released. When you are accusing someone of THREE acts of violence with a rifle and handgun, how do you NOT publish the ballistic reports to show you are correct in your claims? Well, that is the answer, isn’t it? They KNEW the ballistic reports showed LHO was NOT guilty, thus, they BURIED them. There is NO other reason to hide these reports from the American people.
This one issue is a microcosm of how the WC IGNORED what their OWN evidence showed to claim LHO was guilty. They were set on finding him guilty NO matter what and NOT a “fact-finding committee” for the truth as they claimed.
Therefore, their conclusion is SUNK.