Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (51 page)

There is something very different about this shell, and considering that it was the one that was supposedly handed off to Fritz (which the deductive proof demonstrates was impossible), that means something.

So, when we consider the issue of the mark on the bolt which is not present on CE 543 and CE 545, as well as the oddities associated with CE 543, including a dented lip, we see that only one of the empty shells, CE 544, has the marks that we would expect to find, which would be a possible indication that at least 2 of the bullets had an origin that requires additional explaining.

This table
by itself
, not even considering the chain of custody issues, throws doubt on the legitimacy of CE 543 and 545.

Okay, we’ve seen a lot of evidence so far . . . evidence not only of Oswald’s innocence, but of others’ guilt . . . and their guilt can be shown, in part, by the ridiculous story they have concocted and are asking us to believe.

So, before we move to this next phase related to the guilt of others, let’s add up everything we’ve seen, categorizing the evidence by topic . . . fasten your seatbelts!

TESTIMONY/TESTIMONY CONTRADICTION

• In his initial testimony, Day said he placed his initials on
  2
  hulls: in subsequent testimony, he stated that he placed his initials on
  3
  hulls.
  
• In his initial testimony, Day said Doughty’s initials were on
  1
  hull; in subsequent testimony, he contradicted himself and said that Doughty’s initials were on
  2
  hulls.
  
• In his initial testimony, Day said that Doughty’s initials were to be placed just on the
  1
  shell said to have remained in
  Dallas
  ; in his subsequent testimony, Day contradicted himself and said that Doughty’s initials were placed on
  2
  shells because they were going to be sent to
  Washington
  .
  
• In his initial testimony, Day said that shells CE
  543
  and 545 were sent to Washington; in his subsequent testimony, Day contradicted himself and said that the shells sent to Washington were CE
  544
  and 545.
  
• In his initial testimony, Day said that
  2
  shells were delivered to him at 10:00 p.m.; in his subsequent testimony, he contradicted himself and said instead that
  3
  shells were sent to him at 10:00 p.m..
  
• In an initial statement to Belin, Day said that he marked
  all
  the shells at the scene; in his subsequent testimony, he contradicted himself and said that he did
  not mark any
  shells at the scene; and in a later affidavit, he said he was sure it was one or the other.
  

DOCUMENT/DOCUMENT CONTRADICTION

• A line on the original Oswald evidence sheet as it appears on the record from the Dallas Police Department says that
  2
  shells were submitted to the Warren Commission; that same document, classified elsewhere as CE 2003, shows instead that
  3
  shells were submitted, with a numeral that appears handwritten.
  

TESTIMONY/DOCUMENT CONTRADICTION

• Sims
  of the DPD testified that he received the shells from Day, and Day confirmed that story; the CSS form, however, clearly shows that Day submitted the shells to
  Brown
  of the FBI.
  
• As a supposed recipient of the shells, Sims testified that his initials should have been on either the shells
  or
  the envelope in which they had been supposedly placed, when protocol demanded that his initials or name be on
  both
  ; the evidence, however, shows that his initials or name were on
  neither
  .
  
• Day testified that Doughty’s initials were on a shell; a letter prepared by Day after his testimony was given states that Doughty did not remember handling that shell.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; an FBI photograph, however, only shows
  2
  shells.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; the CSS form, however, shows only
  2
  shells.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; the DPD evidence sheet shows only
  2
  shells.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; a photographic cover page, however, shows that only
  2
  shells were recovered.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; a DPD photograph shows only
  2
  shells recovered.
  
• Several officers testified to seeing
  3
  shells on the floor of the depository; however, a memorandum by Williams stated that he only photographed
  2
  shells.
  
• Day of the DPD and Drain of the FBI testified that the handoff of the shells to the FBI took place
  after 10:00 p.m
  . on November 22; however, the CSS form shows that the handoff actually occurred at
  2:15 p.m
  ., to Brown of the FBI, not Drain.
  

IDENTIFIER/DOCUMENT CONTRADICTION

• One shell was given a “Q” number that had not been issued on the day the shell supposedly received that number.
  

PROTOCOL/BEHAVIOR CONTRADICTION

• Protocol is to place evidence in an envelope that clearly identifies the contents; Day placed the shells in an
  unmarked
  envelope, with neither the quantity nor the nature of the contents identified.
  
• Protocol is to place evidence in an envelope that is sealed, preventing tampering; Day placed the shells in an
  unsealed
  envelope before marking them, so that someone else could have opened the envelope and substituted different shells, and Day would have had no way of knowing that. Thus, any marks placed after the envelope had been opened would be
  invalidated
  .
  
• The envelope
  was
  , in fact, opened by Williams of the FBI prior to being returned to Day, for the purpose of making a photograph.
  
• Protocol is to mark all evidence at the scene; in his initial testimony, Day indicated that he only scratched his initials on
  2
  shells, but he should have scratched his initials on all
  3
  shells.
  
• Protocol is to mark evidence if you have possession of it; even though Brown of the FBI was given custody of the shells, neither his initials nor name appear on the shells.
  
• Protocol is to mark evidence if you have possession of it; even though Williams of the FBI was given custody of the shells, neither his initials nor name appear on the shells.
  
• Fritz claimed that he retained possession of the third shell, but there is no documentary proof on the record that he did retain possession, which would make it the single piece of evidence in the case without documentary proof of receipt.
  
• Protocol was for the DPD to have exclusive control of the evidence; the shells were handed off to the FBI several hours before the official authorization to transfer control. Given the jurisdictional issues, this handoff would have required coordination between two separate agencies, a coordination which was at the time nonexistent.
  
• Protocol is to have each person who marked evidence
  testify
  that it is his or her mark; Day submitted an affidavit stating that Doughty identified Doughty’s initials on shells, but this was not only hearsay, it was directly contradicted by a letter that Day had written, and the ultimate way to settle the inconsistency, to ask Doughty to testify, never took place.
  

TESTIMONY/IDENTIFIER CONTRADICTION

• A deductive analysis shows that the story provided by Day was logically impossible.
  
• Markings on the shells demonstrate that the testimony provided by Day was false.
  

EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE CONTRADICTION

• Inconsistent ballistic marks on the shells.
  
• Inconsistent coloration in photographs.
  

SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE

• Though his initials or name should have been on
  2
  of the shells, Williams was not called by the Commission to testify to explain why they were not.
  
• Though his initials or name should have been on
  2
  of the shells, Brown was not called by the Commission to testify to explain why they were not.
  
• Though his initials or name should have been on one or more of the shells, Doughty was not called by the Commission to identify them.
  
• An FBI photo showing only
  2
  shells was not listed as a Warren Commission exhibit.
  
• An FBI photo cover page describing only
  2
  shells was not listed as a Warren Commission exhibit.
  
• A CSS form which contradicted sworn testimony was not listed as a Warren Commission exhibit.
  
• Though there were myriad, numerous contradictions in his story, Day was not confronted with those contradictions directly; instead, he was allowed to submit an affidavit which did not address the issues and only provided hearsay evidence which was itself contradicted by documentation and a deductive analysis.
  

MYSTERIOUS

• Evidence was sent to Washington
  twice
  .
  

Good night!!!

And now, in a surprise appearance, coming back from the dead to accept his Oscar for the Most Incoherent, Most Unbelievable, Most Sinister Chain Of Custody Fact-Pattern in the History of American Jurisprudence, is none other than the one and only . . . J.C. a/k/a/ “Carl” Day:

“Humble fellow that I am, I have to admit that an award like this has to be shared with all the people responsible. So, first and foremost, I not only want to thank all the “little people” behind the scenes who made my work possible (who wish to remain anonymous), I would like to give a special “thanks, boys, I couldn’t have done it without you!” to the following:

Sims, Mooney, and Fritz, who in coordinating their story with me helped me pass the all-critical Asch threshold of 3;

David Belin, who could have batted his eyes 1000 times at my testimony, but instead barely raised an eyebrow;

Brown and Williams, who could have ratted me out, but didn’t, or if they did try to rat me out, were shut down by the FBI supervisors, or if they went to the media, were ignored;

Chief “Justice” Earl Warren, who as the highest official of the highest judicial body in the land, and as chairman of the Warren Commission, could have insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald have posthumous counsel, but didn’t, which assured that there were no adversarial eyes or voices that could have seen at the time what we were doing and would have been subsequently screaming from every rooftop in the land;

The Warren Commission, who could have asked Brown, Williams, and Doughty to testify, and if they had, would have instantly revealed the impossibility of my story;

And last but not least, individuals of the present day who are well aware of the millions of Americans in Wonderland who are absolutely clueless about what actually transpired on November 22, and do their essential part to make sure that the foundations of
The Oswald Wall
remain ever-buttressed.