From Left: CE 543, 544 and 545
The shell game
The Warren Commission based its conclusion that three shots had been fired on the existence of the three shells found in the TSBD. ( Commission Exhibits 543, 544 and 545 ) All three shells were found by Dallas County Sheriff Deputy Luke Mooney in the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Mooney was never shown the shells and asked to identify them as the shells he found. When he found them, Capt. Fritz was notified and when he arrived at the scene he picked them up. Fritz told Mooney to stand by until Lt. Day from the ID Bureau arrived. When he arrived, Day took pictures and he and Detective Richard Sims picked up the shells and dusted them for fingerprints but found none.
Day testified that the shells were not marked at the scene. ( 4 H 253 )
Lt. Day testified that the shells were placed in an unsealed manila envelope and taken by Det. Sims ( 4 H 253 ) , a fact that Sims denied. ( 7 H 163 )
An opportunity for substitution
As stated, although Lt. Day marked the envelope, they did not seal it. ( 4 H 254 ) The shells themselves were not marked until around 10pm, when the same unsealed envelope found its way to Lt. Day once again to be fingerprinted before they were released to the FBI. ( ibid. )
This tactic, of not not marking the shells at the scene AND not securing the envelope they were in, casts doubt on whether the shells in evidence are the exact same shells that were on the sixth floor. Mooney, Fritz, Day and Sims never marked the shells. In his testimony, Lt. Day never identified Commission Exhibits CE 543, 544 and 545 as the shells that were on the sixth floor.
He only testified that CE 544 and 545 were the shells that were brought to him at 10pm, at which time he marked them for identification. ( 4 H 254, 4 H 255 )
He repeated this, that he scratched his intials on two shells, in an affidavit dated May 7th 1964. ( 7 H 401 )
He testified that he never saw Commission Exhibit 543 ( 4 H 255 ) because when the envelope was returned to him at 10pm, it only contained two shells, 544 and 545. Those are the ones he marked. He never marked CE 543. That shell was retained by the Homicide Bureau. and was marked by Capt. George Doughty. ( ibid. ) In his testimony, Lt. Day was asked if CE 543 was, “one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository building”. He replied, “I think so”. ( ibid. )
He was basing his opinion on the fact that Capt. Doughty’s initials were on the shell. He never saw Doughty mark the shells, otherwise he would have been more sure than “I think so.”
The Commission had a problem. It had not proven that the three shells in evidence were the same three shells Mooney found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It was a problem that the Commission would “make right”.
Oh yeah….that’s right
Six weeks after Lt. Day’s testimony, the three shells were returned to Dallas and examined at the FBI office by Lt. Day and Capt. Doughty, “with a magnifying glass under a good light” and lo and behold, not only did Lt. Day’s initials appear on ALL THREE SHELLS, even the one he testified he never saw, he could now identify them as the three shells found on the sixth floor.
He was able to do that because R.M Sims ( who “found” the bus transfer in Oswald’s pocket ) and R.L. Studebaker ( who “found” the “gunsack” ) “were present at the window” and “state I marked them as they were found under the window”.
Even though neither Sims ( 7 H 161 ) nor Studebaker ( 7 H 139 ) ever testified to being present or observing the shells being marked.
Just like that, Lt. Day’s detailed memory of what had transpired had suddenly changed and the Commission had its “proof” that the shells in evidence were the same shells found on the sixth floor.
Examining the markings on the Cartridges
The Commission reported that two of the cartridge cases had marks “produced by the chamber of Oswald’s rifle”, all three contained marks produced by the Carcano’s magazine follower and one had markings from the bolt of the Depository rifle ( CE 139 ).
Two cases had markings indicating that they had been loaded into a rifle at least twice. When the rifle was found, an unfired round was in the chamber, ejected when Capt. Fritz operated the bolt. This is an important detail when we examine evidence linking the rifle shells to the rifle.
The dented rifle shell : CE 543
This cartridge ( Commission Exhibit 543 ) had a dent on its lip which would have made it impossible for it to have contained a bullet prior to its being fired. Therefore, either one of two possibilities existed: either the shell received the dent prior to the shooting and was not connected to it ( implying that it was planted at the scene — evidence of a conspiracy ) or the shell was in fact evidence and was dented somehow after its bullet had been spent.
Faced with a mandate to dispel rumors of a conspiracy, the Commission at first assumed that this cartridge received its dent upon being ejected from the rifle and falling onto the floor.
The FBI reported to the Commission that the dent was made during the firing sequence, WHILE THE BOLT WAS PULLED BACKWARD, after the shot had been fired. This seemed reasonable enough to the Commission to explain the existance of the dented lip.
In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that by using an exact amount of pressure and speed in operating the bolt that it was possible to dent the lip of a cartridge in the process of ejection.
A dent was also reproduced in 1964 by the FBI when they loaded an empty cartridge in the chamber of the CE 139 rifle and slammed the bolt forward. ( CE 557-A )
Other markings
The cartridge extractor and ejector markings of all three of the spent shells “did not possess sufficient characteristics for identifying the weapon which produced them.” ( CE 2968 / 26 H 449 )
The extractor mechanism removes a cartridge from the chamber, while the ejector throws the cartridge away once it is extracted.
Each extractor in each weapon has its own individual peculiarities. ( 1 HSCA 455 )
CE 543 contained markings caused by the magazine follower of the Depository rifle. When the Carcano was tested by the FBI, it was found that the magazine follower marked only the last cartridge in the clip. The last cartridge in the clip of CE 139 when found on November 22nd was an unfired round. ( CE 141 )
CE 543 contained three sets of markings on its base that were not found on any of the other two spent shells, the unfired round and the test bullets the FBI fired from the rifle. The FBI could not determine where these marks came from. ( CE 2968 )
Rifle shell CE 544
CE 544 had the markings of the firing chamber and from the bolt of the CE 139 rifle, indicating that it had been loaded into the firing chamber and ejected through the bolt action. It also contained markings from the magazine follower.
Rifle shell CE 545
CE 545 had the marking of the rifle’s magazine follower and firing chamber of the rifle.
The Commission said:
“examination of the cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Depository Building established that they had been previously loaded and ejected from the assassination rifle, which would indicate that Oswald practiced operating the bolt.” ( Report, 192-3 )
Of course, this was a lie because ( as mentioned above ) the extractor and ejector markings of all three of the spent shells were not sufficient for comparsion. ( CE 2968 )
There may have been a reason for that.
Did these shells contain bullets fired from the CE 139 rifle ?
The evidence shows that all three of the shells currently in evidence were at some time the last cartridge in the clip and contain markings from the magazine follower of CE 139.
I believe that these shells had been in and fired in another rifle. I believe the bolt assembly ( including the firing pin ) was removed from the CE 139 rifle and installed in another rifle. The cartridges were then fired through that other rifle. The bolt assembly was then reinstalled in CE 139. This would have resulted in the matching of the bolt face and the firing pin impressions on all the shells fired through CE 139 after its reinstallation.
But the bullets were another story.
If I’m correct in this theory, then any shells fired from the CE 139 rifle after the reinstallment of the bolt would contain the same bolt face markings and firing pin impressions, the bullets fired in 1963 would all match each other but not match the bullets fired in the rifle after the bolt had been reinstalled, because of the different barrels.
And this is EXACTLY what the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ Firearm Panel found when they test fired the CE 139 rifle in 1978: their test bullets did not match the bullets fired in 1963, but the shells did match based on the bolt face markings and the firing pin impressions.
The HSCA test fires the rifle
In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel test fired the CE 139 rifle in order to compare the bullets and shells they received from their test against the bullets and shells the FBI tested in 1963.
During its examination of CE 543, the Panel was able to do what the FBI could not. In spite of the FBI’s finding that the extractor marks on this shell could not be identified with any weapon, the Panel concluded that the extractor marks on CE 543 WERE a match to those shells retrieved from their test firing of the CE 139 rifle. ( 1 HSCA 455 )
They found the three marks on the “head” of the CE 543 case and verified the FBI report that those markings were not on the other shells fired by the rifle. They, like the FBI, could not identify their source. ( HSCA Report, Vol. 7, pg. 368 )
The Committee concluded that all three of the spent shells were fired from the CE 139 rifle based on matches they found in the markings left by the bolt face and the firing pin of the rifle. ( ibid. )
The Panel never explored the possibility that the shells could have been fired from another weapon and simply had the bolt and firing pin swapped over to the CE 139 rifle. They probably should have because the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such identical weapon in their possession.
CE 572: the “replica” rifle
Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a “replica” rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein’s had mounted the scope. ( 3 H 396 )
Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle ( CE 542 ), they had to tell Klein’s where to position the scope. ( ibid. )
Lo and behold when he finally received the replica rifle with the scope mounted, it was mounted exactly they way the scope was mounted on CE-139.
Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope ?
It’s like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.
It’s ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.
Questions remain
Could the FBI have used the replica rifle to obtain the “bullet evidence” they needed ?
What significance should we give the fact that the spent shells contain exhibit numbers ( 543, 544, and 545 ) that follow sequentially the exhibit number of the replica rifle ( 542 ) instead of the CE-139 rifle ? Shouldn’t those spent shells have been introduced into evidence right after the alleged murder weapon ?
The evidence indicates that the three spent 6.5 shells that were retrieved from the sixth floor of the TSBD contained marks that were either unidentified or from another weapon on them. That weapon was never identified by either the FBI or the HSCA. Why not ?
Under those circumstances, wouldn’t it have been logical for the HSCA Firearms Panel to test the replica rifle, if for no other reason, than to eliminate it as a source for the bullets that were fired in 1963 ?
Instead, we’re left with the lingering question, was the replica rifle the one that left those marks ?
Interchangeable parts ?
Were parts like the bolt and firing pin interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle ?
Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle ?
Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle’s bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance ?
Why did the Commission ask the FBI if the firing pin of the CE 139 rifle had been changed ? ( CE 2974 )
Why did the FBI repsond that they knew of no outlet that sold parts for the CE 139 rifle ( ibid. ) when all they had to do was to make a phone call to rifle reconditioner Fred Rupp ?
The House Select Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.
But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored.
They weren’t interested in opening doors.
So the questions remain.