Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald

by Krusch, Barry

  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 wh
o 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.

  And so, I have to give a very, very special thanks to the following people who have been busy manning the fog machines which provide the smoke screen on which the Wall is projected, and who have spooled up the projectors with their specially created film:

  Vincent Bugliosi, for Reclaiming History, a masterpiece of sophistry and illusion;

  Stephen King, for 11/22/63, whose work of fiction injected the Trojan horse that “Oswald did it” into the minds of millions of Americans;

  numerous professors in history departments across America whose job it is to put their stamp of approval on the “official” version of history, certifying it as authentic, so that alternative narratives of history are consequently seen as inauthentic;

  the editors of the Lee Harvey Oswald article in Wikipedia, who, using the official version of history as their cover, disclaim any responsibility to investigate the truth and rely instead on this “official” view, allowing them to steadfastly remove any counter-evidence to the main thesis of their article that Oswald was the lone assassin, deleting external references to contrary websites, contrary evidence, books on the topic, etc.;

  John McAdams of Marquette University, who more than any other single individual has made sure that public perceptions of what occurred are seen through his distorted lens, producing the illusion that those who find evidence of conspiracy into the assassination of President Kennedy are “crazy,” and finally,

  the editors of the search algorithm at Google, who make sure that the vast majority of searches related to the Kennedy assassination are pointed at McAdams’ website.

  Thank you, thank you all . . . I think you really like me!”

  And a big “thank YOU” to you too, Carl, for sharing your responsibility for that award with such generosity!!!

  Yes, it is no exaggeration to say that we have a massive black hole for the legitimacy of CE 543, and therefore the element that exactly 3 bullets were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, not to mention a massive black hole for any elements in Proposition Two related to the authenticity of the shells in the possession of the Warren Commission.

  The probability that at the very least CE 543 would be seen as inadmissible evidence perhaps led to the backpedaling in the paragraph below authored by the Warren Commission, where they themselves indicated a shaky confidence in their own element: “Did we say three shots? Well, it might’ve been two. Who’s counting?” (WR 110): 68

  Now, who would have thought that Neil Simon would take a break from writing The Odd Couple to moonlight for the Warren Commission? “It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle . . .”. An idea inherently ludicrous, if true, it would make a mockery of all the evidence the Warren Commission claimed to exist that three shots were heard, creating the Warren Commission version of the famous Zen koan: “if an empty shell is fired, does it make a sound?” How could three shots be heard when two shots were fired? Echoes? No, echoes come in pairs, so observers would have heard four shots, not three. Furthermore, as we will see in subsequent chapters, the amount of damage that was done in the Presidential limousine and on the surrounding environment could not possibly be explained by two bullets. And what thoughts could possibly have gone through Oswald’s mind as he was loading that empty shell (or blank) in the rifle? Would that really be the act of a man with an intent to kill the President?

  When the Warren Commission postulates the humorous scenario that Oswald would bring an empty shell to the assassination, we feel safe in speculating that they were more than a little spooked by the evidence (which you have seen in this chapter) that only two cartridges were found, and that they could not be sure that a congressional investigation or wayward reporter would not stumble on the truth, and so decided to plant the ideological seeds necessary to justify a future reversal.

  The existence of so much evidence of malfeasance by various parties that the Warren Commission would be inspired to plant the seeds for a reversal of their primary element leads us to some important questions related to the many individuals who are seemingly involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Here is the question of the day:

  “Yes, the evidence clearly shows that at least one individual was reporting false information, but you have dozens involved in the Kennedy case, many telling the same story, which, when demonstrated false, reveals coordinated lying or coordinated memory failures or coordinated errors of perception or coordinated misanalysis. Just what is going on?”

  Related to this question, the author is able to conceive of four possible hypotheses that could possibly provide an answer. Here they are:

  The Simple Error Hypothesis

  Under this hypothesis, the anomalies in the evidence could be explained by simple mistakes, failures of perception, etc.. For example, only 2 shells were on the ground, but the witnesses mistakenly thought they saw 3.

  This one can easily be rejected. Too many people reported seeing the same mistaken phenomenon to conclude that what they were reporting was a “mistake.” Also, we have photographs that show 3 shells on the ground, so those photographs were either forged or legitimate, but could in no way be seen as “mistaken.” So this one is out.

  The False Reporting Hypothesis

  Before we can get to any hypothesis that relates to individuals lying, we first need to be sure that the testimony of these individuals was reported correctly. Apparent synchronization of erroneous claims might have been achieved simply by reporting testimony falsely. In that case, what appears to be the actions of numerous individuals may only be the actions of one!

  This is an extremely important topic, and if the allegation is true, has an extraordinary impact on all of the testimony reported in the case, affecting not only this issue but all others. Because of this, I have prepared a separate appendix that lists numerous examples of the Warren Commission and witnesses before the Commission falsely reporting reality, and is too large to include here because it will disrupt the main line of argument. The interested reader is urged to visit my website and download the appendix, which can be found in the “Appendices” document at the following URL:

  http://www.krusch.com/jfk

  If you like, you can download the document now, read it, and then return to this book, or just continue.

  The Double Coverage Fallback Plan Hypothesis

  Based on the material in the Appendix described above, it is clear that we cannot necessarily rely on the Warren Commission’s reporting of reality, but let’s assume for the moment that we could, and also that the photographic evidence is valid. Is there any other way to explain how 2 shells were reported found in the receipt documents when the testimony and photographs claim that 3 shells were found?

  Yes, surprisingly enough, there is. We can call this the double coverage fallback plan hypothesis. Under this hypothesis, we would assume that the plot to assassinate the President and to pin the blame on Oswald had been long in the planning, but the perpetrators of the plan at the time of planning could not be sure that everything would go as expected. Accordingly, all contingencies had to be prepared for, and therefore the evidentiary foundation had to support multiple conclusions.

  So, under this plan, here is what could have transpired. 3 shells were planted on the scene since the lone assassin scenario was the desired option (note: this does not mean that 3 bullets were fired from that location, only that the evidence would be found there). Thus, there would be witnesses around to support seeing 3 shells, and any photographs that were taken of the scene would record 3 shells. However, until Oswald was apprehended and killed, the lone assassin scenario would be too dangerous to support, with at least one very key individual alive who would be able to contradict that scenario!

  So, until Oswald was killed, t
he conspiracy option had to be left open, and what better way to do that than to palm a shell, and put on the record documentary evidence that only 2 bullets were fired, thus proving that there was a conspiracy, so Oswald could be let off the hook. At the same time, the conspiracy could then be blamed on someone else like Cuba, justifying an invasion of Cuba if necessary, with a ready supply of Cuban patsies available if that option had to be chosen.