Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (39 page)

Okay, let’s get this one straight: yes, it is true that all the documents necessary for establishing a chain of custody for this vital evidence demonstrate conclusively that only 2/3 of this evidence actually existed on November 22, 1963, but according to Mr. Bugliosi, we are to ignore these documents, and instead rely on the following story: that in the most significant murder investigation in history, in what would have been the trial of the century in the United States of America, Police Captain John Will Fritz egregiously deviated from the protocol of his own office by not having the evidence he supposedly received logged in the same manner as all the other evidence in the case, as found in over 32 detailed pages found in Commission Exhibit 2003 (24 H 330), down to the most insignificant items, such as film exposure instructions [24 H 334], an address label advertisement [24 H 334], a stack of envelopes [24 H 331] and foreign coins in a Kodak film bag [24 H 340]), but, rather, without bothering to inform anyone in writing, squirreled away an empty shell that supposedly contained a bullet that could have killed the President of the United States — one of the most key pieces of evidence in this most significant of murder cases —
in his desk drawer
!!

The reader should note that Bugliosi delivers this news with a metaphorical straight face; the withering tone that would be present were he on the side of the defense is entirely absent here. An “explanation” entirely improbable from the outset; no wonder Bugliosi buried this analysis in an endnote contained on a CD to his book, which, were it attached to the book proper, would be found somewhere around page 2077.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that this extra bullet turned up only after Oswald died, when no pesky defense attorneys could throw the spotlight on highly suspect lapses in the chain of custody via dissection of the evidentiary remains.

The significance of this issue cannot be overstated; if in fact Captain Fritz had
not
stored the bullet in his desk drawer, and if in fact no bullet had been found, then there would not only be a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, but also an “after-the-fact” conspiracy to cover up evidence of the initial conspiracy; indeed, not just a
coverup
of evidence, but even worse, a
manufacturing
of evidence, framing an innocent man to prevent an investigation that could reveal the existence of the guilty.

Unfortunately for the plausibility of this story of Captain Fritz, it doesn’t quite resonate with the facts. The first problem is the CSS Form of November 22, which we saw was timestamped between 1:30 and 2:15 p.m:

You will note the names of the three officers who submitted the evidence of the two spent hulls to the Dallas Police Identification Bureau, which turned out to be, surprisingly enough, “Lt. JC Day,” “R.L. Studebaker,” and “
Captain Fritz
”!

So, according to this document, less than two hours after the assassination, Day, Studebaker, and Fritz had brought back only
two
spent hulls, which we know from the same document were
immediately
turned over to Brown of the FBI. Therefore,

There was no third shell for Fritz to confiscate!

An additional problem for the story, if one is needed (and one isn’t), is the date of the Property Invoice Receipt logged by the Warren Commission. Let’s take a closer look at that receipt:

And now, its date:

When we put 2 + 2 together, the meaning is quite clear: Captain Fritz claimed that he had possession of an empty shell from November 22 through November 27. However, as of November 26, 1963, neither he, nor any of his peers, followed the protocol of his office in logging that evidence, as this Property Clerk’s Invoice makes all too clear. From an official perspective, as of November 26, 1963,
this shell did not exist
. And since these official protocols are designed precisely to ensure the integrity of evidence labeled as such, and to discourage the planting of false evidence, this is a most egregious failure of protocol indeed.

This document is already implausible because, according to the official story, only
two
bullets were handed over on November 22nd and November 26th, but this document says “3.” Thus, this evidence plainly contradicts the official story, and if that story is true, this document cannot possibly be legitimate. We can prove this by zooming in on the relevant portion of the screen capture, when we notice something strange:

Somehow, this 3 doesn’t look quite right. It almost has a
hand-drawn
quality, particularly at the bottom. We can confirm our intuitive perception by comparing this “3” (labeled as “C” below) with 2 other 3s that appear on the page, one in the phrase “231 W. Jefferson,” (“A”) and another in the phrase “.38 Slug” (“B”). When we do that, we can see a marked difference between these 3 examples:

Notice the distinct difference between the first two 3s, A and B, and the last 3, C, with its hand-drawn quality. In particular, notice how the base and top of the 3 in A and B goes well past the vertical line drawn through the middle of the number, whereas it just barely goes past those areas in the C version. Also, notice the empty space in the bottom area of the number, which is quite prominent in the hand drawn version, and compressed in the other two.

Though these discrepancies clearly indicate something anomalous about this number, absolute proof that a change was made was provided in Gary Shaw’s 1976 book
CoverUp
, on p. 159. Mr. Shaw had discovered the original version of this document in Dallas Police Department records, and it failed to resemble the Warren Commission version of the document in at least one very key area:

Let’s zoom in again on the relevant portion of the screen capture:

When you compare the two images side-by-side, the discrepancy (and modification of the number) is absolutely confirmed:

At this stage of the game, the
only
documentary evidence we have seen that 3 shells were found turns out, on closer examination, to be an apparent
forgery
. So, what are we to make of all the evidence (which we formerly thought of as legitimate) that three shells were found: for example, the photograph CE 510 (17 H 221), which shows 3 shells on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and the testimony of Luke Mooney (3 H 286), Fritz, and Day, among others, that three shells were found? Is this evidence and testimony as solid as we would like it to be? Not necessarily. Take a look at CE 510, which shows three shells: