Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald (46 page)

Well, the most complimentary thing that can be said about this June 23 model and its myriad changes is that at least, on the surface, it solves the problem of why the FBI reported that Q6 (CE543) and Q7 (CE 544) were sent to Washington. And, if one does not examine the story too closely, that is just what it does. However, conversely, when one
does
examine the story too closely, it does not.

Here is the gotcha with this new version:

It cannot
possibly
be true!

How do we know this?

For this reason: the legitimacy of the “I confused the shells” story depends on the plausibility of the notion that Day
could have
confused CE 543 with CE 545 on April 22. The record shows, however, that Day did
not
confuse the shells; to the contrary, he
correctly
identified them. And since they were
correctly
identified, he obviously
did not
have them confused.

The reason we can be absolutely sure that the cells were identified correctly was due to the fact that
there is no possibility
those shells could have been confused. To be more specific, it is
logically impossible
to have confused those shells. And because you
can’t
confuse what’s
impossible
to confuse, the “confusion” was therefore nonexistent.

To illustrate the point, let’s consider the following imaginary dialogue between Belin and Day, referring to the following exhibits, three geometrical figures with identifying marks:

Mr. BELIN: I am going to ask you to state if you know what Exhibit 100 is.

Mr. DAY: That is a circle.

Mr. BELIN: And are the initials “GD” on it?

Mr. DAY: Yes.

Mr. BELIN: And why were they placed on it?

Mr. DAY:
Because
it is a circle, and because it is neither a square nor a triangle.

Mr. BELIN: And is your name on it?

Mr. DAY: Well, I don’t see it there, and I can’t imagine why I
would
see it there, because I was
not
to put my name on the circle. I was
only
to put my name on the square and the triangle.

Mr. BELIN: All right, now can you tell me what Exhibit 101 is?

Mr. DAY: That is a square.

Mr. BELIN: And is your name on it?

Mr. DAY: Yes, it is, just like it was supposed to be.

Mr. BELIN: Finally, Mr. Day, can you please tell me what Exhibit 102 is?

Mr. DAY: That is a triangle.

Mr. BELIN: And is that your name on it?

Mr. DAY: Plain as day! I scratched it on there myself with a diamond point pencil.

Mr. BELIN: Very good, Mr. Day. You are dismissed.

Now, imagine, a month after this testimony has been given, the following affidavit is received by the Warren Commission:

The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the testimony I gave regarding the three geometrical figures. When I appeared before the Commission, I could not find my name on one of the figures, the circle identified as Exhibit 100. Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name “Day” actually
was
on Exhibit 100, even though under my original testimony my name was not supposed to be there in the first place. In that testimony, I had Exhibits 100 (the circle), and 102 (the triangle) switched because I didn’t find my name on Exhibit 100, even though my testimony, again, was that the geometrical shape I did
not
write my name on was a
circle
. Now that I know my name is actually on Exhibit 100, I realize the confusion I created. Therefore, I now modify my testimony to say that Exhibit 100, a circle, is actually Exhibit 102, a triangle, and that Exhibit 102, a triangle, is actually Exhibit 100, a circle. I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion.

Absurd? Absolutely! But no more or less absurd than the June 23, 1964 affidavit signed by Day appearing on page 402 of the 7th volume of the Warren Commission exhibits.

The example above simplifies the issue to make it more clear, but
the point it makes pertains to any exhibits which are self-identifying due to their unique properties
. A
circle
, which has an
infinite
number of sides, the
most
number of sides possible for a geometrical figure, could never be confused with a
triangle
, which has
three
sides, the
least
number of sides possible for a polygon. Furthermore, if someone
wants
to tell you that a circle is a triangle, and that a triangle is a circle, pull out the straitjacket — or the lie detector.

So, the question now is, do either CE 543 and CD 545 have any unique properties like our geometrical figures that render them also self-identifying, and therefore
impossible
to confuse?

As it turns out, they
both
do.

Let’s first take a look at CE
543
. When we examine the testimony given by Day on April 22, 1964, we find that CE 543 can be completely separated from the other two cartridge cases through the unique combination of three properties:

1. that case, if it had a marking by Day at all, had a marking by Day
   so small/faint/nondescript that it could not be seen
   without a magnifying glass and a good light
   , AND
   
2. “
   GD
   ” was scratched on the case, AND
   
3. the case was
   dented
   on the end.
   

These properties have been taken directly from the testimony. The text below we saw earlier, and provides us with our first two unique identifying factors, 1) the practically invisible marking by Day (“that is a hull that does not have my marking on it”) and 2) the “GD” initials (“it has the initials ‘G.D.’ on it”):

And here is testimony related to point 3, the cartridge being bent on the end. This discovery was provided not by Day, but by counsel David Belin (“it appears to be flattened out here”), removing Day’s ability to perceive correctly as a source of error:

Further confirmation that there was a dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case (and that counsel Belin was observing reality correctly) was provided by the House Select Committee On Assassinations nearly a decade and a half later, which attempted to explain the origin of the malformation (7 HSCA 371):
62

This testimony is mutually confirming, but even so we still we might want to see photographic evidence of the dent referred to. What is the nature of the dent, and how significant is it?

In this regard, we are in debt to Josiah Thompson, who went to the National Archives and took an extremely clear photograph of CE 543, and the dent Belin mentioned (
Six Seconds In Dallas
, p. 144; arrow superimposed by author):