Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Tim Nickerson]

Not just someone with the FBI.... it was SAC Gordon Shanklin and it happened about a week after the murder.

Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?

The first "report" you are talking about was in fact a memo prepared for the WC, written by an unidentified FBI agent, that was included in CE 2011. It says that both Tomlinson and Wright said that the bullet appeared to be the same but they could not positively identify it, but - unlike for all the other claims made in CE 2011 - there is absolutely nothing to back up this claim. In fact, it claims that, in April 1964, FBI Odum had shown CE399 to both men, but Odum denied that and there is no corresponding FD 302 from Odum for it. Also, Tomlinson is on record as saying he had only been shown a bullet for identification once, and that was by SAC Shanklin in late November 1963.

The second "report" was in fact an airtel from SAC Shanklin to FBI headquarters which confirms that neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet. There was no mention of either man having ever said "that the bullet appeared to be the same".

You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.

[Tim Nickerson]

In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):

    "When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
     stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
     the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
     shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
     particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
     and then announced:

        Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
        [Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
        you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
        that gun right now!

And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.



The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.

Well, Thompson was writing a case for Oswald's defense. He didn't have much to work with. Being selective with the evidence was all he could do.

[Tim Nickerson]

She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.

Since when is somebody who has no recollection of something "the better witness"?

Bardwell Odum had no recollection of handling CE-399 four decades prior.  How should we categorize him? "The better witness" or not?

[Martin Weidmann]

It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now?  This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.

If you are going to step into a discussion read the previous posts. Otherwise you waste our time.

It seems it was you who wasn't paying attention, so don't blame that on me.

Furthermore, I have destroyed your entire argument. You can not simply assume that Tomlinson found the bullet now in evidence as CE399 simply because you don't have reasonable knowledge about who it is that could have been lying. There is a circumstantial case to make that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 isn't the one that Tomlinson found, but you probably don't want to know about it.

[Martin Weidmann]

Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?

You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.

Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?

I have no idea. Perhaps it went the same way as the note to Hosty...


You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.

So it's your position that what it says in CE2011 is the same as it says in SAC Shanklin's airtel?

Btw who recorded that "the bullet appeared to be the same" from Tomlinson and Wright's mouth and where is the documentation for it? Or is it your position that the (unidentified) FBI agent who wrote the memo somehow got that information telepathically?

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, Thompson was writing a case for Oswald's defense. He didn't have much to work with. Being selective with the evidence was all he could do.

That's a BS argument. Since when is somebody who has no recollection of something "the better witness"?

[Martin Weidmann]

Bardwell Odum had no recollection of handling CE-399 four decades prior.  How should we categorize him? "The better witness" or not?

Actually, Odum denied ever having in his possession bullet CE399 or showing it to anyone, which is a far cry from having no recollection. But I don't care how you want to categorize Odum.

Tomlinson was pretty clear that he was only shown a bullet by an FBI agent once (he said it twice, if I remember correctly) and that was by Shanklin about a week after the murder.

[Tim Nickerson]

Why would you conclude that? I have already shown that in order to make a 3cm elliptical entrance wound the bullet just has to strike at an angle of about 75 degrees.

You haven't though. You claimed that a pristine bullet striking at an angle x to the perpendicular to the surface will make an elliptical entrance wound whose length to width is in proportion to:1/cos x. You haven't shown where you came up with that. Even still, with using it, the length of the entrance wound would be 3.86 cm.

1/cos75? = 3.86