Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Jerry Freeman]

Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.

If Mr Holland were the only claim for a grassy knoll gunman, I might be inclined to dismiss him too. However, through the years afterward ...
About 40 witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy claimed either to have heard gunshots from the grassy knoll in the northwest corner of Dealey Plaza, or to have seen smoke or smelled gunpowder in that area. Snipers are trained to vanish. Also the parking lot was completely full of cars that day. The 40 witnesses were just those who came forward with the claim. Many dozens ran to the area after the shots as we all know.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson. You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399. You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.

I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie. This whole discussion is based on acceptance of Liam Kelly's statement .  Since you reject it we don't really have anything to discuss here.

It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence.  We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy.  If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them?  Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.

There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson.

Ok, I'll bite? please provide that evidence.

You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399.

Why do you presume to know what I think? And you are wrong as well. If you mean by "evidence" the seriously flawed chain of custody, then I don't think it's reliable simply because it is not reliable! I don't know if someone switched the bullet with CE399. I just know it is possible, which is why I need a sound chain of custody to eliminate that possibility. That's what a chain of custody is for!

You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.

Why someone would do it is an easy question to answer; it would be done to frame someone. The real question that needs to be asked is no why it happened, but if it happened. The problem is that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make a case of possible evidence tampering, but perhaps you would just call it a coincidence of unintentional errors.....

I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie

As far as the first four goes; they did not lie? all they said was that they handled a bullet that was found at Parkland and there was no reason to lie about that. It's just that none of those four said anything or could say anything about the bullet now in evidence as CE399 because all four failed to identify it. Now, as for number five.... that's a whole other story....

It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence. 

An inference is is nothing more than a conclusion based on reasoning. So is an assumption!

We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Really?

If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them?

I'm not sure what this superficial comment has to do with anything, but if you can do it so can I;

If you wake up and look outside and the whole street is wet, do you conclude that it rained during the night or do you leave open the possibility that a water main has broken in your street?

Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.

Yes indeed. Juries like simple explanations. The trouble is that they are not always the correct ones.....

[Jerry Organ]

she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW)

This would depend on the background .....From Sam Holland's point the background would have been dark and the light colored smoke would have been visible.....

The light colored concrete of the overpass or sky, in the background would have made the smoke difficult to see, and the smoke could easily have gone unnoticed.....

From Sitzman's viewpoint (similar to that of Zapruder's) the background of the area that is out from the top of the fence is all dark.

These images (even at full-resolution) failed to show a puff of smoke at the fence or its shadow on the ground.

[Andrew Mason]

There is certainly evidence that CE399 wwas the bullet found by Tomlinson.

Ok, I'll bite? please provide that evidence.

The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.

You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399.

Why do you presume to know what I think?

Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with  CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .

And you are wrong as well. If you mean by "evidence" the seriously flawed chain of custody, then I don't think it's reliable simply because it is not reliable! I don't know if someone switched the bullet with CE399. I just know it is possible, which is why I need a sound chain of custody to eliminate that possibility. That's what a chain of custody is for!

There is a chain of custody. You just don't think the witnesses are being truthful when they said that the bullet that was handed to them was the one they passed on.

An inference is is nothing more than a conclusion based on reasoning. So is an assumption!

So we disagree on language. An inference is a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning. An assumption is not based on either necessarily. It is usually based on experience but is subject to being rebutted by evidence.

We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy.

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Really?

It depends on the quality of the investigation. If there has been a thorough investigation that ought to have turned up some evidence of involvement of others if it existed then, yes: absence of evidence is probative of absnce of a conspiracy. Just like evidence of whether it rained. If I look ouside on the street, sidewalk, grass, deck, windows, rain barrel and there is no sign of water I can reasonably conclude that it did not rain.

If you wake up and look outside and the whole street is wet, do you conclude that it rained during the night or do you leave open the possibility that a water main has broken in your street?

I keep looking.  If my window is wet I conclude that it rained.

[Martin Weidmann]

The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.

Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with  CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .

There is a chain of custody. You just don't think the witnesses are being truthful when they said that the bullet that was handed to them was the one they passed on.

So we disagree on language. An inference is a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning. An assumption is not based on either necessarily. It is usually based on experience but is subject to being rebutted by evidence.

It depends on the quality of the investigation. If there has been a thorough investigation that ought to have turned up some evidence of involvement of others if it existed then, yes: absence of evidence is probative of absnce of a conspiracy. Just like evidence of whether it rained. If I look ouside on the street, sidewalk, grass, deck, windows, rain barrel and there is no sign of water I can reasonably conclude that it did not rain.

I keep looking.  If my window is wet I conclude that it rained.

The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.

In other words; you just assume it was the same bullet all the way down the line because you take Todd's word for it. Got it. You seem to go above and beyond what that WC was willing to accept initially, as they asked the FBI to investigate the chain of custody for CE399 which prompted the production of the questionable (and in my opinion deceitful) FBI memo included in CE2011. The WC must have had a reason for their request, don't you think? Any idea what that reason could have been?

Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with  CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .

Wow, amazing reasoning. And how do we deal with the fact that, in an interview with Josiah Thompson, in November 1966, O.P. Wright said that the bullet he handled had a pointed tip? And not only that, but when shown photos of CE399, CE572 and CE606 Wright rejected all of them as resembling the bullet Tomlinson had found on the stretcher. Was Wright lying?   

There is a chain of custody. You just don't think the witnesses are being truthful when they said that the bullet that was handed to them was the one they passed on.

Oh they were being truthful alright about having passed on a bullet. But all four collectively failed to confirm that CE399 was the bullet they had passed on. And so, we keep going round in circles. You are unable to show that the bullet they passed on was indeed CE399, yet you are willing to accept that it was based on..... nothing at all!

Bottom line; all you have evidence for is that a bullet was passed on by four men until it arrived at the FBI Lab in Washington and despite the fact that you can not rule out the possibility that the bullet was substituted you simply assume that the bullet the men passed on must have been CE399. Never mind what Wright told Thompson, never mind the obvious shenanigans that went on, in mid 1964, with SA Odum, CE2011 and SAC Shanklin's Airtel....and - let's not forget - never mind General Walker's claim that his bullet was also substituted.

If you shut the doors and windows real tight for the storm that is raging outside, you might just end up concluding that everything is so quiet that there simply can't be a storm raging outside.

[Andrew Mason]

The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.

In other words; you just assume it was the same bullet all the way down the line because you take Todd's word for it. Got it. You seem to go above and beyond what that WC was willing to accept initially, as they asked the FBI to investigate the chain of custody for CE399 which prompted the production of the questionable (and in my opinion deceitful) FBI memo included in CE2011. The WC must have had a reason for their request, don't you think? Any idea what that reason could have been?

I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully? 

Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with  CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .

Wow, amazing reasoning. And how do we deal with the fact that, in an interview with Josiah Thompson, in November 1966, O.P. Wright said that the bullet he handled had a pointed tip? And not only that, but when shown photos of CE399, CE572 and CE606 Wright rejected all of them as resembling the bullet Tomlinson had found on the stretcher. Was Wright lying?

He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed.  All we really need to know from Wright is that he passed along the same bullet that was handed to him by Tomlinson.

Oh they were being truthful alright about having passed on a bullet. But all four collectively failed to confirm that CE399 was the bullet they had passed on.

The point is that they didn't have to recognize it.  They just had to be truthful that they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399. Otherwise, how did their non-CE399 become CE399 in the hands of Todd?

Bottom line; all you have evidence for is that a bullet was passed on by four men until it arrived at the FBI Lab in Washington and despite the fact that you can not rule out the possibility that the bullet was substituted you simply assume that the bullet the men passed on must have been CE399.

I didn't say that.  I said that if it was not CE399 then it must have been switched by that person or someone down the line.  I just don't see any evidence that it was switched.  You seemed to take offence at me saying that you were asserting that one of those persons was being untruthful when they said they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them.  Are you now conceding that to be the only possibility?

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully? 
He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed.  All we really need to know from Wright is that he passed along the same bullet that was handed to him by Tomlinson.
The point is that they didn't have to recognize it.  They just had to be truthful that they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399. Otherwise, how did their non-CE399 become CE399 in the hands of Todd?
I didn't say that.  I said that if it was not CE399 then it must have been switched by that person or someone down the line.  I just don't see any evidence that it was switched.  You seemed to take offence at me saying that you were asserting that one of those persons was being untruthful when they said they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them.  Are you now conceding that to be the only possibility?

I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully? 

Before we get into that why don't you first answer my question? If it was enough to take Todd's word for it to assume that Tomlinson found CE399, why did the WC request an investigation into the chain of custody and why did the FBI take the trouble (if CE 2011 is to be believed) to show bullet CE399 to all men?

He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed. 

So, just another witness that was mistaken? Easy solution to a problem, right? You may not assume deceit, but you have no problem to assume witness error!

All we really need to know from Wright is that he passed along the same bullet that was handed to him by Tomlinson.

No, that's all you really need to know, it seems. The WC had a different opinion.

The point is that they didn't have to recognize it.

Again, if that was the case, why did the WC ask for an investigation into the chain of custody?

If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399.

Correct, but how could it ever be established that the bullet they passed on was not CE399 if - according to your logic - they didn't have to recognize it?

Otherwise, how did their non-CE399 become CE399 in the hands of Todd?

By substitution?

I didn't say that. 

Yes you did. That's exactly what you have been saying all along

I said that if it was not CE399 then it must have been switched by that person or someone down the line.  I just don't see any evidence that it was switched.

So just because you haven't seen evidence for it, it didn't happen. Is that what you are saying?

And you have already been provided with evidence that points towards a substitution by the comments made by O.P. Wright to Josiah Thompson. You've just dismissed it out of hand.

You seemed to take offence at me saying that you were asserting that one of those persons was being untruthful when they said they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them.  Are you now conceding that to be the only possibility?

Huh? I have never asserted that one of the first four people to handle the bullet were being untruthful. This is the second time I wonder if you are actually paying attention to our discussion.

[Jerry Freeman]

 

?there is my absolute knowledge that ? one bullet caused the president?s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.? 

John Connally

?I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. ? Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John?

Mrs Connally
 There were 4 escort motorcycle police riding beside the limo--not one of them were called to testify.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
After 4 months of preparation, Darrell Tomlinson still failed to provide the testimony that Arlen Specter really needed...the absolute certainty of just where he had found that bullet.
 
 

Testimony ignored and post ignored because it flies in the face of a theory that will never hold water.