Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Andrew Mason]

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?

All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.

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!

Honest witness error is much more likely. 

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?

I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).

[Liam Kelly]

The bullet was sent to Dalls for id by Tomlinson and Wright.

They were unable to ID the bullet and neither could Rowley or Johnsen.
All of these men were involved in the chain of possession.

Much later,an unsigned FBI memo was found that said that an agent took the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson who said it resembled the one they found
and this agent was Barwell Odum.

Garry Aguilar contacted Odum for confirmation and he said that he had never seen CE399.

The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.

Todd swore that he initialed the bullet ? but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.

The FBI maintains that the bullet ? known as ?Q1? ? was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.

However, this does not jibe with Johnsen?s note stating that he gave the ?attached expended bullet? to his boss Chief James Rowley at 7:30 p.m.

Todd has a written receipt from Rowley dated 8:50 p.m., which again doesn?t jibe with the FBI lab?s claim that Todd delivered it to Frazier by 7:30 p.m.!

And with OP Wright stating that CE399 is not the bullet they found, as far as I can see the
identification and provenance of the bullet has not been established and looks confusing at best.

[Martin Weidmann]

All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
Honest witness error is much more likely. 
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).

All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.

You sound like a broken record stuck in the same groove. If the confirmation of passing on the bullet was enough, there wouldn't have been a need for the WC to ask the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399. But that's what happened, and only after the FBI wrote the questionable memo included in CE2011 did the WC let the matter rest, probably because they had no other alternative.

Honest witness error is much more likely. 

Says you. And more likely than what? Wright used to be in law enforcement and had been around guns and bullets all his life, yet you automatically assume he was wrong. Too bad nobody could tell Wright that to his face on the stand!

I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).

I understood that simple (selfserving) point from the beginning, but it's just your opinion and in my opinion you are wrong. Why? Because it completely defeats the purpose of a chain of custody, which, as I am sure you know, is (1) to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime and (2) to limit the risk of evidence tampering or contamination.

In your version of it, the chain of custody only confirms that a piece of evidence was passed on by serveral people. It does not confirm what was passed on! If it is enough that only the last person in the chain confirms what the item is, there wouldn't be any need for initials of all those in the chain as you simply rely only on the word of the last man in the chain.

[Andrew Mason]

In your version of it, the chain of custody only confirms that a piece of evidence was passed on by serveral people. It does not confirm what was passed on! If it is enough that only the last person in the chain confirms what the item is, there wouldn't be any need for initials of all those in the chain as you simply rely only on the word of the last man in the chain.

It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.

[Martin Weidmann]

It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.

Again, the same old, same old?. Still no plausible explanation for why the WC requested the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399, or how your opinion relates to the purpose of a chain of custody. But I understand, as giving that explanation would destroy your own argument.

It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth

But the problem is that you can not simply assume that everybody told the truth when at least one person in the chain of custody (Wright, who was not called to testify of give a deposition by the WC) is on record saying, in 1966, that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the one he saw.

[Andrew Mason]

Again, the same old, same old?. Still no plausible explanation for why the WC requested the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399

I gave you a possible explanation. They wanted to see if others in the chain of custody could identify CE399.  But, as I explained, it isn't necessary if each was able to confirm that they passed on the bullet that they had received.  Since they didn't mark the bullet they would have to rely on their memory.  Memories of such details fade with time.  However, none of them said that the bullet CE399 wasn't the one that they had received and passed on - just that they could not be sure.

or how your opinion relates to the purpose of a chain of custody. But I understand, as giving that explanation would destroy your own argument.

The purpose of a chain of custody is to confirm that the bullet CE399 was the one that was found by Tomlinson.  The evidence of the 5 people in the chain established that to the satisfaction of the WC because the alternative was to speculate that one of them was lying and had substituted a bullet that had actually been fired by Oswald's MC.  Such a conclusion would mean that one of the five was part of a plot to deceive the WC. The WC did not think that there was any reason to draw such a conclusion.  Perhaps they felt, as Prof. Feynman explained, that one applies common sense and experience to the argument "well is it impossible that x could be true?".

It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth

But the problem is that you can not simply assume that everybody told the truth when at least one person in the chain of custody (Wright, who was not called to testify of give a deposition by the WC) is on record saying, in 1966, that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the one he saw.

The WC did not know that. In fact, according to the FBI memo (CE2011) even OP Wright did not know that in June of 1964 - he just could not confirm that CE399 was the same bullet that he saw on the stretcher.   Unless he took a photo or wrote a detailed description of the bullet, how does Wright "know" in 1966 that it was not the same bullet if in 1964 he was just not sure? How does his memory get better over the next two years?

[Tim Nickerson]

Length/Width = 1/cos x.  So L = W/cos x.  The width is not 1 cm. It is roughly .75 cm, a bit bigger than the diameter of the bullet.

The relationship is just based on geometry. When a cylindrical object passes through a flat surface at an angle, it makes an elliptical shaped hole on the surface.  The width, W,  of the ellipse is the diameter of the cylinder. The length of that ellipse, L,  is the hypotenuse of a right triangle, one side of which is the bullet diameter, W. The angle between those two sides, x,  is the angle that the bullet axis makes to the perpendicular to the surface (90 deg. - bullet angle to the surface).  By trigonometry, Lcos x = W

Poke a bullet into a wad of flattened plasticine and you will see this.

Nope. Doesn't work.

[Martin Weidmann]

I gave you a possible explanation. They wanted to see if others in the chain of custody could identify CE399.  But, as I explained, it isn't necessary.  Since they didn't mark the bullet they would have to rely on their memory.  Memories of such details fade with time.  However, none of them said that the bullet CE399 wasn't the one that they had received and passed on - just that they could not be sure.

So the WC just did that for the fun of it? Are you really that naive? And, none of them said that CE399 was the bullet they passed on either. I'm not sure where you get the "just that they could not be sure" part from, because that's not in SAC Shanklin's Airtel.

The purpose of a chain of custody is to confirm that the bullet CE399 was the one that was found by Tomlinson.  The evidence of the 5 people in the chain established that to the satisfaction of the WC because the alternative was to speculate that one of them was lying and had substituted a bullet that had actually been fired by Oswald's MC.  Such a conclusion would mean that one of the five was part of a plot to deceive the WC. The WC did not think that there was any reason to draw such a conclusion.  Perhaps they felt, as Prof. Feynman explained, that one applies common sense and experience to the argument "well is it impossible that x could be true?".

The purpose of a chain of custody is to confirm that the bullet CE399 was the one that was found by Tomlinson. 

Indeed... Confirm, not assume, as you are willing to do!

The main purpose of a chain of custody is to ensure that the evidence relied upon in court actually relates to the crime and isn't tampered with or otherwise contaminated.

Such a conclusion would mean that one of the five was part of a plot to deceive the WC.

Exactly, and that's precisely the possibility that the WC wanted to eliminate with their request. There is no other reason for it.

The WC did not think that there was any reason to draw such a conclusion.

Of course they did. That's exactly why the WC asked the FBI to go back and check if the first four men could in fact identify CE399 as the bullet they had seen.

The WC did not know that. In fact, according to the FBI memo (CE2011) even OP Wright did not know that in June of 1964 - he just could not confirm that CE399 was the same bullet that he saw on the stretcher.   Unless he took a photo or wrote a detailed description of the bullet, how does Wright "know" in 1966 that it was not the same bullet if in 1964 he was just not sure? How does his memory get better over the next two years?

True, the WC did not know that in 1964, but we are discussing it now and we know it. As for the FBI memo (CE2011), there have been - as far as I know - four requests to the National Archives for the FD 302 reports by Odum and Todd about the showing of the bullet for identification to Tomlinson and Wright and Johnson and Rowley respectively. None of those searches yielded results. As far as the National Archives are concerned, those reports simply don't exist. All they have are two airtels on the subject; one from SAC Dallas dated 06/20/64 (dealing with Tomlinson and Wright) and one from WFO (FBI HQ) dated 06/24/64 (dealing with Todd, Rowley and Johnson).

Add to that that Tomlinson is on record as confirming twice that only SAC Sharklin showed him and Wright a bullet for identification once and that was about a week after the murder and that Odum denied, in 2002, having ever handled or shown CE399 to anyone and that there is even no evidence that CE399 was actually in Dallas when Odum was supposed to have shown it to Tomlinson and Wright and you end up with the extremely questionable memo that is in CE2011.

Btw, three days before sending his now famous Airtel, SAC Dallas responded to a status request from HQ about this matter with an Airtel in which he said that they were encountering some difficulty. The obvious question would of course be what kind of difficulty could they possibly encounter when all they had to do was to show a bullet to two employees of Parkland Hospital? But there is a second question to be asked also; according to CE2011 SA Odum showed both men the bullet on 06/12/64, so what kind of difficulty could SAC Dallas still have had 5 days later? Perhaps the answer is simply that Shanklin never directed Odum to talk to both men because he understood that CE399 wasn't the bullet he had shown to Tomlinson and Wright in late november 1963.

Unless he took a photo or wrote a detailed description of the bullet, how does Wright "know" in 1966 that it was not the same bullet if in 1964 he was just not sure? How does his memory get better over the next two years?

If Odum never showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright (which I believe) then Wright never said that he wasn't sure and his memory didn't need to improve as he only made one statement about that bullet in 1966.