A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Martin Weidmann]

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together: e.g. a witness says they saw the same thing that was independently reported by two other witnesses.

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together

No. Falsified or manipulated evidence can also fit together. In fact false evidence would normally be shaped in such a way that it would fit together.
By your logic (if it can be called that) you would be able to consider false evidence to be authentic when it clearly isn't.

Authenticity needs to be proven by a credible chain of custody.

[John Iacoletti]

Dan’s argument is sound. Andrew is making the usual circular argument:

Since we know that CE 399 came from “Oswald’s rifle” (“Oswald’s rifle” — LOL), and we know that Oswald shot the president, then CE 399 must have been the bullet that Tomlinson found. Therefore Wright must have had a memory problem.

[Andrew Mason]

Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.

A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!

Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.

But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.

The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.


Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

More importantly, there is also no evidence that CE399 is authentic. It doesn't have to be proven that it was planted. It's need to be authenticated before it can be considered credible evidence!

The defense would run rings around the prosecutor if he tried to introduce into evidence a bullet that he can not authenticate!

[Andrew Mason]

Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!

It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.

That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.

It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.

It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

[Martin Weidmann]

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.
It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.
That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.
It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.
It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

This is pure desperation. The only "reason" is that you need the bullet to be the same one. Wright used to be a police officer and had knowledge of weapons and bullets. Your assumption that he may be mistaken is only based on your need for CE399 to be the bullet that was found at Parkland.

It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

This is another one of those "it's true because a cop said so" arguments.

That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

Well, it worked with Todd! Rowley being unable to indentify the bullet resulted from his failure to mark it. The same goes for Johnsen. No pitcher ever marks a baseball.

It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

That's what the FBI claimed in CE2011. The problem is that SA Odum, who is supposed to have interviewed all four men and showed them the bullet, denied that he ever did such a thing.

Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

That's not reason. It is jumping to a conclusion not supported by all the possible facts. I agree that, in your scenario, the bullet must have been produced prior to the assassination to enable a switch at some point in the chain of custody. But just because you think this couldn't have happened, doesn't mean it didn't and/or that "A is false". Besides, there is another alternative secenario that's also possible. Tomlinson did find a pointed bullet and it was this bullet Todd marked with his initial and gave to Frazier. When they learned that this bullet did not match the MC rifle, it was switched for the one we now know as CE399. All they needed to do was scratch Todd's initial on that bullet.

None of this is really important because it does not need to be proven that CE399 was planted. The burden of proof and thus authentication is on the side that offers CE399 as evidence and we have already established that there is no authentication for that bullet.

[John Iacoletti]

Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination

False premise.

[Dan O'meara]

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.
The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Wow!
I'm amazed you've let this post stand.
I can only assume you've had some kind of senior moment.

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic. They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence.You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Reason - "The application of Logic to understand and judge something."
Without Logic there is no Reason.
Without Reason there is no Meaning.

Implying juries are not to use Logic to reach their findings based on the evidence is embarrassing.
It's the same as saying juries are not to use Reason to reach their findings.
You seem to have tenuous grasp on the concept of Logic.

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

The unequivocal, categorical insistence of O P Wright that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen that day is very strong evidence that CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody at a later point.
I am quite surprised that you are unaware this constitutes evidence and I'm also surprised you are unaware of it's significance.
When we look at the rest of the evidence regarding the provenance of CE399 we find that it is full of oddities, contradictions and downright strangeness.
ALL of these abnormalities disappear when we accept the testimonial evidence of O P Wright - the bullet he handed to SA Johnsen that day had a pointed tip and that CE399 was NOT the bullet that was handed into the official chain of custody that day.

After receipt of the bullet from Wright, we are supposed to believe SA Johnsen, an experienced Secret Service agent, destroyed the chain of custody for this piece of evidence by not putting initials on it. This most basic investigative procedure relating to the handling of evidence was ignored. Johnsen would have known he was destroying the chain of custody so we are being asked to believe that Johnsen knowingly destroyed the chain of custody by not putting his initials on CE399.
And let's not forget the significance of this key piece of evidence in the assassination of the President of the United States.
After receiving the bullet from SA Johnsen, James Rowley, Head of the Secret Service, also "forgot" the uphold the chain of custody by not putting his initials on the bullet. We are supposed to believe he, too, knowingly destroyed the chain of custody regarding this critical piece of evidence.
Both of these startling lapses disappear if we acknowledge Wright's testimonial evidence - the bullet both Johnsen and Rowley handled was the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen meaning both Johnsen and Rowley never had the opportunity to put their initials on CE399.
We can only assume that Rowley handed over the bullet with the pointed tip to FBI agent Elmer Todd but it vanishes, to be replaced by CE399 which is initialed by all those working in the FBI lab.
When asked to identify the bullet he discovered that day, Darrell Tomlinson refuses to identify CE399 as that bullet. Are we supposed to believe Tomlinson forgot what it looked like? That he'd discovered a bullet on a stretcher at the same time doctors in the same hospital were trying to revive JFK, and didn't think it was all that important? Are we supposed to believe he didn't know what the bullet looked like?
Of course he knew what it looked like, it had a pointed tip and looked nothing like CE399.
Wright examines the bullet with Tomlinson and realises it's significance so he looks for someone "official" to hand it to. He realises this bullet may, in some way, be connected to the assassination. But when asked to identify the bullet he handed to Johnsen, he also refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day. Because, as we've already heard, Wright is absolutely adamant the bullet he handed over to Johnsen was NOT CE399. And let's remember, Wright was ex-DPD, a man very familiar with various bullets.
When Johnsen is handed the bullet, he also realises it's importance and carries it all the way from Dallas to Washington to hand it over to the Head of the Secret Service. Are we supposed to believe he didn't examine it? That he just slipped it into his pocket and said "thanks"?
And when he is asked to identify the bullet he handled that day, he too refuses to identify CE399 as that bullet. And remember, Johnsen had already destroyed the chain of custody once and has a chance to redeem himself. Instead he destroys the chain of custody twice!
Because CE399 was not the bullet he handled that day.
Like Johnsen, by the time he is asked to identify the bullet he handled that day, Rowley fully understands it's evidentiary value. It is a crucial piece of evidence linking the rifle discovered on the 6th floor to the actual assassination. It's importance cannot be understated. He is presented CE399 by Elmer Todd, the man he handed it over to that day, and asked to identify it. And like Johnsen, he too refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day.
The mind truly boggles.
Like Johnsen, it appears that Rowley has destroyed the chain of custody, not once but twice. However, this may not strictly be true because they may well have put their initials on the bullet they handled that day, but they didn't handle CE399 that day so their initials are not on it.

This explains why, after passing through the flesh and bone of two men, CE399 is clean when Frazier examines it - because it never passed through the flesh and bone of two men. This explains how a bullet that is gripped in the flesh of Connally's leg can just fall out - because it never fell out.
And this explains why Tomlinson, when giving his deposition for the Warren Commission, is never asked a single question about the bullet, even though the purpose of the deposition is to determine ALL THE FACTS Tomlinson is aware of surrounding the discovery of the bullet. He is asked to give a deposition because he is the man who discovered the bullet, yet he is not asked a single question about it, let alone identify it as CE399. The obvious reason for this is because he would not identify CE399 as the bullet he found that day! Why else would he be asked to give his deposition is in a room in Parkland Hospital, with only Specter and a court reporter present, and not before the Warren Commission itself as a "star witness" - the man who discovered the bullet that tied the rifle to the assassination.
Tomlinson's deposition is the clearest example of a whitewash you can have.

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.
That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.


This is an example of Logic without Reason.
It's almost child-like in it's quality.
A bullet was found at Parkland Hospital, it went from person to person until it became CE399. Therefore the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.
And that's that!
You're right, it doesn't satisfy me, but it clearly satisfies you.