A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Martin Weidmann]

For this one, I fear, we are going to need the timemachine Richard is always talking about.

Unless of course Richard or any of the other LNs can explain this obvious time anomaly.

As the official narrative goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on a stretcher and gave it to Wright, who in turn give it to Secret Service Agent Johnsen.
Johnsen put the bullet in his pocket and took it to Washington. Upon his arrival there, he gave the bullet to his boss J.J. Rowley along with a typed note on White House paper saying that he had received the bullet from O.P. Wright. The note was dated and the time on it was 7:30 PM.

Rowley then called the FBI who sent Special Agent Elmer L. Todd to collect it. Todd confirmed the receipt by writing in his own hand on the evelope containing the bullet: "Received from Chief Rowley USSS 8:50 p.m. 11-22-63" He signed that note! On December 19, 1963 James Rowley wrote and signed a "memorandum to file" in which he confirmed that he had delivered the bullet tp Todd at "approximately 8:50 pm, Friday November 22, 1963.

During his WC testimony, Mr Eisenberg showed FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier bullet CE399 which he said "for the record" that it was the bullet which was found at Parkland. He asked Frazier if he was familiar with that bullet and Frazier answered; Yes, this is the bullet which was delivered to me by Elmer Todd (who btw did not testify before the WC).

There are two mysteries;

1. Elmer Todd claimed that he initialed the bullet he received from Rowley but the bullet now at the National Archives as CE399 doesn't have his initials on it. Those of Robert Frazier and three other FBI lab assistants are there but not those of Todd.

2. Even stranger is that Todd and Rowley have both confirmed that Todd received the envelope containing the bullet from Rowley at 8:50 pm. However, in several documents of the FBI lab it says that Frazier received the bullet from Todd at 7:35 pm. On at least one of those documents the time is written by Frazier himself.

Can anybody explain to me how it can be that Todd delivered the bullet to Frazier more than an hour before he received it from Rowley? And where did Todd's initials on the bullet go?
 

[John Iacoletti]

It’s been claimed that Todd’s initials have now been located in new high-res pictures from the National Archives.

https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html

[Martin Weidmann]

It’s been claimed that Todd’s initials have now been located in new high-res pictures from the National Archives.

https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html

About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Frazier had no reason to falsify the record, and the chain of custody, by not writing the actual time he received the bullet and using the time on Johnsen's note instead. Also, the time 7:30 PM is not only mentioned in Frazier's notes for his testimony, some four months after actually receiving the bullet, but it shows up on several contemporary documents produced by the FBI lab.

On the one hand, for Roe's explanation to be correct, Frazier would have had to alter the real time of 8:50 PM to 7:30 PM directly after receiving the bullet and thus four months prior to his testimony.

On the other hand, if Frazier did in fact only use Todd's 7:30 PM time in preparation for his testimony he must have done so knowing that it was not correct and - even worse - that the real time was actually documented. At best it would have been negligence, at worst it would have been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, when there would have been no reason for Frazier to be so careless and risk his credibility being questioned.

Obviously, the latter never happened because the WC simply wasn't interested in those kind of details.

Just how many of these so-called "honest mistakes" are there that the LNs are willing to overlook?

[Tim Nickerson]

About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Frazier had no reason to falsify the record, and the chain of custody, by not writing the actual time he received the bullet and using the time on Johnsen's note instead. Also, the time 7:30 PM is not only mentioned in Frazier's notes for his testimony, some four months after actually receiving the bullet, but it shows up on several contemporary documents produced by the FBI lab.

On the one hand, for Roe's explanation to be correct, Frazier would have had to alter the real time of 8:50 PM to 7:30 PM directly after receiving the bullet and thus four months prior to his testimony.

On the other hand, if Frazier did in fact only use Todd's 7:30 PM time in preparation for his testimony he must have done so knowing that it was not correct and - even worse - that the real time was actually documented. At best it would have been negligence, at worst it would have been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, when there would have been no reason for Frazier to be so careless and risk his credibility being questioned.

Obviously, the latter never happened because the WC simply wasn't interested in those kind of details.

Just how many of these so-called "honest mistakes" are there that the LNs are willing to overlook?

From White House Garage Logs



Robert Frazier's scribbling:



Frazier received those two fragments from Sibert and O'Neill at the FBI Lab.

[Martin Weidmann]

From White House Garage Logs



Robert Frazier's scribbling:



Frazier received those two fragments from Sibert and O'Neill at the FBI Lab.

So, what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that we can't rely on Frazier's information?

Frazier knew the importance of a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised the integrity of that chain by using incorrect information?

Is that the point you are making?

Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?

[John Iacoletti]

About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Indeed. Another one for the “lame LN excuses” file.

[Joe Elliott]

So, what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that we can't rely on Frazier's information?

Frazier knew the importance of a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised the integrity of that chain by using incorrect information?

Is that the point you are making?

Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?

So, that means that someone, possibly Frazier, put down false information. Let's call that person, who faked this evidence, Mr. Shady.

Now, Mr. Shady knew the importance of creating a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised this effort by being sloppy with the inconsistent information?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?

If we know for a fact that someone made an error, despite the importance of this case, why couldn't the error have been made by Mr. Frazier? Why must we assume that the error was made by Mr. Shady?

 * * * * *

A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate. After all, for all the conspirators may know, the doctors may discover a bullet in Connally's body and two bullets in JFK's body, giving three bullets that they have to account for. Plus, they don't know if any bystanders, like James Tague, and possibly others, may turn up with bullet wounds, however minor. And now, after planting CE 399, they have only made the problem worse. How could Oswald have fired all those bullets?

Surely, rational plotters would wait for the dust to settle, find out how many bullets the doctors recovered, from JFK, from Connally, from the limousine, from other bystanders before they go ahead and start to plant additional bullets. But, perhaps, the plotters employed a psychic so they knew that this would not be a problem.

Why is this problem so rarely addressed by CTers?

[Martin Weidmann]

So, that means that someone, possibly Frazier, put down false information. Let's call that person, who faked this evidence, Mr. Shady.

Now, Mr. Shady knew the importance of creating a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised this effort by being sloppy with the inconsistent information?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?

If we know for a fact that someone made an error, despite the importance of this case, why couldn't the error have been made by Mr. Frazier? Why must we assume that the error was made by Mr. Shady?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?

Not sure where you are trying to go with this Mr. Shady stuff, but as far as Frazier is concerned; if there is anybody at the FBI who understands the significance of an unbroken chain of custody, it's Frazier. The irony is that, prior to his testimony, Frazier made a list of times he received the pieces of evidence, to protect the chain of custody. He would be the last person to use incorrect times and thus compromise the evidence.