It does so. If you had bothered to watch the video from where I timestamped it you would know that. Here it is again:
"It does so"
Oh no it doesn't!
I have clearly bothered to watch the video because, unlike you, not only did I provide the timestamp, I have gone to the trouble of providing a transcript of what was said.
Where have you timestamped it, by the way?
I note you have simply glided by the part of my post where you are proven wrong about Wright categorically denying CE 399 was the bullet he handled that day - twice!
I assume by your silence on that matter you accept now you were wrong but just can't bring yourself to admit that. But don't worry, I've got you covered.
As we shall see, once we accept Wright at his word, that the bullet he handed to SA Johnsen was not CE 399, a lot of troubling details about this particular aspect of the case, suddenly make sense.
But let's deal with the rest of your post first.
So, you are still insisting Thompson reported that Odum stated he had handled CE 399 and shown it to Wright. Even though I posted the following from transcript:
17:30 - Odum interview by Aguilar over the phone.
"One of the documents says Bardwell Odum, to wit you, took this bullet around and showed it to a couple of people at Parkland Hospital."
Odum's reply was direct and electrifying, "I didn't show it to anyone at Parkland Hospital, I didn't have any bullet, I don't know where you got that but it's wrong. You're talking about the bullet they found at Parkland? I don't think I ever saw it even."
19:06 - Aguilar and Thompson meet Odum
"He continued to be adamant that he'd never seen it, he'd never had C1, or 399, in his hands, it had never been in his custody, and he had no recollection of visiting Parkland Hospital to interview O. P. Wright - who he knew because O. P. Wright was deputy chief - or Darrell Tomlinson."
Rather than look for a timestamp you haven't provided, are you referring to this section of the video:
19:56 - "Two days later, he called me back and he said that, after thinking about it, he now had a vague recollection of sitting in Wright's basement office at Parkland, talking to Wright about some unknown, inconsequential matter.
He still had no recollection of having the bullet in his possession or of showing it to anyone.
"But the more I thought about it", said Odum, "I did remember being in his office. The visit I had with Wright, I didn't consider it important, we didn't talk about it for more than a couple of minutes and I really can't remember what we talked about. But, from what you're saying, I might have had the bullet. That must have been what it was. I'm trying to pull it all together."
21:10 - "In the same phone call he remarked, "The Warren Commission would send down requests to do this or do that and we didn't question it, we did whatever they wanted. I can remember being in Wright's office for an unknown reason sometime well after the assassination and we talked a little about the assassination, I visited with him,
I don't remember that I had the bullet with me but, assuming what you have is correct, it was undoubtedly sealed in a plastic envelope and I didn't open it. He didn't open it, nobody opened it, we were looking at it through a plastic envelope and that's my guess, and I just reported they couldn't identify it."
Odum's first statements are that he had never handled CE 399, that he had never even seen it, let alone shown it to Tomlinson and Wright.
Days later his story begins to change,
but at no time does Odum say he can remember having CE 399 or that he showed it to Wright.I can't imagine you are referring to any other part of the video but, if you are, please provide the timestamp in the form of minutes and seconds.
Otherwise we can assume you are also wrong about this but will try to just glide by it.
I'm not the one who stated that an FD-302 was required for confirmation of information reported to be obtained by FBI interviews. So again, where is the FD-302 of the Agent(s) that showed the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson? If not Odum, then who?
I didn't state it was required for confirmation of information either. Nice Strawman though.
The point I'm making is that Odum denied he ever had CE 399 in his possession or that he had shown it to Wright and Tomlinson. Odum himself made the point that, if he had done so, there would be some kind of paper trail for it. Remember, this is an important issue, the WC had asked the FBI to provide chain of custody information for the key pieces of evidence in the case. If there had been the relevant paperwork, Odum's recollection would have been in error, but because the paperwork doesn't exist, it supports Odum's recollection of never having CE 399 in his possession. If the interviews had taken place it would have been very surprising that there was no paperwork for such an important issue.
The info contained in the Airtel does not conflict with the info in the WC document 1258. Stop being so damn thick-headed.
The information contained in Dr Seuss' "The Cat in the Hat" also doesn't conflict with the info in doc. 1258.
So, what?
The AirTel makes no mention that the men thought CE 399 looked similar to the bullet they handled that day. They just refused to identify it as the bullet they discovered that day.
The important thing is that there is no mention of any similarity, so the conflict arises in what is
not said as opposed to what
is said.
Why would the AirTel fail to mention that Tomlinson and Wright had said there was a similarity between CE 399 and the bullet they handled that day? What ridiculous explanation can you invent to cover this uncomfortable fact.
Common Sense dictates that the reason it wasn't mentioned in the AirTel was because neither man mentioned a similarity. Because there was no similarity. Because they were two completely different bullets.
Doesn't it? Explain why Bell wrote "fragment" on the transfer receipt.
You asked this question already.
You know you have.
You also know I said "I don't know" why Bell wrote "fragments" on the envelope and "fragment" on the hospital memo.
Why would you ask a question I've already answered?
No, let's not. Let's see your explanation for why Bell wrote "fragment" on the receipt first.
You think you're going to slip out of this that easily!!
As you already know, I've answered this point - I don't have a clue why Bell wrote different things.
Now, back to my question:
Mr. Specter: Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?"a fragment" - a single fragment. One fragment
Mr. Frazier: It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor Connally.
Mr. Specter: Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?"that fragment" - a single fragment. One fragment
Mr. Frazier: This one does not have a Commission number as yet.
Mr. Specter: May it please the Commission, I would like to have this fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842.
(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)"this fragment" - a single fragment. One fragment
Mr. Specter: Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?"a fragment" - a single fragment. One fragment.
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet."a small fragment" - a single fragment. One fragment.
WHY IS CE 842 ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE AS A SINGLE FRAGMENT?
Right. CE-842 is more than one fragment and always was.
Apart from in the initial FBI report
And on the hospital memo
And when it was labeled by Frazier
And when it was entered into evidence
Gregory actually gives two different dimensional descriptions of the exit wound.
Dr. GREGORY - The wound of exit was disposed transversely across the wrist exactly as I have it marked here. It was in the nature of a small laceration, perhaps a centimeter and a half in length, about a half an inch long,
It may be that the later "half centimeter in length" description was meant to be it's lesser diameter.
This would make a lot more sense, even though various doctors, including Gregory, are surprised the exit wound is the smaller of the two wounds
Gregory is telling you that the wounds were not made by a nose-forward bullet.
Dr. GREGORY - The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY - I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.
Gregory is telling me a fragment of a bullet passed through Connally's wrist
