Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?

[David Von Pein]

Here's an excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the "chain of custody" topic....

[Charles Collins]

Prepare yourself, CTers: I think Bugliosi was dead wrong! Comically, ludicrously wrong!

Somewhere early in this thread, I saw this quote from Bugliosi on DVP's site and winced:

What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.

Uh, no. The issue with the chain of custody of CE 399 is whether it is the bullet found at Parkland - that any nothing more.

You don't get to argue backwards: "Hey, it was fired from Oswald's rifle and explains the SBT, ergo it must have been found on a stretcher at Parkland."

The fact it was fired from Oswald's rifle and might explain the SBT is precisely why the defense would suggest it was PLANTED.

Perhaps mock trials have mock chains of custody, but in the real world the chain of custody would be confined to what Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier - those who had custody of it - had to say. As I stated, the issue would be a likelihood CE 399 came into the possession of the authorities in the circumstances they say it did and remained in their custody until trial.

You HAVE TO GET IT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Then the prosecution and defense can start making their arguments as to how it fits into the case. Whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle or could explain the SBT could still be hotly debated. Indeed, the defense could still argue it was planted at Parkland for Tomlinson to find.

As I've suggested, this isn't a super-demanding standard. Unless Tomlinson and Wright just flat denied CE 399 was the bullet or anything like it, there wouldn't be a problem.

But you don't get to argue backwards from evidence and speculation having nothing to do with the chain of custody.

Okay, if you believe that Vince Bugliosi is wrong, I won’t argue the point. I will say that apparently it isn’t just me who is misinterpreting what Bugliosi is apparently trying to say.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, dear, what to do with folks like Martin?

Let's see, I am just like Trump, an "LN clown" who is "afraid" to reply to Martin's posts, and a purveyor of "an avalanche of arrogant word salad posts," "childish insults," "pathetic fictional dialogue" and "self-serving BS posts." Well, perhaps.

I think it would be fair to say I've gotten under Martin's skin, yes?

I actually started this narrowly focused thread in a sincere effort to provide a retired lawyer's perspective on how a chain of custody works, what it means for a witness to identify an item of evidence, and why the CT arguments about CE 399 (strictly in relation to the chain of custody) are flawed. I really didn't picture this thread generating any hysteria.

Martin immediately went off on the tangent that I was completely misguided because the Oswald defense would have not objected to the admission of CE 399 at all. I responded to each of his posts at considerable length. By his second post, I was "pathetic" and the purveyor of "self-serving BS," "the diehard LN cult manuscript," and "assumptions, cherry-picked evidence and a massive subjective bias." Later, I was accused of "massively contradicting myself," of possessing an "arrogant big head" and of posting a "word salad" unworthy of a response.

I warned Martin early in our relationship, when he questioned whether I was a lawyer at all, that he was dealing with a master of snarkiness and that if he chose to play this game he was going find out what master-level snarkiness looks like. He didn't take the hint.

Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed. At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway? Playing with the issues is kind of fun in the same way jigsaw puzzles (or perhaps chess) are fun, and that's about it. It's mental exercise, but it isn't going anywhere. If you're in love with your theory, go for it - but recognize that you're just playing around with ideas and that others, including LNers, are equally in love with their theories. If you become the functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist about it, all the fun goes poof.

The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke. There are even LNers who don't get the joke. Do you think I'm serious with my Caped Factoid Buster nonsense? With assigning folks like Martin to some imaginary bin of those who are Not Worth My Time? Good Lord. On every forum on which I've ever participated - even golf and motorcycle forums - I've found it amusing to create some over-the-top persona and turn him loose. If he makes you come unglued, that's your problem and frankly a source of mirth for me until it reaches the level of upsetting someone to the extent it seems to have done with Martin. If you can't deal with master-level snarkiness, don't provoke me by playing that game; if you can, bring it - the wittier the better!

That being said, I shall herewith release Martin and his compadres from the imaginary Not Worth My Time bin and, if they say anything worthwhile (unlikely, but it could happen!  ) pledge myself to respond in a restrained and statesmanlike manner worthy of my Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary training.

Or maybe not. 

Well, it didn't take you very long to stop ignoring me.   

Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed.

And there is the classic LN claim about the "verdict of history" which is typically used when arguments fail to persuade.

At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway?

At any level, I, for one, do not care if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I have said so many times already. It's an historical event and nothing we can do or say now will alter that. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much point in trying to determine who was behind it or how it was done, if it was a conspiracy. Any evidence there might have been pointing to a conspiracy has disappeared a long time ago and most of the people involved are already dead or will soon be. As far as Oswald is concerned, if he did it alone, so be it. All I am really interested in is finding out if the evidence actually supports the "Oswald was the lone gunman" claim made by the WC.

The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke.

Hilarious. Just because I have a different opinion than you, you jump to this pathetic conclusion. You sound like a school bully who pushes people around and when he gets confronted about it, he says "hey, it's just a joke. It's not serious"!

So, let's get back to the topic of this thread.

In an earlier post you asked what sense it made to call Odum as a witness, because the chain of custody would be determined by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier. Then you make the argument that nobody knows what Tomlinson "had been saying" and that the FBI documents (CE 2011 and the Airtel) could well be correct. You assume implicitly that what Tomlinson said to Odum would satisfy the identification requirement, but you ignore completely the possibility that Odum never talked with Tomlinson and Wright in the first place. Tomlinson said in his deposition that he was shown a bullet once, in late November 1963, by SAC Shanklin. He said the same thing to Marcus in 1966. You then downplay what Wright told Thompson in 1967 by calling what he said "rather bizarre" and you make the speculative claim that "It sounds as though what he said to Odum is similar to what Tomlinson said". I'm not sure where you get that from, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Obviously, this is all theory, because if Oswald had lived and there was a trial, CE 2011 and the Airtel, would likely not even exist. Tomlinson and Wright would simply be called as a witness by either the prosecution or the defense, depending on what they would say under oath. Having said that, in this hypothetical scenario, Odum would be a crucial witness, because if he did indeed not have CE399 and did not show it to Tomlinson and Wright, it would completely destroy the credibility of CE2011.

As for Tomlinson and Wright, you said in another post;

If Tomlinson and Wright had both testified "No way is that it, the bullet I saw was a distinctly pointy-headed slug with a little yellow happy face on the side that we laughed about at the time" - well, yes, that would kill the chain of custody of CE 399.

If they had both testified "Well, obviously, I can't say that's the exact bullet because I didn't pay that much attention at the time and I don't know the full provenance of this CE 399, but there is nothing about CE 399 that would cause me to say it isn't the bullet" - then, indeed, by the time Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier had testified the chain of custody would have been satisfactory even if Johnsen and Rowley had testified the same way.

The test for admission is whether, when all is said and done, there is a likelihood the bullet being offered into evidence is the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland. It is not some "Gotcha!" test where evidence is kept out because every witness isn't able to provide an exact identification.

This is exactly the reason why your imaginary testimony by Tomlinson depends on him saying "it looks like the same bullet, but there is no way I can be sure". And once again you speculate that CE 2011 and the Airtel could well be correct.

The reason why I said that I am not convinced that the defense would object to CE 399 being entered into evidence is that fighting the admissibility in the knowledge that excluding evidence because of a weak chain of custody is extremely rare and may give that piece of evidence more credibility than it deserves. It would of course depend on what Tomlinson and Wright would say, but if their testimony benefits the defense they may prefer to destroy CE399 and the prosecution's case at trial, in much the same way as Johnny Cochran used the "gloves don't fit" incident.

The real question that should be asked, but somehow never is, is why do we have to speculate about what Tomlinson and Wright may have said. Why do we only have an FBI document, written by an unidentified officer, and an airtel that makes the "it looks like the same bullet" claim. This is a crucial piece of evidence, so why not have Tomlinson and Wright make an affidavit and eliminate the need for speculation? This alone, IMO, justifies the conclusion that the FBI had an ulterior motive for dealing with this matter in an airtel and an unsigned document (CE 2011).

[Lance Payette]

I’ll conclude my little dissertation because it’s going pretty far into the weeds. You’re probably all happy you never went to law school (or will be by the time I finish here).

My original purpose was merely to show that the typical CT argument about “massive chain of custody problems” with CE 399 simply isn’t true and that “identification” doesn’t mean what CTers suggest it does.

I think I now understand what Bugliosi was talking about, and it wasn’t the narrow chain of custody issue. It was Rule 403, so stay tuned. I will have to amend my statement from Bugliosi being "comically, ludicrously wrong" to Bugliosi "talking about something entirely different from the chain of custody" in his exchange with DVP. The latest extract from his book is indeed talking specifically about the c-of-c and making the same points I have made.

By the time CE 399 was offered into evidence at trial, the defense would have interviewed everyone from Tomlinson on up. If it were clear that there were no serious c-of-c issues, the defense might have stipulated to the admission of CE 399. The prosecution and defense commonly try to work through as many of these issues as possible before trial. Probably the majority of exhibits, even at a criminal trial, are stipulated into evidence.

This is why I said Martin’s point was correct, but not for the reasons he states. If the defense realized there were no serious c-of-c issues, they might have stipulated to admission and fought the larger battle of what the significance of CE 399 actually is at trial. If there were serious c-of-c issues, however, the defense would have loved to keep CE 399 out; they would not have stipulated to admission for “strategic” reasons.

The c-of-c issue is, “Where did CE 399 come from? How did it get into the hands of law enforcement?” The prosecution says it came from a stretcher in Parkland, was found there by Tomlinson and Wright, and given to Johnsen. Two key arguments for the defense would be (1) “No, it wasn’t. That isn’t the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright.” or (2) “It was planted there by someone other than Tomlinson and Wright to implicate Oswald.” Argument #2 really isn’t a c-of-c argument per se, any more than “It was fired from Oswald’s rifle” is a c-of-c argument.

If the c-of-c testimony established a likelihood that CE 399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright, that would put the c-of-c issue to rest. Now we’d be off to the races on all the other issues: It was or wasn’t fabricated and planted by persons unknown, it was or wasn’t found somewhere else and placed on the stretcher, it was or wasn’t fired from Oswald’s rifle, it does or doesn’t support the SBT. Contrary to what I understood Bugliosi to be suggesting, these are all post c-f-c issues.

I think Bugliosi was talking about “admission” (into evidence) rather than “identification” and c-of-c. A pretrial evidentiary hearing can go far beyond the mere issue of custody. In federal courts, it’s called a Rule 403 hearing (Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence). Apart from any issue of c-of-c, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” The courts have said the exclusion is an extraordinary remedy and must be used sparingly.

(My experience is almost entirely civil. There, we typically file a pretrial "motion in limine" to exclude evidence or testimony. The reasons are usually similar to those set forth in Rule 403. Rule 403 applies in civil cases as well, but I no experience with it in this context since motions in limine are far more common.)

It’s certainly possible that, for example, the defense might argue at a Rule 403 hearing that CE 399 should be excluded because the likelihood of it being fabricated and planted is simply too great. They would obviously need some reasonably compelling evidence of this. I don’t see how the prosecution argument that it was fired from Oswald’s rifle would be relevant at a 403 hearing, but this is probably what Bugliosi was talking about.

In his exchange with DVP, Bugliosi says the issue is whether there is a likelihood CE 399 is what the prosecution says it is. Yes, but at the c-of-c stage what the prosecution says is simply that it’s “a bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright on a stretcher at Parkland and given to Johnsen, who then gave it to Rowley, who gave it to Todd, who gave it to Frazier.” That’s all, period.

If there was no serious issue about this and CE 399 had been stipulated into evidence, then perhaps no one but Frazier would have been required to testify. There would have been no identification requirement because there would have been no c-of-c issue. He could have simply testified “This is a bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland that the FBI crime lab determined had been fired from Oswald’s rifle.”

But if there were c-of-c issues, at a pretrial evidentiary hearing or at trial, the testimony could not start with the SS and FBI and some presumption they are good guys who always tell the truth. Quite the contrary, for good reason. Tomlinson and/or Wright would at least have to be able to say “I have no reason to say this is not the bullet found on the stretcher and given to Johnsen.” They would not have to say “Yes, that’s definitely it” to satisfy the identification requirement – but if they both said “That’s definitely not it,” the game would likely be over for CE 399.

If there had been a Rule 403 hearing and the court had declined to exclude CE 399, the defense could still have made at trial most of the arguments that CTers love to make.

End of lecture, or word salad as the case may be.

[Lance Payette]

It seems to me that Martin continues to misunderstand the significance of Odum, CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright. Thanks to Tom Gram, we now know why no 302s were generated by Odum or Todd- i.e., this had become the FBI's standard practice in dealing with the WC's voluminous requests.

CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay. They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.

If Odum could testify "Well, actually, they both told me CE 399 looked nothing like the pointy-headed slug they found on the stretcher," then, sure, that would be relevant.

We can now be pretty sure that Odum did show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright. But even if this were still an open issue, it would not be relevant to the c-of-c or admissibility of CE 399. It would be relevant, perhaps, to some broader issue like "the FBI makes mistakes" or "you can't trust everything in the FBI documents."

[Martin Weidmann]

It seems to me that Martin continues to misunderstand the significance of Odum, CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright. Thanks to Tom Gram, we now know why no 302s were generated by Odum or Todd- i.e., this had become the FBI's standard practice in dealing with the WC's voluminous requests.

CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay. They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.

If Odum could testify "Well, actually, they both told me CE 399 looked nothing like the pointy-headed slug they found on the stretcher," then, sure, that would be relevant.

We can now be pretty sure that Odum did show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright. But even if this were still an open issue, it would not be relevant to the c-of-c or admissibility of CE 399. It would be relevant, perhaps, to some broader issue like "the FBI makes mistakes" or "you can't trust everything in the FBI documents."

I never said that Odum testifying had anything directly to do with the chain of custody. His testimony would only serve to verify or discredit the information about the chain of custody some unidentified FBI agent provided to the WC in CE 2011. If Odum didn't show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright the information in CE 2011 is proven false.

Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright.

Why are you misrepresenting this? Thompson did not accept that Odum had shown CE399 to Wright. On two separate occasions, the first one being a phone call and the second one a personal meeting in Dallas, Odum stated that he never had CE399 or had shown it to anybody. One can only speculate about what happened after the meeting, but Thompson remarked that when they talked to Odum he had not read the documents they had sent him (i.e. CE 2011). Two days after the meeting, Odum called Thompson and stated that he now vaguely remembered being in Wright's office for some unknown reason. He subsequently concluded that the reason "must have been" that he showed CE 399 to Wright. It is more than possible that Odum at that time had read CE2011 which made him doubt his own memory. The phone call to Thompson, after the meeting, was most likely - as Thompson concluded - to bring his statement more in line with with CE 2011. If you look at it honestly, it's not surprising that Odum would question his own memory, simply because he trusted the percieved veracity of CE 2011. All that Odum really did is vaguely remember being in Wright's office and imagine the rest. One thing is for sure Odum and Wright looking at the bullet in a transparant plastic bag doesn't match with what Specter told Humes during his testimony;

(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show,in a plastic case in a cotton background.
Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?

We know that Tomlinson said in his deposition that, a few days after the assassination, SAC Shanklin showed a bullet to him and Wright, in Wright's office (could it be that Odum was present as well and vaguely remembered that?) and that this was the only time he was shown a bullet. We also know that Tomlinson, in 1966, told Marcus the same thing. Now, did Tomlinson simply forget the meeting with Odum, in June 1964,or did that meeting never take place?

CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay.

And yet, after questioning the chain of custody, the WC accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof for that same chain of custody. Go figure!

They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.

You keep assuming that Tomlinson and Wright would say "I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found", but what if they said "Odum never showed us any bullet and the one you now show us (which would be CE 399) isn't the one we found" or even "yes, Odum showed us a bullet but it wasn't the one we found"?

[Lance Payette]

Before responding, I would encourage Martin and others to read Tom Gram's excellent research on CE 2011:

https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/#note18.

Tom makes the key point that the WC (i.e., Rankin) had told the FBI that for WC purposes an acceptable chain of custody required ONLY THE FIRST PERSON in the chain - meaning Tomlinson for CE 399 - to identify the item. Because Tomlinson and Wright (and Johnsen and Rowley!) could not positively identify CE 399, the FBI had to work up the chain to Todd. This explains the references in CE 2011. The author of CE 2011 was saying to Rankin, "Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley cannot give us what the WC wants." CE 2011 is talking about an absence of "positive identification."

I never said that Odum testifying had anything directly to do with the chain of custody. His testimony would only serve to verify or discredit the information some unidentified FBI agent provided to the WC in CE 2011. If Odum didn't show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright the information in CE 2011 is proven false.

No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.

Why are you misrepresenting this?

I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.

One thing is for sure Odum and Wright looking at the bullet in a transparant plastic bag doesn't match with what Specter told Humes during his testimony;

(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show,in a plastic case in a cotton background.

OK, and this is significant because ...? The chain of custody does not require the item to be in the same packaging all the time. With CE 399, there was no issue of fingerprints or anything like that. The testimony of Humes was on March 16, 1964, when CE 399 was apparently still being tested. It was sent to Dallas and shown to Tomlinson and Wright some three months later. I'm not following why it being in a transparent plastic bag in June would be of any significance whatsoever. As Tom Gram's piece makes clear, for some items of evidence it was agreed that showing a photograph for identification would be sufficient, but CE 399 was one of several items that were physically sent.

We know that Tomlinson said in his deposition that, a few days after the assassination, SAC Shanklin showed a bullet to him and Wright, in Wright's office (could it be that Odum was present as well and vaguely remembered that?) and that this was the only time he was shown a bullet. We also know that Tomlinson, in 1966, told Marcus the same thing. Now, did Tomlinson simply forget the meeting with Odum, in June 1964,or did that meeting never take place?

In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin? You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.

I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)

And yet, after questioning the chain of custody, the WC accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof for that same chain of custody. Go figure!

For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.

You keep assuming that Tomlinson and Wright would say "I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found", but what if they said "Odum never showed us any bullet and the one now in evidence as CE 399 isn't the same as the one we found" or even "yes, Odum showed us a bullet but it wasn't the one we found"?

I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.

[Martin Weidmann]

Before responding, I would encourage Martin and others to read Tom Gram's excellent research on CE 2011:

https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/#note18.

Tom makes the key point that the WC (i.e., Rankin) had told the FBI that for WC purposes an acceptable chain of custody required ONLY THE FIRST PERSON in the chain - meaning Tomlinson for CE 399 - to identify the item. Because Tomlinson and Wright (and Johnsen and Rowley!) could not positively identify CE 399, the FBI had to work up the chain to Todd. This explains the references in CE 2011. The author of CE 2011 was saying to Rankin, "Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley cannot give us what the WC wants." CE 2011 is talking about an absence of "positive identification."

No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.

I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.

OK, and this is significant because ...? The chain of custody does not require the item to be in the same packaging all the time. With CE 399, there was no issue of fingerprints or anything like that. The testimony of Humes was on March 16, 1964, when CE 399 was apparently still being tested. It was sent to Dallas and shown to Tomlinson and Wright some three months later. I'm not following why it being in a transparent plastic bag in June would be of any significance whatsoever. As Tom Gram's piece makes clear, for some items of evidence it was agreed that showing a photograph for identification would be sufficient, but CE 399 was one of several items that were physically sent.

In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin? You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.

I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)

For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.

I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.

No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.

You seem to be all in on making any kind of excuse to keep CE 2011 alive. It's not only the reference to Odum that's the problem. Tomlinson said in his deposition that the only time he was shown a bullet was by SAC Shanklin a few days after the assassination. In 1966, he repeated the same thing to Marcus. So, unless Tomlinson forgot about having been shown CE 399 by anybody, yet still remembered that Shanklin showed him a bullet six months earlier (which seems unlikely to me), you need to explain where this unknown FBI agent, who wrote CE 2011, got his information from. And you can't!

Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.

I agree, that it would be silly to expect that anybody remembers a routine meeting in 1987. However this wasn't a routine meeting. Here we are talking about somebody actually holding one of the bullets that allegedly killed a President of the United States and showing it to key witnesses. That's a special event which remains by you like all major events in somebody's life. I, for example, remember vividly watching the funeral of JFK on television and can even describe what the television and the livingroom looked like at that time. I was only a minor but it made an impression on me. My point is that people remember things, perhaps not perfectly or completely, that make an impression.

In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin?

You seem to be misreading what I wrote, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The deposition I was talking about was the one Specter took from Tomlinson at Parkland in March 1964.

Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.

He later told Marcus that it was SAC Shanklin who showed him the bullet in Wright's office.

You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.

No, I'm just going by what Tomlinson actually told Specter and Marcus and not by the speculation of David von Pein, who can only attempt to reconcile the two statements by Tomlinson by speculating, without evidence, that he somehow conflated the two meetings. David is simply provinding us another "it was a honest mistake" arguments, but there are so many of those that at some point you need to wonder if they were mistakes at all.

I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)

Ok, let me counter with another guess. Shanklin did in fact show the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright in early December 1963, and it was in fact the same bullet that Tomlinson had found. When the request came from the WC to establish a chain of custody and the actual bullet (the one we now know as CE 399) was sent to Dallas, Shanklin understood that he had a problem. We already know from the Hosty incident (Shankling telling Hosty to destroy a letter from Oswald) that Shanklin had a questionable approach to how to handle evidence. So, Shanklin, who knew that CE 399 was not the bullet he had previously shown to Tomlinson and Wright, just decided to do nothing and simply write in an airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet. Just think about it for a moment. SAC Dallas sends an airtel to Washington and Odum knew nothing about it. They simply used his name in CE 2011, which Odum also didn't know, and misrepresented the truth. Odum didn't find out until he was contacted about it by Alguilar and Thompson. Now tell me, why is that not a plausible scenario?

For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.

So, the only available proof is the positive indentification by Todd and Frazier? Really?

I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.

So, we agree. It all depends on Tomlinson (and Wright). So, why not have both men give an affidavit to confirm or deny that the bullet is now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found at Parkland. The obvious answer for me is that they (the WC and/or FBI) knew it wasn't the same bullet and the last thing they needed was an offical document confirming it.