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

[Tim Nickerson]

you need to explain where this unknown FBI agent, who wrote CE 2011, got his information from. And you can't!

CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.

[John Mytton]

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 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.

Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to get Oswald off on a technicality, the evidence is what it is, deal with it!

No one planted CE-399 on a stretcher on a different floor and just hoped it would be found.
No one knew to plant a whole bullet that so closely matched the wounds at a point in time when no surgery findings were finalized.
The initial witnesses said CE-399 resembled the bullet.
And after 60+ years NO one has come forward to say even a shred of the Mountain of Evidence was fraudulent, as I said the evidence is what it is. Deal with it!

And as for your comment that a witness must remember some singular event that we find to be important in hindsight, is not necessarily all that important to the eyewitness now or even at the time. They investigated a ton of stuff and conducted many interviews and do we know what was happening in their private lives, were they dealing with personal grief, depression, arranging a wedding, or contemplating a divorce? Or perhaps they were just doing their job and didn't give a toss!

And here's some relevant examples of people's "infallible" memories from the one of the most important events they ever witnessed, that they will forever remember till the day they die!

William Newman on the same day said that JFK stood up when he was shot? Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the Limo stopped. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses and even Doctors said JFK's head exit wound was on the back of his head. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the rifle on the 6th floor was a 7.65 Mauser. Wrong!
ETC, ETC, ETC.....

BTW, no offence or anything but I'm surprised that you are around seventy years of age because by that time I'd expect someone to be more grown up, less hostile, more logical, have a better understanding of deductive reasoning, more willing to accept that others have a varying point of view, less angry, less prone to hurl insults and handle reasonable objections by being more clever or witty?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to get Oswald off on a technicality, the evidence is what it is, deal with it!

No one planted CE-399 on a stretcher on a different floor and just hoped it would be found.
No one knew to plant a whole bullet that so closely matched the wounds at a point in time when no surgery findings were finalized.
The initial witnesses said CE-399 resembled the bullet.
And after 60+ years NO one has come forward to say even a shred of the Mountain of Evidence was fraudulent, as I said the evidence is what it is. Deal with it!

And as for your comment that a witness must remember some singular event that we find to be important in hindsight, is not necessarily all that important to the eyewitness now or even at the time. They investigated a ton of stuff and conducted many interviews and do we know what was happening in their private lives, were they dealing with personal grief, depression, arranging a wedding, or contemplating a divorce? Or perhaps they were just doing their job and didn't give a toss!

And here's some relevant examples of people's "infallible" memories from the one of the most important events they ever witnessed, that they will forever remember till the day they die!

William Newman on the same day said that JFK stood up when he was shot? Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the Limo stopped. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses and even Doctors said JFK's head exit wound was on the back of his head. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the rifle on the 6th floor was a 7.65 Mauser. Wrong!
ETC, ETC, ETC.....

BTW, no offence or anything but I'm surprised that you are around seventy years of age because by that time I'd expect someone to be more grown up, less hostile, more logical, have a better understanding of deductive reasoning, more willing to accept that others have a varying point of view, less angry, less prone to hurl insults and handle reasonable objections by being more clever or witty?

JohnM

Thank you for sharing your insignificant opinions, "mature attitude" ( ) and usual insults. 

Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to misrepresent  what my position regarding the evidence and the case is?

Btw, what in the world are you mean with "getting Oswald off on a technicality". The guy has been dead for decades, there never was or will be a trial, and nothing anybody says or does on this forum will change anything, so why are you so concerned about getting him off on a technicality? Perhaps you need to take a step back and get back to reality.

[Lance Payette]

CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.

It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.

The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."

[Lance Payette]

A final thought, because I think it's easy to get so caught up in the trees that we lose sight of the forest:

1. When Tomlinson and Wright were shown the bullet in June of 1964, it had been in the FBI's possession for nearly SEVEN MONTHS. All the testing was complete. The FBI knew it was from Oswald's rifle.

2. Oswald had been dead seven months. There was never going to be a criminal trial. Chain-of-custody technicalities were irrelevant except to the extent the WC wanted to be satisfied.

3. The WC burdened the FBI with many requests, including a half-assed chain-of-custody request that many items of evidence at least be identified by the first person in the chain. For many items, this was done with a mere photograph.

4. When Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, he was merely on a routine mission to satisfy the WC. This was no big deal. The FBI had even abandoned the requirement for 302s because the requests were so burdensome.

5. The responses of Tomlinson and Wright would not have caused Odum or anyone else to think "Oh, my God, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!" They would simply have thought, "Well, we'll have to report what they said and go up the chain until someone provides a positive identification." If the FBI had thought there was a major problem, the documents would have simply said "Due to the passage of time, Tomlinson and Wright were unable to provide a positive identification but said the bullet looked like the one they found. Let us know if you need more."

That would have been the FBI's perspective. Yes, it's not the perspective of CTers who think the WC should have been a criminal trial of Oswald or that the FBI should still have been preparing for a criminal trial in June of 1964.

[Tim Nickerson]

It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.

The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."

SAC, DALLAS (100-10461) 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59608#relPageId=39

Credit to Tom Gram. I read his 'CE2011 and the Missing 302 Reports' a couple of months ago. Thanks for reminding me of it.

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

I have a lot of respect for Gary Murr, even though his conspiracy position is wrong in my view. Some years ago, I had posted a document here and elsewhere that threw a wrench into the gears of a pet theory of Bob Harris. Murr had found the document in the National Archives in the late 90s and posted it on the ED forum. I found it there some years after he had posted it. Harris questioned its authenticity. When I informed him that Murr had found it, he went and confronted him on the ED forum. He actually questioned the CT bona fides of Gary Murr.

Haven't seen anything of Bob Harris for years. He may have departed this earthly existence.

[Lance Payette]

Oh, OK, that pretty well settles it. I guess the efforts of Todd with Jonsen and Rowley were provided to Shanklin. In fact, CE 2011 contains other references to activities beyond Dallas. It seems odd that Shanklin would have been given this assignment, but I guess he was.

Note that Odum was given the assignment of obtaining identification information for much of the bullet, fragment and shell evidence - which makes it that much more unlikely that he would have been inserted into the Tomlinson-Wright portion for some nefarious purpose or that he would have had some vivid recollection of showing CE 399 to them 38 years later.

[John Iacoletti]

Read this remarkable exchange. Not only does it mesh well with my imaginary testimony, but I think it gives a good idea as to how the June 1964 conversation about CE 399 might have gone and why CE 2011 said he couldn’t identify it as the bullet he found.

So then why do you believe that CE399 is the same bullet?  Faith?