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 (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?
From White House Garage Logs (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10482#relPageId=10)
(https://i.imgur.com/kKXoaFk.jpg)
Robert Frazier's scribbling:
(https://i.imgur.com/BHl0QyH.jpg)
Frazier received those two fragments from Sibert and O'Neill at the FBI Lab.
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).
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?
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.
Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?
So, what point are you trying to make? You don't think there was a Mr. Shady. So you think the evidence is legitimate? But Mr. Frazier made a careless error? Therefore, you are free to ignore CE 399?
Is that all your saying?
So what, exactly is your point about an apparent error by Mr. Frazier? Was someone planting or faking evidence or not?
* * * * *
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?
The point I made is clear enough. I can't help it if you don't understand it.
You may call it an "apparent error" by Frazier, and maybe it was, but it shouldn't have happened because it compromises the chain of custody and justifies the question about what else Frazier was in error.
I see you added the text below to an earlier post;
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.
You are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. Tomlinson, found a bullet on a stretcher which was never conclusively linked to Connally.
There is not a shred of evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 ever went through two bodies. Any physical evidence (like blood and or tissue parts on the bullet) was destroyed when SA Johnsen put the bullet in his pocket.
Even Dr. Humes told the WC in his testimony that he did not believe CE399 could have passed through two bodies, hitting bone, and still come out in the condition it is in.
And it gets even worse.
Arlen Specter introduced CE399 into evidence subject to later proof of it's authenticity but that proof was never provided!
And then there is Joseph Dolce, a US Army ballistics expert, who worked for the Warren Commission. He confirms on video that he was given the original MC rifle and 100 bullets. He shot all 100 bullets into animal cadavers and all of the bullets were smashed. None of the bullets did even resemble CE399. Not surprisingly, Dolce's testimony was not included in the Warren Report.
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?
Why would any of this be a problem, when the conspirators contol the autopsy, the investigation and the cover up, if there was one? LNs keep going on about CE399 being planted, but there is no proof for that.
. . .
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?
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.
Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?
But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.
Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?
The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.
Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.
And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.
Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), SPersonivan's estimates.
By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry SPersonivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.
Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?
What's the "worst" interpretation that could mean conspiracy?
But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.
Dr. Humes was a medical doctor, one of those who performed the autopsy. But not a ballistic expert.
Not an expert who can judge the likely condition of a bullet after striking one or more people. Only a ballistic expert who does real world tests with ballistic gel targets can make that determination.
And all the ballistic experts that I know of, who are trusted to give testimony in criminal cases, believe that CE 399 quite plausibly caused the wounds to JFK and Connally, expect for JFK's head wound, of course.
You can find all kinds of testimony from non ballistic experts on how impossible it is for CE 399 to end up in the condition it is. But not one "true" ballistic expert. Maybe someone who is called a "ballistic expert". But not a true one. Not one who makes extensive tests firing into ballistic gel targets. Or who has been called upon to give expert ballistic testimony in criminal trials.
Oh Dear!
It is difficult to imagine who such "proof" could ever be provided for any bullet. Maybe a bullet fragment, using recent DNA technology. Although even that could be faked.
I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.
As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.
Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.
Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?
You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.
Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?
The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.
Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.
And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.
Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), SPersonivan's estimates.
By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry SPersonivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.
Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths". But SPersonivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are SPersonivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.
Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.
The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.
If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.
I don't believe in a large secret conspiracy, whatever that is supposed to mean.
It’s the only alternative that Joe can think of to the WC fiction.
I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.The point was that none of the bullets fired looked like CE399. Clearly CE399 was the most damaged bullet fired into and retrieved from a swimming pool, otherwise it would have been smashed and covered with DNA.
As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.You sound like a defense lawyer trying to discredit testimony you don't like.
Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.
Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?
You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.
Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?Let's go with the WCR:
The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.Clothes, skin and muscle do not appreciably slow down or deflect a full metal jacketed bullet shot with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.Impossible. If JFK's backwound is connected to the throat wound, as you claim, then the bullet must pass thru bone.
Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before.If the exit wound was a small hole in JFK's throat, the magic bullet wasn't tumbling as it struck Connally's 5th rib since there wasn't enough distance between JFK and Connally to tumble.
Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.A tumbling bullet's cross section has nothing to do with deacceleration over such a short distance.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.The MB's trajectory from the TSBD goes thru JFK's T1 vertebrae yet exited cleanly thru a small hole in the throat in pristine condition. This meant it wasn't tumbling when it exited JFK and had not smashed thru bone. This irreconcilable contradiction is compounded by the MB continuing to smash thru Connally's 5th rib then into his wrist bone and was found on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition. You do the math counsellor.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.
And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.
Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), SPersonivan's estimates.
By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry SPersonivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.
Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths". But SPersonivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are SPersonivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.You can convince yourself that the MB was impossible using some photogrammetry and a simple reenactment:
Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.Skeptics yes, scoftics no. But what you scoftics fail to explain are all the inconsistencies and contradictions associated with the LN hypothesis, which is a house of cards that toppled long ago. Nothing but endless excuse making remains from the diehard LNers. However, it is the LN hypothesis that is the nutbar conspiracy theory. It only takes 1 inescapable fact supporting a conspiracy that destroys decades of LN apologizing and excuse making. If you reenact the MB with 2 lasers, you can only come to 1 conclusion. But it appears the truth isn't what LNers are looking for.
The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.
If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.
Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:
The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election
and yes, the:
U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.
This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.
Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.
Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:
The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election
and yes, the:
U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.
This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.
Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.
I see you added this to your post after I answered it. So, I'll reply to it now.
Freemasons do exist (don't ask me how I know, but I do) but I am clueless about what kind of conspiracy you are talking about involving them.
I am not only skeptical about;
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election
I just don't believe any of those conspiracy theories nor do I believe the world is flat.
That only leaves the JFK case and there I am also skeptical, but mainly about the offical narrative. I do think it's possible there was a conspiracy but if there was one, it wasn't a "Large-Secret-Enduring" one. In fact most of the evidence for such a conspiracy is IMO buried in the official narrative and the records at the National Archives. It's all a matter of interpretation.
The best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible. It's very possible that's exactly what happened here.
Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?
1. Luke Haag
2. Michael G. Haag
a website about him is at:
https://forensicfirearms.com/
Below is an interview of Luke and Michael Haag:
3. Larry SPersonivanSince when do you have to be a ballistics expert to determine if a bullet could have caused all the wounds. Seems more a question for a medical examiner to answer, which is of course why Specter asked Humes.
No, it's a question for a ballistic expert. Only a true ballistic expert can determine what shape a bullet may end up in after causing a certain number of wounds.I'm not sure who you are talking about. And what do you mean by a "true ballistic expert"? Could that be one who says what you want to hear? It sure looks that way!
I will go over this, one more time.
The type of ballistic expert I'm talking about is:
1. Some one who does real world testing shooting at ballistic gel targets.
Only in that way can one have a hope of recreating a shot. Firing into animals is not too good, because you can't see through their bodies. It's hard to tell if any bones were hit.
I is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.
From 63 yards away shoot through:
a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block
Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.
This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.
I would like a ballistic expert to have extensive experience with these types of expertiments.
2. Has testified in criminal cases as a ballistic expert. Which shows that his knowledge is considered by the legal profession to be very high.
These are the ideal qualifications. Luke and Michael Haag meet both conditions. Larry SPersonivan meets qualification 1 but not 2, as far as I know.
I am not really interested in what you think or believe you know. Dolce is on video saying that he was given the original rifle and 100 bullets to conduct tests. Hear and see the man say it himself at 42.34.
I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case. I was under the impression the rifle was not fired too many times. But it doesn't matter if the rifle was fired one hundred times, or one thousand times, or ten thousand times. Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones. No one denies this will greatly deform the bullet. The question is "What happens if the bullet is first slowed by something else, like JFK's neck?".
No where does Dolce say that he tried to account for this. No where does Dolce indicates that he is even aware of this problem, and needs to slow down the bullet to better replicate the Single Bullet Theory. You need to first slow down the bullet some, as JFK's neck would have done. If nothing else, you can make special bullets with less of a powered charge. Anything is better than simply firing the rifle almost directly into bone.
Dolce is not the ideal choice for three reasons:
1. He works for the Army. The Army is not interested in "Who done it?". So throughout his career, he wasn't doing the sort of experiments a regular ballistic expert would do, like Luke and Michael Haag.
2. He did not work with ballistic gel, where, with each firing test, you can see the path of the bullet and see which targets (bones) the bullet hit and which it missed.
3. But for all these disadvantages, it could have occurred to him that he needs to slow the bullet, as the 63 yards to the target, and the path through JFK's neck, would have done, before hitting a dead animals rib cage. But this never seems to have occurred to him. His biggest weakest, in my opinion, is that he did not think things through.
And yet, Dolce was the man picked by the WC to do the tests. Your argument that he did not have experience in criminal cases is invalid. Dolce saw plenty of gunshot wounds in WW2 and there is no difference whatsoever between a bullet striking a man in combat or a bullet striking a man during a crime. Dolce got the details exactly right, but they just were not what Arlen Specter wanted to hear, which is why Dolce's testimony and report were left out of the WC report.
This is an irrelevant question. I don't know enough about Dolce to say if he was ever called as an expert in a criminal proceeding. He was in the miitary and may well not have been allowed to be involved in crimimal cases. The bottom line is that the WC called upon him to do the work, which is exactly what he did. You second guessing his procedures is of no importance.
The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.
Indeed. He seems to think that in a conspiracy every individual player needs to be a willing participant who knows the entire plan and goes along with it.
Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.
Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?
1. Luke Haag
2. Michael G. Haag
a website about him is at:
https://forensicfirearms.com/
Below is an interview of Luke and Michael Haag:
3. Larry SPersonivan
I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case. I was under the impression the rifle was not fired too many times. But it doesn't matter if the rifle was fired one hundred times, or one thousand times, or ten thousand times. Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones. No one denies this will greatly deform the bullet. The question is "What happens if the bullet is first slowed by something else, like JFK's neck?".
No where does Dolce say that he tried to account for this. No where does Dolce indicates that he is even aware of this problem, and needs to slow down the bullet to better replicate the Single Bullet Theory. You need to first slow down the bullet some, as JFK's neck would have done. If nothing else, you can make special bullets with less of a powered charge. Anything is better than simply firing the rifle almost directly into bone.
Dolce is not the ideal choice for three reasons:
1. He works for the Army. The Army is not interested in "Who done it?". So throughout his career, he wasn't doing the sort of experiments a regular ballistic expert would do, like Luke and Michael Haag.
2. He did not work with ballistic gel, where, with each firing test, you can see the path of the bullet and see which targets (bones) the bullet hit and which it missed.
3. But for all these disadvantages, it could have occurred to him that he needs to slow the bullet, as the 63 yards to the target, and the path through JFK's neck, would have done, before hitting a dead animals rib cage. But this never seems to have occurred to him. His biggest weakest, in my opinion, is that he did not think things through.
Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.
You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;
I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.
So, let's have a look at another, recent, video
I don't think he is a ballistics expert but,
as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.
Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.
The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.
Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!
I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.
Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?
Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.
"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!
For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.
Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.
The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.
And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?
Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?
You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.
His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.
Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?
No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.
The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".
The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.
This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.
To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.
Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry SPersonivan's book "The JFK Myths".
Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.
I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.
Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.
To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.
An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.
An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.
You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.
Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?
An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.
What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?
You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".
And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will
Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.
Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.
That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.
Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.
So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!
It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.
I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.
Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.
/quote]
Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm
??? 1.5 cm X 10 = 15.0 mm .6 cm X 10 = 6mm
A mannlicher catcano projectile is ----6.5mm in diameter and 30.5mm long
Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.
And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.
I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:
Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.
"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.
"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.
I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.
But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.
We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.
If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?
In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.
The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.
Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.
Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.
No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.
You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".
Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".
Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.
Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.
It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.
Willy,
“You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.”
On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. For example, see the last paragraph here which says, “The comparative sizes of the entrance and exit wound, the amount of bone damage and the lack of bullet deformation [in CE 399] all indicate that the wrist was struck by a tumbling bullet traveling at a reduced velocity”:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=6
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.
Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.
WILLY WHITTEN
APRIL 4, 2015 AT 2:09 PM
“I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.”~Jean
Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission. He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted.
. . . .
“Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.”
Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood.
Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.
The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
...
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.
On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
...
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.
Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:
https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/
So, it appears the bullets were
On Dr. Dolce:
So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.
Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?
That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".
That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?
When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?
Btw both bullets went through the "head"
Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.
Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.
I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.
It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.
Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?
Not the way it works in the real world. When you make a claim you need to provide the evidence for it. Even if nobody can prove you're wrong that still doesn't mean you are right. So, instead of pulling the same old "prove me wrong" LN crap, why don't you provide the evidence that Davison was right.
In the meantime, this might be useful.
https://palmbeachpost.newspapers.com/clip/86888004/joseph-dolce-2/
Irrelevant. We don't know WCC/MC bullets fragment in human heads when striking at a high speed (>= 1900 fps) just from the fragments found in the limousine. Let's ignore that evidence.
We know this just from ballistic tests. If a WCC/MC strikes bone at speeds at or over 1900 fps, it will fragment. Indeed, if it strikes any material with a density twice that of water, it will fragment.
And yet, a WCC/MC bullet, in the video, struck the Ballistic Dummy Labs "skull" and did not fragment.
The obvious explanation? The "bone" in these Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" do not have twice the density of water. Hence, they do not cause WCC/MC bullets to fragment. Hence, they are not very good models for a real human head. Regardless of what a Ballistic Dummy Labs sales brochures may say.
If you can find definitive information that shows differently, that Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" are good models of a human head, that the "bone" in these models have twice the density of water, just like human bones, let's hear it. Find us something on the Ballistic Dummy Labs website, or from some other source.
Now, let's test your knowledge of ballistics:
Question:
What is the highest velocity a WCC/MC bullet will NOT start to deform (the first stage of fragmentation) upon first striking human bone?
* 2000 fps ?
* 1500 fps ?
* 1000 fps ?
* 500 fps ?
* 0 fps, because a WCC/MC bullet will always fragment upon striking bone regardless of the speed?
If you don't know, then stop questioning the judgment of people like Larry SPersonivan who do know, from the systematic ballistic experiments they have run using WCC/MC bullets.
That is the source of my information. If you think his information is no good, then who does have this information?
Evidence? I suppose none. Since the Edgewood people did not record their experiments on film.
But we have various people, like Jean Davison, who claim the Edgewood people fired their rifles directly into "torsos" and "wrists". And none who say otherwise.
And we have experiments conducted by Luke and Michael Haag, and other experiments involving Larry SPersonivan show, time and time again, that WCC bullets fired directly into bones do fragment (like in the Edgewood experiments), but the same bullets slowed down, just a modest amount, like by six inches of ballistic gel, do not fragment nor become greatly deformed. Much like CE-399.
So, we don't have to rely on the Edgewood experiment, which I think is flawed because the bullets were fired directly into the targets, and which you think is flawed (if you are rational) because you basically say we don't know if the rifles were fired directly fired into the targets, or the bullets were first slowed down some how.
We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film, like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want. So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets, but the details on those experiments are disputed, but seem to be that the rifles were fired directly into the targets, making them invalid for judging if CE-399 is valid evidence.
This is helpful. It conforms that Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor. Not a real ballistic expert.
I think the confusion comes form the term "ballistic expert" There are two types of "ballistic experts".
1. Medical doctors. Who determine what a bullet can do to a human body.
2. Real Ballistic Experts. Who determine what a human body can do to a bullet.
Dr. Dolce's opinion on the SBT was based on the condition of CE-399. He didn't think the human body can do this to a WCC/MCbullet.
This opinion is totally out his field of expertise. It would be as if Dr. Dolce determined that a murder victim died from an excessive loss of blood and Ballistic Expert Luke Haag, said no, the victim died from shock.
To answer your question; I don't know because, just like you, I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be one. And when did I question the judgment of Larry SPersonivan? Never! I don't know the man or his background and I haven't read his book, so what is there for me to question. What I do question is your ability to understand this stuff and reach sound conclusions. Just reading his book somehow makes you an expert? Really? Pathetic.
You can make the same criticism about anyone who posts here. Like, one can say:
"Reading the Warren Report, or the Edgewood Report, or the Autopsy Reports, is that supposed to make you can expert?"
No, I am not an expert. But I do choose quality sources. Dr. Joseph Dolce is not a bad source because he thinks CE-399 thinks it could not have caused the wounds. He is a bad source because he was not a ballistic expert. He was a medical doctor, who worked with the Edgewood Arsenal. But not a ballistic expert. His opinion on CE-399 was no more valid that that of a janitor who worked at the facility.
On the question of "Could CE-399" have wounded JFK and Connally, you need to access real ballistic experts. You need to answer basic questions, like "What is the minimum velocity needed to deform a WCC/MC?" If you don't know it's 1400 to 1700 fps, it's real hard to say. You're just guessing, like Dr. Dolce. You don't need to become an expert, but you should at least read books or reports from real ballistic experts. But you have no need to do that. You think you already know.
A medical doctor (Dr. Joseph Dolce), who was a consultant with the Edgewood Arsenal, is not a ballistic expert. An expert is one who conducts scientific tests, with WCC/MC bullets, to learn what can and cannot happen to bullets. And does so in an appropriate way, like test the SBT by including a "neck" in the bullet path to account for the effects of JFK's neck on a bullet.
Question:
Why can't you find a real ballistic expert who disputes CE-399?
You can make the same criticism about anyone who posts here. Like, one can say:
"Reading the Warren Report, or the Edgewood Report, or the Autopsy Reports, is that supposed to make you can expert?"
And just because nobody said otherwise, that makes it true? Really? Let me ask you this; if the Edgewood team didn't record their experiments on film, how did Jean Davison (and others) know what they did or did not do?
We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film,
Really? Just not on the experiments recorded on video by a guy who fired through a skull and into water bottles, right? You keep saying that the Edgewood experiment is flawed but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for that claim.
like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want.
Where did I say any of this. I have been aware of the conclusions of Haag for some time. It's nothing new. In fact, it's just one opinion that means very little unless they used actual human bone. Because that needs to be used to get the right results, right? Well, did they?
So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets,
Did I say that? Where exactly? All I said is what Dolce said on video. But, let's stay accurate; it resulted in 100 greatly deformed bullets! Not a single bullet came even close to looking like CE399.
but the details on those experiments are disputed,
Only by people like yourself, who don't like the result.
You sound like Trump saying that he 2020 elections result is disputed, when in fact he is the only one doing the disputing.
CE 399 is still in John Connallys left thigh because as far as we know what's left of CE 399 was never removed from Connallys thigh . the conundrum of CE 399 is that there can't be " 2 " CE 399 bullets . Dr. Shaw at a press conference said that the bullet was still in John Connallys left thigh and would be removed later . We know there were some fragments in the wrist and of course the bullet broke ribs but it was still said that CE 399 was not damaged enough to have caused all this damage . Let's be honest , we have not seen the bullet that ended up in Connallys thigh because the bullet went with Connally to his grave .
The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet.
The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg.
Wow. Connally was involved in the ultimate coverup. Keeping one of the bullets covered up by his flesh.
The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg. That would be malpractice. They said that X-rays showed some small fragments of a bullet still in his thigh, As I recall, some fragments, from the wrist and/or thigh were removed but not all. Removing all fragments might not be worth it for a patient. But an entire bullet will be removed, except in rare exceptions, like a bullet lodged in a critical area of the brain.
Now, let's see if I have this straight. The CT side is that one bullet was planted. Another bullet came out of Connally, fell to the floor, and was put in the pocket of a nurse. And another bullet remained in his thigh for the rest of his life.
The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.
We cannot rely on films by amateurs, using models which we have no idea replicate the same effects on bullets that real bullets. We cannot judge by the name of the company "Ballistic Dummy Lab" or a slick sales website with unsupported claims "The Most Realistic Ballistic Dummies on the Planet". Anyone can make that claim. Where do they specify the density of the "soft tissue" inside the dummies? Where do the specify the density of the "bone" inside the dummies? One needs to know this information before one can judge how realistic these dummies really are.
If these really are realistic dummies, then CTers have really been missing a trick. All they have to do is to point out that WCC/MC bullets do not fragment upon being fired into human heads. Not even at close range. That would disprove the claim of the Warren Commission, accepted by all LNers since then, and also by all or almost all CTers since then.
Question: If what you say is true, why don't CTers claim that WCC/MC bullets cannot fragment when fired into human heads?
Until you read a book on ballistics by a real expert, you will remain a ballistic dummy yourself. Maybe you should go work for "Ballistic Dummy Lab". You should fit in.
No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones. Human bones available for ballistic testing are in very short supply. Primarily do to questions of ethics of using human bodies, or even human bones, in ballistic tests. There is a strong feeling, not from me but from some, that using humans remains this way is an affront to human dignity.
By the way, using bones from recently deceased animals is better than using bones from humans who died a while back. Bones dry out over time and lose their density.
Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else. Yes, using real living human subjects would be the most 'scientific method', but is not an option. And even using recently deceased bodies is usually not an option either because of some ethical concerns.
My understanding is that the Edgewood tests were very limited, due to number of human cadavers available. They may have been given 100 WCC/MC bullets.
Question: Where is the evidence that they actually fired 100 WCC/MC bullets into human remains?
I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.
The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.
Looking again at the film you provided of Dr. Dolce being interviewed, he says why he believes the bullet could not have struck a wrist bone. Because the tip was undamaged. The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet. That is why the tip is undamaged but the side of the bullet is, with the sides of the bullet being deformed enough to make the cross section of the bullet no longer round.
Medical doctor Dolce should not have been looking only at the tip of the bullet, but at the sides as well. But not being a ballistic expert, he had no idea that bullets don't always travel point first.
Question: Can you give any evidence that Dr. Dolce was aware that bullets don't always travel through bodies point first?
I never heard anyone, LNer or CTer, claim the Edgewood texts did not fire bullets directly into rib cages or wrists. Not even from you. You merely imply that perhaps they were not.
Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.
It is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.
From 63 yards away shoot through:
a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block
Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.
This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.
To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.
An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.
An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.
You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.
How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?" The only person I would say for sure fits the description (at least as far as the arguments here are running) is Dr Martin L Fackler. Fackler had been a field surgeon in Da Nang during the Vietnam war, then spent the next 20 or so years investigating what they euphamistically call "terminal ballistics." He was insterested in the treatment of GSWs, but also spent considerably amoundsa of time looking at how bullet design, construction, materials, and velocity affected deformation and wounding potential. He ultimately wanted to start a better conversation between weapons designers and physicians regarding what would be done to make weapons less needlessly mangle-y while preserving their effectiveness, He thought there was room for imprtovement. He also came to the conclusion that surgeons overtreated gunshot wounds. Also, he found that the NATO standard 20% gelatine solution did a poor job of simulating tissue, and advocated 10%-15% concentration as a replacement.
As for Dolce, whether or not he falls under anyone's definition of above, he was ignornant of a number of important points. For instance, Dolce wrote that Dr Charles Gregory "has no wound ballistic experience." This isn't true. Gregory was had been presented with "the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School" Not only that, but he'd also "covered a tour of duty in the, Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division" Gregory estimated that he'd "dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds." So Gregory's experience with GSWs, including those caused by military rifles, was considerable.
In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.
And, as Jean Hill, I and several other people have pointed out over the years, it is important to look at the x-rays of the target wrists as well as photos of the bullets. Connally's radius was badly fractured, but into relatively large pieces with a negligible amount of missibng bone. But the x-rays of the wrist tests sho that the target radii were essentially pulverized, with most of the bone around the impact site ocmpletly missing. Gregory pointed out that, had he been faced with an injury like the ones from the cadaver wrist tests, he would have been forced to amputate Connally's forearm. Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.
How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?"Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.
Ask Joe Elliot, as he seems to be desperate to make a distinction.
In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al,Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward in his WC testimony.
From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.
In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.
So this is merely a disagreement about where the bullet entered and left Connally's arm? How is that in anyway significant for the shape of the bullet and the damage to it? During his testimony Gregory was asked if the bullet could have hit the wrist bone and come out lokking as CE399 and although he gave a long winded reply he never really answered the question.
Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.
Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.
As court cases all over the country demonstrate over and over again, experts will differ in opinions, depending for what side they testify for. That's why I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong or more qualified or not (as Joe seems to be) but instead I wonder why Specter would bury a report by ballistics experts his own commission had appointed. There can only be one explanation and that is that the report said what he didn't want to hear, because it would destroy his pet single bullet theory. And that - and a whole lot more - tells me all I need to know about the real objective of the Warren Commission.
Note: I went back and fixed a lot of spelling, grammar and style issues in the post that Martin replied to, but after Martin responded. None of my arguments changed, however. In this reply, I will not correct the parts of the unedited post that Martin replies to.
Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.
Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward in his WC testimony.
I didn't say that Dolce only objected to Oliver's acceptance of Gregory's explanation of the wound. I bought it up because it particularly illuminates the ignorance underlying Dolce's objections. He didn't bother to understand Gregory's diagnosis of the wrist wound, and did not understand that Gregory's qualifications in GSW ballistics were comparable to his own.
Further, Dolce assumed that the wrist tests his team performed by his team were applicable for all cases of a 6.5mm WCC 6.5mm bullet striking a radius. That's a gigantic assumption. The reality is, his tests turned out to be irrelevant to the case at hand (pun intended, in case you were wondering).
You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it. I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed. You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.
“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.” — Dr. Robert Shaw.
Why would Shaw report the existence of a bullet that he “couldn’t possibly know” about?
Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.
Dolce and his team were hired by the WC. Should I perhaps assume that the WC didn't know what they were doing?
[...]
You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it.
Again, did the WC not know what they were doing when they hired Dolce?
Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward in his WC testimony.1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.
Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.
Btw, this exchange was based upon a lie, because earlier in the testimony Specter said this;
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally
which was simply not true. CE399 was introduced during Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it was the bullet found at Parkland. That proof was never provided!
But let me ask you this; if what Olivier testified was the same as is in the report, why did Specter bury the report? There is no mention of it in the entire WC report!
I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed.I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.
Your biased opinion isn't worth much.
You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.
What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website. I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it! Your dishonesty is on full display here when you want me to to demonstrate that a report was generated by Edgewood when, in the same posts, you falsely claim that Olivier testified the same conclusions as were in the report!
As for the WC suppressing it; Specter made no reference to the report during the testimony of Olivier and Dziemian although he slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report. Now, why would Specter not use the report during the testimony of Olivier, when he - as you falsely claim - put forward the same conclusions that are in the report?
The report concluded that it was possible that Connally was hit by the same shot that hit Kennedy in neck but that it could also have been a separate shot. Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men. On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.
This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.
Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.
1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.
2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland" have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.
Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?
I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.
MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website. I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!
I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.
MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.
The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing. BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?
MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.
So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.
MW: On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.
The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.
MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.
Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.
You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.
Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.
1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.
2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland" have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.
Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?
I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.
MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website. I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!
I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.
MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.
The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing. BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?
MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.
So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.
MW: On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.
The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.
MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.
Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.
You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.
Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.
Go read the operative record. The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.
That doesn’t demonstrate that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” about a bullet in Connally’s leg.
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.
Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.
Go read the operative record. The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.
It demonstrates that your point (posting the footage of Shaw's press conference after performing surgery to Connally's chest) is moot.
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.
What makes you say that it was an assumption?
Not moot at all. It’s a contemporary report of a bullet being in Connally’s leg.
Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision.
"It would appear?
I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD,
"I suspect"?
When you know for sure, get back to me... I couldn't care less how something appears to you or what you suspect.
the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier,
Did they? Did you check the record and the correspondence on the subject? I doubt it! But cite please...
I've already laid out the reasons why one thing "would appear" a certain way and why I "suspect" another thing to be so. It appears that you can't engage with the arguments I made, and I suspect you would never be able to in any case. All you are able to do now is push some lame sematic jabs that look more like sour grapes than an attempt to rebut what I've said.
Your can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.
So, you can not support your claims (regardless how you describe them) that Dolce was "simply a consultant" and "working under Olivier's supervision" and that the "WC engaged Edgewood via Olivier".
Got it!.
You may want to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support, but don't expect me to play along.
The current kerfluffle began when you decided, for reasons known to only you and God, to presume that:
1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964
2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition
3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT
4.) So Specter suppressed it somehow
But you have been unable to provide a single shred of evidence that your presumptionare anything but your own presumptions. Just a few spastic stabs of wharrrrgarbl that mean nothing.
Yet you chide me for "want[ing] to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support.
Well, ain't that rich!!
Was Dolce "simply a consultant?" Yes! He said so himself: "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics." A "chief consultant" is still a consultant. Again, Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Comparing the two titles, it's not hard to figure out who is the bigger dog in the pack here, even if we don't have the org chart in front of us. Further, as I've already noted, Dolce's own statements deal almost exclusively with the wrist tests, but not the skull, goat meat, or goat rib tests. This strongly implies unfamiliarity with these other tests, which in turn indicates that he wasn't involved in these tests, just the cadaver wrist ones.
Now, your evidence to support the notion that Dolce was anything other than a "consultant" to Olivier who was only involved in the wrist tests is.......?
But Shaw didn’t say in this contemporary clip that there was a wound that he didn’t examine and so he was presuming (based on what?) that a bullet was still in the leg. He said a bullet was still in the leg. That specific information would have come from somewhere specific to be so specific.
Besides, this whole “he didn’t actually inspect the wound” thing is a convenient argument given that all the subsequent medical “investigations” of Kennedy’s wounds were done by people who never examined the actual body.
So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?
The subsequent medical investigations had plenty of x-rays and photographs to work with.
In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found.
1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964
Where did I say that?
2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition
Where did I say that?
All I can say is that Dolce and his team were hired by the WC to do the tests and when the WC got their report they buried it and Dolce's testimony
What is absolutely true is that Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before anybody testified. Dolce was questioned by Specter on April 21st, 1964. One can only wonder why Specter talked to Dolce on that day, if he was merely a consultant. Also, during that conversation, at least some of the test results must have been known, don't you think? Otherwise they would have had nothing to talk about, right? According to Dolce, it was only after this meeting that Specter decided not to call him to testify and turned to Olivier and Dziemian. Again, one can only wonder why!
3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT
Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,
CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!
Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.
In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.
he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.
That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;
In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;
Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.
and
Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."
What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?
Btw, I don't think the date of March 1965 on the report is of major significance. Although I can not explain why that date is there to begin with, the actual report states that the work was started in April 1964 and ended in October 1964. But more importantly, I found two other Edgewood reports that are similar. One was written by Dr. Light and covered work started in March 1951 and completed in January 1961. The date on that report was September 1965 and December 1965 respectively. The other report was written by Janice Mendelson and dated August 1966. Her report states that the actual work was done between July 1963 and October 1965.
MT: So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?
I didn’t say it does.
How does his later testimony show that his 11/22 statement was merely an assumption?I've already said it: "[Shaw] admitted that he 'didn't examine [the thigh wound] that closely, except for its general location.'"
MT: In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found.
True — at least the ones that were given to them.
It could have been the bullet that Connally said hit the floor before Gregory’s surgery and subsequently “disappeared”.
That is exactly what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want to admit it or not.
If Shaw didn't examine the wound other than noting its location, then he could not have known whether or not a bullet was still in the thigh.
This has pretty much been the whole thrust of your arguments regarding Dolce. This is the most succinct statement of your scenario:
You might want to quibble as to how exact my characterization of your position is, but is essentially correct.
This is just a big chunk of presumption glued together by misapprehension.
Dolce said that "I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connally, his wife and his doctors." He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in. In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.
Table B1 in the Edgewood report shows that the firing tests commenced on April 27, 1964 and continued through May 11. In other words, when Dolce walked into the VA Building, none of the testing had even begun. This strengthens the idea that Dolce was there only to collect information that would be used to determine what sort of tests would be run. And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.
In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.
he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.
That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;
This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Specter's question encompasses both the case where the bullet passes through both JFK and Connally and the case where the bullet passes through just Connally. The degree of vagueness within the question may well have been by design, but it's still there. And again, there is no contradiction as to what Olivier testifies to and what is in the Edgewood report. Specter gets Dziemian to go a little further, but not much. The best Dr D can do is say that the "probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet," which is one of the two scenarios put forward in the report. Still he doesn't actually commit to that particular scenario. Dziemian's answer thus also does not contradict the Edgewood report's conclusions.
Again, the report itself notes that the shooting didn't begin until April 27, 1964, six days after Dolce met the Connallys. This fact alone demolishes the idea that Dolce went into the VA Building on the 21st with any conclusions.
You don’t get to decide what I’m arguing.
Just because there wasn’t a bullet in Connally’s leg at the time of his surgery doesn’t mean that there was no bullet in his leg at the time of Shaw’s comment.
That all depends on what the basis for his statement was. It’s a definitive statement, and you don’t have any more insight about it than anybody else.
If only you would decide what you are arguing....
Which statement is "definitive"?
Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?
He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in
Who said anything about Dolce testifying?
In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.Again, Dolce wrote:
Sounds like?
And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.
Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?
You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.
If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.
In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;
Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.
which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.
So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?
So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?
And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?
MT: Which statement is "definitive"?
“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”
"I didn't examine the wound of the thigh" and "I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location" are just as definitive as “The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”
You have previously said:
"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"
That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.
And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."
Again, Dolce wrote:
I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.
Reviewing X-rays is gathering information.
Reviewing the Zapruder film is gathering information.
Listening to Connally talk about his injuries is gathering information.
And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?
Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?
Again, you did. You have previously said:
"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"
That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.
And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."
It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.
I keep ignoring it because it's an inchoate red herring. You have yet to show how any of this changes the current conversation. Let's go back to what you've previously written that forms the point of departure for the current entanglement as a refresher:
MW: From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.
[...]
MW: Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.
[...]
MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?
[...]
MW: I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.
But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington. Nor did Olivier and Dzeimian issue testimony contradicted by the report they wrote. Dolce's beef with the Edgewood report is based solely on Dolce's own interpretation of the wrist tests and only the wrist tests. This whole angle that you've pursued is so full of errors that you might as well just abandon it.
I always said it was the actual report. I also noted that the report is dated March 1965, and details a set of tests that were performed between April 27, 1964 and May 11 1964. That is, tests that did not begin until several after Dolce's encounter in the VA Building. You have yourself noted that the report is base on work that began in April and concluded in October. Therefore, the earliest the report would have been issued is still a month after the WCR has been published.
Let's go back to Dolce's letter:
I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.
If Dolce was talking to Connally, then he definitely met with Connally, ipso facto. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?
Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive.
“Definitive” is a tag that’s appropriate. He didn’t qualify his 11/22 statement in any way. The info came from somewhere, even if it was secondhand. If direct examination is necessary for knowledge, then we can throw out the single-bullet fantasy along with mostly everything else about the wounds.
And yet his words are light years more authoritative than Mitch Todd’s desperate attempt to make them mean something other than what he said.I never said that anything he said meant anything other than what he said. Including the part where he said he didn't examine the thigh wound beyond noting where it was, and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh. You seem to skip that part for some strange reason.
This is something other than what he said:The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll.
"and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh"
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll.
Anyway, if you want to assert that Shaw heard it from some other source, you need to provide evidence for such a thing. So far, we ain't even heard crickets from you regarding this.
That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.
Do you even believe this BS yourself?
And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."
Meaningless. The person who wrote the obituary may simply have used a poor choice of words.
And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?
Where did I say I think that?
Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?
Dolce didn't say, so how would I know? Are you now going to say that just because Dolce did not say, it didn't happen?
But it seems to be a license for you to foolishly call talking to investigators testifying.
Your selectively quoting from what I have written doesn't alter the fact that I actually did make my point and you just prefer to ignore it and misrepresent it by focusing on other parts of what I said.
But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report.
Where did I say he did?
The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington.
So what? There may well have been preliminary drafts that were available earlier. Olivier, Dziemian and Light all testified on May 6, 1964. How could they do that if there were no test results known?
And nobody said that Specter decided not to call Dolce on April 21, 1964. Dolce merely stated that he wasn't called to testify. There is no information about when exactly Specter made that decision.
So, how did the report end up in the Warren Commission's archive and as classified document in the National Archive?
Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.
This is really where you want to go?
So, by this same logic, we can't rely anything the WC concluded based on one source, without corroboration, or no source at all?
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.
Fair enough. But you cannot know if a person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional even if he did claim to see the bullet for himself. Or all the people who made conclusions about JFK’s wounds (like Specter) without seeing them themselves. So you’re special-pleading again.What I did is simply mirror the solipsistic benders you revert to after you've run out of arguments.
Shaw said what he said. If you don’t know the basis, then you don’t know the basis. Period. You don’t get to demand evidence for a claim I didn’t make while offering none for the claim you did make.
And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"
If he appeared before Specter on April 21 bearing the the Edgewood report, or at least results of the firing tests (a position you've already expressed), and Dolce explained what he thought happened, it would falls under either definition. Dolce himself complained that he wasn't allowed to give "final testimony." Dolce's use of the term "final testimony" implies that he thought he had given testimony of some sort at some point prior to Olivier's deposition.
It was a rhetorical question, Martin.
My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.
The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.
You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests. Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report. In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands. And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report. You then shifted gears, and made a fuss about Specter bringing up CE399, but that's a side issue with respect whether Olivier's testimony contradicted the Edgewood report. You then tried to push some argument about how the WCR was worded, but that doesn't change the Edgewood report or what Olivier testified to. It's just a red herring.
Earlier in this conversation;
MT :But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. [/b]
MW : Where did I say he did?
Now;
MT : Right here:
MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC?
Also,
That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.
Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.
The shooting tests weren't complete until May 11. If Olivier testified on May 6, it's really hard to believe that something that could reasonably be called a "draft report" would have existed on the 6th. Olivier did bring photos and some of the test bullets and some x-rays. At one point he says he has to refer to his notes. He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.
I never claimed that Specter made a decision on the 21st to not have Dolce testify. But in the scenario you presented, that is when Dolce shows up to the VA building and delivers a Person to Specter's punchbowl, which you claim is why Specter didn't call Dolce to testify.
Because it was a document that was generated because of the Commission. However, that doesn't prove when it was created.
3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT
Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,
CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!
Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.
In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.
he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.
That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;
In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;
Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.
and
Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."
What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"
BS. Testimony is taken under oath
But don't take my word for it;
Cornell law school
Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures. According to Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, testimony taking should be conducted in an open court unless other federal rules apply, like the Federal Rules of Evidence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony#:~:text=Testimony%20is%20oral%20or%20written,trial%20or%20other%20legal%20procedures.
Law insider
Testimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.
I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.
BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?
I'm going to split this out, because it's kind of a pointless distraction at this point. However:
I actually did kinda do a wee little messup, but not in the way that you think. Let's go to the replay official for how his subthread got to this point.
This is the statement of mine that you originally objected to, and your response:
MW: [Dolce] didn't say that he testified at this meeting.
MT: That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.
MW: BS
And, at this very moment, I did a boo-boo:
MT: The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"
I should have said "testify" here, as I did in the original in reply to your own use of "testify". And the two definitions I gave you are from the entry for "testify" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From M-W.
Testify:
intransitive verb:
1: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court)
2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
2b: to serve as evidence or proof
3: to express a personal conviction
transitive verb
1a: to bear witness to : ATTEST
1b: to serve as evidence of : PROVE
2: to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body
So far as concerns the word we were really arguing about, ie, testimony, I am still correct.
For that matter, Merriam-Webster defines Testimony as:
1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
1c: an outward sign
2a: an open acknowledgment
2b: a public profession of religious experience
3 [these are entirely religious references, and couldn't be here because it's Friday, and the sun already set, so they can't perform any labor]
Even the definition of "testimony" here is not exclusively province of a legal matter. So I am correct with "testimony" as well. Why you resorted to using legal dictionaries is a mystery. After all, Dr Dolce was not a lawyer, Dr Olivier was not a lawyer, Dr Dzeimian was not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, either. The only person lawyer I can think of in this tawdry little drama is Arlen Specter, and you don't believe anything he says.
And again, Dolce said he wasn't asked to give "final testimony" which implies that he thought he did testify in some manner at some point prior.
Translation: “my assumptions are automatically correct, and I’m going to project them to “anyone”, because of my narcissism”.
You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.
Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not? Thumb1:
As for assumptions:
It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.
It's not an assumption to point out that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.
It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound
It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.
Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth. Mr Logic strikes again!
MT:It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.You completely failed to mention exactly what assumptions you thought I was making, so I worked with what I had.
It's not an assumption to point out that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.
It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound
It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.
Nor did I say they were. Speaking of strawmen…
Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.
MT: Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
No, the only assumption required is that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
But the key point is that I don’t claim to know which alternative is true. You do.
JI: And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.
MT: BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?
JI: You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.
MT: Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth
No, Einstein. My response to Bill was my response to Bill. It’s not all about you, narcissist. Maybe if you didn't jump in to try to be his proxy you would have realized that.
Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.
Plus, if Shaw is incorrect, it's easy to explain why. He saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh. It's a simple and quite reasonable explanation, and requires minimal additional assumptions.
If your response to Bill was your response to Bill and only your response to Bill, then why add the quote from your response to Bill when you responded to something that I wrote? Also, you quoted something I said in the same paragraph, but without doing anything to disambiguate the two. That's a curious way to behave.
And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report.
BS. The report, co-written by Olivier, did not confirm CE399 as the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. In fact it leaves open the possibility that there were two seperate shots.
In his testimony, however, Olivier stated that CE399 was, in his opinion, the bullet that caused all the wounds in Kennedy and Connally, except for Kennedy's headwound.
If you don't see the contradiction there, you are either blind or utterly dishonest.
MT: Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.
Bull. Those things occurred at different times.
That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify.
I think my error was in assuming that you would actually read the previous comments in the thread before chiming in.
Wow, in one post from "I made a mistake and used the wrong word" to "I am still correct", while completely ignoring that testimony is given under oath. Hilarious.
So desperate to twist and turn in any possible way to "win" an argument. It's pathetic and sad. Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not?
The bottom line is a simple one; if you tell 100 people that you have testified there won't be anybody who thinks you possibly did so somewhere else but in court and under oath.
Your claim that Dolce testified simply because he had a conversation (that was not recorded in any way) with Specter and his team is simply not true, no matter how many times you say it is.
MT: ["And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?"] was a rhetorical question, Martin.
Yeah, sure...
MT: My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.
Another selfserving opinion.
You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests.
Lie number 1: I never said anything like that
In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands.
Lie number 2: I never said that Dolce had testing results "in his hand"
The assumptions are simultaneous, not necessarily the events they describe.
I'm unaware of any complexity or detail requirements for Occam's razor.
But there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken.
The more detailed the narrative, the greater number of assumptions there are.
If that's the story you want to advance, then it's up to you to put forth a convincing argument for it.
Yes, you certainly failed to put forth a convincing argument for Shaw's "definitive statement".
I’m not “advancing” anything. This conversation started with me saying that Bill can’t just assume that this definitive statement by Shaw was merely an assumption and nothing else, and then just state that as a fact.
When you say "there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken" you are advancing some alternative take on the evidence. Period.
There's no reason to prefer "Shaw was only assuming that a bullet was there and nothing more" to "a bullet was still in Connally's leg when Shaw made his statement". It's just the assumption you prefer to make.
Several posts back, I explained why the Shaw-assumed-the-bullet-was-still-there explanation is the best explanation of the evidence:
Of course you would think that your own conjecture is “the best”.
No, the proper word is conjecture because there is no evidence that it’s actually true.
I “put forth” an equally plausible conjecture.
You just think yours is better because it’s yours, not because there’s any objective reason to prefer it.
No, your “most likely thing that happened” has no evidence to support it and requires way more assumptions than just taking the statements at face value.
MT: I called out your unsupported assertion, "I 'put forth' an equally plausible conjecture" as such; your response is to follow up with another, equally unsubstantiated assertion
In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.
MT: I laid out my reasoning in reply #99. Actually, elsewhere as well, but #99 contains the most formal statement of it. The best you could do was claim that is was too "detailed" a "narratve" for Occam's razor to handle, an unsupported assertion (that word again) that you stopped following when challenged.
No, I said that your speculative “reason” contains more assumptions than my speculative “reason” and therefore fails Occam
Laying out the reasons for your speculation doesn’t make it anything more than speculation.
You are incorrect. This is your verbatim reply (in reply #100) to the reasoning I laid out in reply #99: "That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify."
You've never shown that your "speculative reason" required fewer assumptions than my explanation of the situation. You haven't even attempted to. You just repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over again.
The only assumption mine requires is that both Shaw and Gregory were correct at the time they made their statements.This isn't even "speculation." It's nothing more than a simple tautology. Or, really, it's another pair of your assertions bereft of evidence, deduction, or argument. Good job, Mr Logic!
Your speculation requires that Shaw "saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh."
You have to be able to explain how Shaw and Gregory (you forgot the x-rays and Shires) can both have been right. That's the point of the exercise.
Easy. The bullet was there when Shaw spoke (he didn’t say where he got the information, but he didn’t say he just assumed it), and then either fell out or was removed before the surgery.
We have Connally’s report of a bullet falling on the floor and we also have Wade saying in an interview that a nurse showed him a bullet that he told her to give to a policeman, and Bobby Nolan saying that he was handed an envelope that he was told by a nurse had a bullet in it.
In fact, it’s not necessary to assume any of those things. That’s just you inventing a contrived, complicated strawman argument in order to buttress your own argument. The only assumption required is that Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg, that was no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery. I agree that it is a mystery as to what actually occurred. Like most aspects of this case.
I didn’t “drop” anything. If Shaw didn’t examine the thigh wound then he got the information some other way. And if the thigh bullet came out or was removed, it didn’t necessarily have to happen in the OR either. I don’t know what somebody called Bob Harris postulates, nor do I particularly care. Why do you keep dragging him in as if I did? Perhaps so you can contrive more complications?For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR. If the bullet didn't come out in the OR, then it either was never removed after Shaw left or was removed during some surreptitious post-surgery surgery. Either way, you have a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy, if you want to push that idea. Which is to say, you have a lot of assumptions to generate to make everything work.
I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else.
For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.
When you say "I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else," you are trying to claim that any explanation of the evidence is equal to any other. This is simply not true, and misguided to boot.
It's the old false equivalency BS often seen hanging out with dissolute characters like creationists and "intelligent design" advocates. Is that the crowd you want to emulate?
MT: For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.
Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.
In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another.
The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.What I said is that the the better solution is the one that requires the least assumption, this time pitting Ptolemy against Kepler in a fifteen-round caged Occamian deathmatch.
What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.
If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing.
I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine
No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.Let's go back to what I said:
That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR? Nothing. So any scenario you might be dreaming of here requires a whole slew of assumptions to explain what happened, whodunnit, and why we don't know about it. in short, FAIL.
MT: I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mineIf you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR, but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over, then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence. And there isn't any evidence that it went down this way. You're left with assumption stacked upon assumption all the way down, like turtles. I'm just reminding you of this. And you don't like it one bit.
No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.
Let's go back to what I said:
For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.
This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.
What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR?
In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.
If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR,
but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,
then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence.
That's what you're doing. Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR?I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.
Why couldn't it have come out or been removed prior to Connally's presence in the OR?If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?
MT: In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.
Uh.....isn't that exactly what the narrative says was the case with CE399?
MT: If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the ORIf there was a bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR. Unless you want to argue that Shaw installed the bullet into the thigh himself, you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when the Governor was pushed into the OR, if you wan to argue that Shaw was right at the press conference. Do you not know what you've previously been arguing?
Nope, that was one of your assumptions.
MT: but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,If you assert that Shaw and Gregory were both correct, then you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when Shaw was in the OR, but had mysteriously vanished by the time Gregory had x-rays made.
That too.
Which is exactly what you did with your speculation that Shaw reported a bullet in the leg merely because he "saw one hole". There's no evidence for that.Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption. That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg. The only way this corpus of (non) statements works with Shaw's original press conference statements, the x-rays, and the testimony and interviews of Shires and Gregory is for Shaw to have been wrong about the bullet that afternoon. The simplest and most reasonable way to explain the discrepancy is to say that Shaw saw the one wound in Connally's thigh and assumed that it still had a bullet inside.
I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.
If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?
Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.
If there was a bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR.
Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption.
That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.
I didn’t say bullet wound, I said bullet.You said "Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR?" This question presupposes something that hasn't been established. I figured that you were maybe back to trying to insinuate something that you haven't been able to prove, so I stated the question in terms of what has bee established in my reply.
MT: If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginningI've been arguing from the beginning that Shaw was wrong. The assumption bit is the explanation of how he could be wrong. This is what I originally wrote:
No, you’ve been arguing that Shaw’s report of a bullet in the leg was merely an assumption.
Now, I’m not sure if you really know what you’re arguing. Why does Shaw’s bullet have to be “all the way in” (whatever that means)?
Just because Shaw mentioned the bullet after he left the OR, doesn’t mean that the bullet was still there when Shaw left the OR. Remember, he didn’t examine the wound in the OR.
It’s an assumption that this is the reason he reported that a bullet remained in Connally’s leg.It's a single assumption that neatly ties together Shaw's statement with the evidence given by Gregory, Shires, and Parkland's radiology department without requiring any additional baggage. This is something that none of the inchoate alternative explanations that you've tentatively wiggled forward can accomplish.
MT: That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.Sour grapes, Mr Iacoletti. Sour grapes that do not change the lack of any subsequent attempt by Shaw to defend his press conference statement.
You know what else he never claimed in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63? That he had reported a bullet remaining in the governors leg merely on the basis that he saw a single hole.
Shaw did not treat the wound. Shaw never even claimed that he really examined the wound.
. . .
He *did* examine the wound in the OR
You don't know what "all the way in" means? My my!
In this case, it means that the bullet is embedded completely within the body. Had part of it been sticking out, Shaw (and/or someone else) would have said so at some point.
He *did* examine the wound in the OR. He testified that when he was in TR2, he "observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound."
Make up your mind. Did he examine the wound or not?As far as Shaw was concerned, he examined it, just superficially: "No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location."
Funny....nobody ever said that they saw part of CE399 "sticking out" at some point. Apparently this is only a requirement for Shaw's bullet.
He's talking about the chest wound there.More than that:
The bit about Shaw assuming that a bullet was still in the thigh takes up all of one sentence in three paragraphs. The rest explains that Shaw wasn't in position to actually know if there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh, and that Shires and the x-rays tell a different story than what we got from Shaw's press conference.I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.
I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.
In my view, the most significant issue is the location of the metal piece that remained in the thigh.
Dr. Gregory thought the metal piece appeared just below the skin but it is not clear what he based that on.
Dr. Shires had debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. This involved cleaning the wound and removing dead tissue. I am not sure why he would be removing dead tissue down as far as the femur unless the bullet had travelled that far.
Dr. Shires always maintained that the metal piece was embedded in the femur. That metal piece shows up on both the anterior-posterior and lateral views at the same location relative to the femur (CE694 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm), 695 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm), 696 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm)).
If Dr. Shires was right, the object that made the thigh wound was a missile that had entered the thigh obliquely along the direction of the femur, travelled down to the femur where it left a small amount of lead, but did not remain in the thigh for some reason. How long it was in the thigh cannot be determined from the evidence we have. There is evidence that CE399, whose condition fits the wound characteristics of the thigh wound, was found on Connally's stretcher. It is a reasonable inference that CE399 caused the thigh wound. That is about all we can say from that evidence.
The bullet going "obliquely along the direction of the femur" fits Mason's silly notion that the bullet from Kennedy's throat travel forward and passed-without-striking (get this) Connally's left torso and thus entered the left thigh from behind.With Connally turned right as he is up to z200 and with his left leg out a bit to the side (natural) the right to left path through JFK's neck goes directly there - to the left thigh.
This is in contrast to the SBT scenario that the bullet entered the thigh after slapping off the right wrist.Perhaps you could explain how "slapping" off the right wrist results in the bullet going through the french cuff causing a jagged long tear:
I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.Oh, but yes it is clear. And we've been through all this before over at a.a.jfk, if you recall. It starts with a Dr Jack Reynolds, the Parkland radiologist responsible for examining the Connally's X-rays in the late fall of 1963. Reynolds reported that the fragment was 8mm from the surface of the skin, not buried in the femur. Gregory read those x-rays the same way. So did Shaw. In fact, every physician that I know of who've examined the thigh x-rays have stated that the thigh fragment is near the surface, except for Shires. The explanation given by the HSCA FPP was that Shires was confused by an artifact in one of the x-rays that overlies the image of the femur. Ultimately, you have Shires' opinion versus basically everyone else's.
In my view, the most significant issue is the location of the metal piece that remained in the thigh.
Dr. Gregory thought the metal piece appeared just below the skin but it is not clear what he based that on.
Dr. Shires had debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. This involved cleaning the wound and removing dead tissue. I am not sure why he would be removing dead tissue down as far as the femur unless the bullet had travelled that far.Which doesn't even begin to prove anything one way or the other about how far in the fragment was.
Dr. Shires always maintained that the metal piece was embedded in the femur. That metal piece shows up on both the anterior-posterior and lateral views at the same location relative to the femur (CE694 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm), 695 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm), 696 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm)).Whatever Shires claimed, and for how long, every other physician who's studied those x-rays state that the fragment is not in the femur, but a few mm from the surface. Also, if you notice, and you don't even have to look carefully, there are multiple little bright, fragment-like spots on those x-rays. So which is the real fragment and which are artifacts?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12b3CKvA-fsFDAHc36s2bX7U73u48loSO)
Another thing to note about Andrew's model is Connally's head is far closer to the side of the limo than JFK's.That is because I am basing their positions at the time, according to the evidence, first shot occurred (z190-200), not how they were positioned 20 minutes earlier. The zfilm shows how they were positioned at that time:
| (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG) | (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z200.jpg) |
If Connally is positioned to replicate the image above in Andrew's model it would bring his right armpit nicely into line with a bullet fired from the SN and exiting JFK's throat.Only if JBC was sitting on the left edge of his seat over the drive shaft so that his midline was 12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.
That is because I am basing their positions at the time, according to the evidence, first shot occurred (z190-200), not how they were positioned 20 minutes earlier. The zfilm shows how they were positioned at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG) (http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z200.jpg)
JBC is turned to the right. Since the seat back prevents him just turning if he is leaning against it, he had to lean forward a bit and then turn his shoulders pivoting on his right shoulder. This appears to have moved his midline slightly to the right of centre of the seat. Only if JBC was sitting on the left edge of his seat over the drive shaft so that his midline was 12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.
I can only post actual photographic evidence of the relative sitting positions of JFK and Connally.I am puzzled that you think a photo taken 20 minutes before the first shot is a more accurate portrayal of their relative positions than a photo taken just before:
The ludicrous sitting positions you have in your model are based on nothing but your futile attempt to bolster your truly bizarre theory. They have no basis in reality and have zero evidentiery support.
Only if JBC was sitting...12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.That photo was taken from a film made by Dave Powers in the QM. He is in the middle of the car so naturally JBC and JFK would both be seen even if JBC was directly in front of JFK.
A bit like the photo posted above ;)
The relative seating positions can be readily determined from a 3D model. The trajectory from the SN is what is critical. This is my rather primitive but accurate 3D model that I did in Sketchup using a scale map of Dealey Plaza:
I can only post actual photographic evidence of the relative sitting positions of JFK and Connally.
The ludicrous sitting positions you have in your model are based on nothing but your futile attempt to bolster your truly bizarre theory. They have no basis in reality and have zero evidentiary support.
The relative seating positions can be readily determined from a 3D model. The trajectory from the SN is what is critical. This is my rather primitive but accurate 3D model that I did in Sketchup using a scale map of Dealey Plaza:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_front_closeup.JPG)
The trajectory is very similar to that which the WC considered when they made their 3D model of Dealey Plaza and placed the limousine at the point where they considered the evidence showed that the first shot occurred (a position that I suggest was correct):
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0121_closeup.jpg)
Since you ignored my last questions, I fully expect you to do the same with this one, but, despite the fact that IMO it has very little to do with CE399, I'm going to ask it anyway.Not sure what questions I missed? If I missed responding just send me a reminder and I will respond.
The trajectory from the SN is what is critical.
What makes you so sure that the shots came from the so-called SN at the TSBD?
Not sure what questions I missed? If I missed responding just send me a reminder and I will respond.
First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399 (as well as the first shot hitting JFK and the second hitting only JBC, the 1.......2...3 shot pattern, Tague's evidence, Greer, Hickey, Powers, Gayle Newman etc).
As far as the evidence that the shots came from the SN there are several witnesses whose evidence puts the shots originating there: Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots. The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.
Furthermore, the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399. There were boxes in the SN placed in an unusual way consistent with use to support a rifle. Most witnesses said the shots all sounded similar and almost all witnesses said the shots sounded like they all came from the same location (although there was disagreement as to the location of the source).
If that's not enough, let me know and I will refer to more.
There are so many assumptions here that I don't even know where to start. Oh well, let's give it a try.Martin, we appear to live in different universes. By your standard circumstantial evidence can never lead to a conclusion.
First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399
And you somehow know it was CE399 that passed through JFK and JBC? How exactly did you reach that conclusion?
Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots.
They saw which rifle? Since when does seeing a rifle equate to seeing a rifle being fired?
The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.
How does what they think they heard prove that a rifle was actually being fired on the 6th floor?
the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399.
When exactly was CE399 fired by that rifle and how do you know?
So, now it's my turn.
What evidence is there that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland hospital in Dallas?
The chain of evidence for that bullet starts at the FBI lab in Washington!
None of the four men who were involved in the discovery and transportation (to DC) were able to positively identify CE399 as the bullet they had seen on 11/22/63
In mid 1964 the WC asked the FBI to authenticate several pieces of evidence, including CE399.
Although the FBI later claimed in CE2011 that Tomlinson and Wright thought that it was the same bullet, this so-called "identification" conflicted completely with the content of an Airtel message from SAC Shanklin in Dallas, which clearly states that both men could not identify the bullet. In addition they claimed in CE2011 that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, but Odum is on record saying he never did such a thing and that he never had CE399 in his possession. Add to this that Wright later stated that the bullet he had seen was pointed which CE399 clearly isn't you you've got all sorts of evidentiary problems you just can't ignore.
Martin, we appear to live in different universes. By your standard circumstantial evidence can never lead to a conclusion.
Evidence should be self explanatory. It may not be perfect but there should be at least a superficial basis to reach a conclusion.The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted. The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that the bullet passaed through JFK's neck exiting his midline on a right to left trajectory and struck JBC. I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC. Unlike others who accept the WC conclusion, I disagree with the SBT.
As we have just seen in the Alex Murdaugh trial, circumstantial evidence can indeed lead to a conclusion but only when it is based on conclusive facts rather than mere assumptions.
The evidence against the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is sufficiently compelling that it can not be merely assumed that it was the bullet which went through both men. Should I perhaps just simply conclude that you don't have answers for my basic questions?
Now, rather than just coming up with a cop out, why don't you just simply try to answer my questions and we'll take it from there?
Or is that too far out of your comfort zone?
The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted. The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that the bullet passaed through JFK's neck exiting his midline on a right to left trajectory and struck JBC. I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC. Unlike others who accept the WC conclusion, I disagree with the SBT.
The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted.It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination. Did he have a photographic memory? The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:
So now we go fast forward in time, to the HSCA hearings, which showed a bullet (or rather a photograph of a bullet) they said was fired from the same MC rifle and was recovered from the wall in General Walker's home. As soon as Walker saw that picture he instantly tried to contact the HSCA to tell them they had the wrong bullet, because the one in the photograph was not the one he had seen in April 1963. Now add to this that in all the reports about the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, a different type of bullet was mentioned than the one now in evidence.
Three different events with the same problem; bullets and fragments of bullets that were all fired by the same rifle but can not be authenticated as being the actual items that were recovered from the three locations involved. That doesn't strike you as odd?Probably not back in 1963.
Switch the bullet that was found with the one we now know as CE399 and nobody would be the wiser.That is called planting. Switch=plant=falsifying evidence etc.
Is this a far fetched scenario? Maybe, but it is a possibility that needs to be eliminated by the investigators and it never was. It was never even considered despite the fact that it does one thing that the official narrative doesn't do; it answers a great deal of questions for which the FBI and WC could never provide an answer.It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.
The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK.So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?
No, that's not what the evidence is. I won't go into the rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald, because that's another conversation entirely, but what the evidence doesn't say is that CE399 came from JBC's gurney at Parkland. That is in fact nothing more than an flawed assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever. You have to ignore a whole set of circumstantial evidence to the contrary to reach that conclusion.
I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC.You should read Bugliosi's book. It is circumstantial, but it is very compelling. Leaving the TSBD without permission, hurrying home to pick up his revolver - the same one used to kill Tippit, punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun ...... Not difficult to draw an inference of there, even without the Walker shooting evidence.
What is this "other evidence" that makes you accept this? There isn't even a shred of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the moment the shots were fired. The WC never provided any evidence for that. They just said he was and never provided any evidence for it.
It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination. Did he have a photographic memory? The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Walker_Bullet_CE573.JPG)
How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?
Probably not back in 1963.
That is called planting. Switch=plant=falsifying evidence etc.
It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.
So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?
You should read Bugliosi's book. It is circumstantial, but it is very compelling. Leaving the TSBD without permission, hurrying home to pick up his revolver - the same one used to kill Tippit, punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun ...... Not difficult to draw an inference of there, even without the Walker shooting evidence.
It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination. Did he have a photographic memory? The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?
Walker wasn't aware of the problem until he saw the picture of the bullet during the HSCA hearings. Not really surprising because until the HSCA investigation all the evidence was locked away at the National Archives. He then instantly objected and was completely ignored by the HSCA. He may well have had a photographic memory. I don't know. What I do know is that all the DPD reports on the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, mention a different type of bullet. Are we really to believe that all the people who wrote those reports got the type of bullet wrong in exactly the same way?
How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?
Duh, if the scenario I proposed is correct, it was most likely switched on purpose so it could be used to argue that Oswald had a violent history.
Probably not back in 1963.The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.
We are not in 1963! Doesn't it strike you as odd today?
It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.
So, manipulation of evidence by law enforcement isn't a reasonable possibility to consider? Is that what you are saying?
So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?So, you are saying that it was planted.
Are you purposely pretending not to understand what I have said? And if so, why?
If you are still talking about the bullet we now know as CE399 than the answer is, no it did disappear nor did it end up in the car. It's evidentiary life did not begin until it was delivered to the FBI lab in Washington. In my scenario CE399 was never in Dallas, wasn't found on a stretcher at Parkland and was not fired on 11/22/63
Leaving the TSBD without permission
If that's what really happened, then I agree it's problematic. However, it's most certainly not conclusive as there are at least two possible reasons why Oswald left the TSBD so quickly. The first one is that he did the shooting and wanted to get out of there as quickly as he could. The second one is that, when he heard the shots and learned that Kennedy was hit, he understood that he had been set up for the murder and he simply panicked. The latter would of course also require him to be involved in what was going on, as it's highly unlikely that it would have been possible to set him up as a patsy without him being involved in some scheme or another.
Having said this, his behavior after he left the TSBD is also strange. Why would he get on a bus that would take him directly back to the crime scene? Why not take a bus in the other direction? And why would he offer his cab to a woman if he was truly in a rush to get out of there? It doesn't make any sense.It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him. But he didn't. He was broke. He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
hurrying home to pick up his revolverSo he lied about buying it in Fort Worth. Why would he do that?
He apparently admitted to Fritz that he did pick up his revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth some months earlier.
- the same one used to kill Tippit,Plenty of evidence. The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511). The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.
That's an assumption for which there is no evidence.
punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gunThe officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
Too bad that not one single witness inside the Texas Theater heard Oswald say those words or saw him reaching for his gun.
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?
Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?
The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.
It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.
So, you are saying that it was planted.
For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD
So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him. But he didn't. He was broke. He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth. Why would he do that?
We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.
Plenty of evidence. The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511). The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.
The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
- "And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly,
and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing
up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder
high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over
now.”
As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the
waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
Mr. BALL. What happened then?
Mr. MCDONALD Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
was for me to go at him with this hand.
Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol."
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?The chain of custody of CE 573 (FBI Exhibit C148) is found in CE1953 (23 H 757ff) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm) and also CE2011 (24 H 414) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm).
Not so fast.... First of all, it was not one description by an "unknown DPD officer". If I recall correctly, there were at least six or seven reports which all described the bullet in the same way. The first of those reports was written on 4/10/63 by Detectives Van Cleave & McElroy. On the day of the crime, they described the bullet as a "steel jacket". They also say that the bullet was given, at the scene, to Dot. B.G. Brown of the CSSS. There is no mention of an officer named B.G. Norvall in that report and I couldn't find any document generated by Norvall about this matter.
In his WC testimony, Joseph Nicol said nothing about finding initials on the bullet, except for his own. Nicol was also not able to positively identify the bullet as having been fired by the MC rifle. The best he could do was a "probable". So, I really wonder where you got the story of a police officer named Norvall initialling the bullet and Nicol confirming it was there. And then there is the memo written by Jevons to Conrad on 3/27/64 in which it says that SA Heiberger advised that "the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot"
The chain of custody of CE 573 (FBI Exhibit C148) is found in CE1953 (23 H 757ff) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm) and also CE2011 (24 H 414) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm).
Officer B. G. Norvell found the bullet in the wall and scratched his initials on it. He then handed it either to Officer McElroy who handed it to Officer B. G. Brown who was assigned to the Crime Search Scene Section (CSSS), or he may have handed it to Brown directly. Either way, it ended up with Officer Brown and was part of the CSSS case file. On April 25, 1963 Lt. Day of CSSS took it to the Crime Lab at Parkland Hospital to see if they could identify the type of gun that fired it. It remained there until December 2, 1963 when it was turned over to Agent Bardwell Odum of the FBI. It was analysed by the FBI (Frazier/Nicol) and on March 21, 1964 it was turned over to the WC. On June 12, 1964 Odum showed the bullet to Norvell who confirmed that it was the same bullet that he had obtained from the Walker residence and identified his marking on it.
The bullet was too damaged to align lands and grooves with a known bullet but they were compared visually and there were no differences identified. Nicol put it this way:
- Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572 and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same weapon.
Mr. NICOL. Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area, all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.
Personally, I don't place much value on what is written in CE2011 as this is the report by the FBI to the WC in which they also claimed that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought it was the same bullet, which we know is simply not true, as Odum is on record saying he never showed CE399 or any other bullet to anybody and it also clearly contradicts the content of the Airtel written by SAC Shacklin.
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!
So, we have the following situation - Tomlinson discovers the bullet, he calls over Wright, Wright gives the bullet to Johnsen, Johnsen takes the bullet to Washington and gives it to Rowley, Rowley gives it to Todd, Todd gives it to Frazier.
The chain of possession looks like this - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd, Frazier.
The problem is that the bullet given to Johnsen is NOT CE399 but by the time it reaches Elmer Todd it has become the bullet recognised as CE399.
This leads to the conclusion that CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody at some point.
There is strong supporting circumstantial evidence to indicate that this is indeed the case.
What mustn't be forgotten is that Wright categorically denies that CE399 was the pointed bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen.
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!
So he needs “definitive proof” that CE399 was substituted, but you don’t need definitive proof that CE 399 was found on Connally’s stretcher, or that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally.It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.
How convenient.
It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.
We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.
TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.
JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence. IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!
To accept JRT one just has to believe that they were just doing their job. To believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.
It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.
We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.
TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.
JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence. IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!
So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.
is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody. Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession. So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it. If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland. So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.
This is simply not true. Johnsen and Rowley failed to identify the bullet and neither man as well as Todd could possibly have known which rifle fired that bullet.
....And yet, we still have Wright on record as saying the bullet he was given by Tomlinson was pointed, which CE399 clearly isn't. We have SA Odum denying that he ever showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright which means the FBI lied to the WC in CE2011. And we don't have a shred of evidence to confirm that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital, as there is no chain of custody for it.
But let's take a closer look at this case;Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63. But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage. When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.
There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oswald brought the MC rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, but there are two witnesses who described the bag Oswald carried in such a way that it was clearly to small to conceal a broken down rifle.
There is no evidence that Oswald was actually on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
There is no evidence that Oswald came down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot and managed to do so unnoticed by anybody, despite the fact that several women on the 4th floor were close to the stairs at that time.You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence.
There is no evidence that confirms that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor had actually been fired that day
There is no chain of custody for the bullet CE399 that confirms it was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland hospital.
Even Dr. Humes, when asked during his testimony, stated he did not believe CE399 could have gone through Kennedy and Connally and come out is the condition it is in.
The rifle was used to fired 100 test bullets and not a single one came even close the being in the same condition CE399 is in.
There is no evidence to confirm that the bullet fragments given to Frazier at the Secret Service garage actually came from the Presidential limo. Frazier was simply told they did.
There is serious doubt about the so-called Walker bullet now in evidence as CE573 being the bullet that was actually recovered from General Walker's home.
The bottom line is obvious; either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy.I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter. I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.
They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody. Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession. So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it. If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland. So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.
Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63. But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage. When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter. I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.
The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley give it to Todd.Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.
There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.
You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.
There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!
Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.
His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.
You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.
What are you really saying? That Johnsen and/or Rowley couldn't possibly be involved in a high level conspiracy because they are law enforcement? Really? Are you actually this naive?
I don't assume that all people are lying, although some do in just about every case, but I am also not foolish enough to believe that witness testimony is always reliable. As a lawyer you seem to be willing to ignore that the chain of custody's sole purpose is to protect the authenticity of the evidence against possible manipulation by law enforcement.
If you are willing to accept evidence simply because a cop said so, then we are indeed living in different universes. I can't help but notice that you are willing to overlook the problem caused by the way Johnsen and Rowley handled the bullet. Why is that?
For starters, it is in no way certain that it was Oswald's rifle that was found at the TSBD. The only evidence that links Oswald tentatively to any rifle are easy to manipulate photocopies of a Klein's order form, a money order and an envelope, allegedly in his handwriting, taken from a microfilm which since has mysteriously been lost, just as the original documents. As the order document is in name of A. Hidell, it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated to fill out the documents. In any case, we only have the word of an FBI handwriting expert that it is Oswald's handwriting on the forms in the first place. The most troubling part, as far as I am concerned, is that the rifle ordered was a 36" and the rifle found at the TSBD was a 40". Nothing seems to match up and most of the "evidence" is extremely vague to say the least.Some jurors had doubts that OJ Simpson was guilty. I didn't.
As for the "unmeasured package", that's not really true, is it now? Frazier described it as being held by Oswald in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry the package next to his leg and it didn't reach the ground. Frazier showed FBI agents to where on the backseat the package reached from the door and they measured it at 27". Although the package itself was not physically measured, these descriptions make it beyond clear that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal a rifle.You just admitted it was not measured.
No, I am not convinced of a conspiracy. Unlike you, who seems to be convinced Oswald did it alone, I don't know what really happened. Unlike you, I am willing to consider both possibilities and I am more than happy to be convinced either way by actual evidence.I am open to the possibility that there may be reliable, credible evidence somewhere of a conspiracy. But none has been found and it is highly improbable that any will be found.
A chain of custody is required to guard against accidents or mistakes that can happen within a busy police force where evidence from cases could get mixed up. It is not intended to guard against deliberate evidence tampering by police, nor does it.
It is apparent that the bullet found by Tomlinson did not get accidentally mixed up here because CE399 is definitely related to the C2766 rifle.
You seem to think that everyone has to be able to identify the bullet, months even years later. There is no expectation that Tomlinson or Wright should have put their initials on the bullet. Why should they be expected to identify it later? There is no reason for 3 Secret Service agents to put their initials on it.
Even if Johnsen had put his initial on it, that would not prove that he hadn't deliberately switched the bullet that Wright gave him.
I just don't have any evidence that leads me to suspect, let alone conclude, that Johnsen, Rowley or Todd fabricated evidence. Unless you have evidence that someone planted CE399 after Tomlinson, what reason would there be to find that Tomlinson did not find CE399?
Some jurors had doubts that OJ Simpson was guilty. I didn't.
You just admitted it was not measured.
I am open to the possibility that there may be reliable, credible evidence somewhere of a conspiracy. But none has been found and it is highly improbable that any will be found.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!This might be a bit of a quibble, but....
This might be a bit of a quibble, but....
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. After all, if something doesn't exist, then the would be no evidence of it existing. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, since there may be some as-yet-unknown fact sitting out there in the dark waiting to rear its ugly head when you least expect. However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?
There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.
The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?
There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.
The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.
So when O P Wright categorically denies that the bullet he gave to SA Johnsen is CE399 - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:
That we are supposed to simply accept experienced agents, Johnsen and Rowley, knowingly destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on this crucial piece of evidence - that's rabbit-hole nonsense is it??
When Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??
All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:
1. Is it possible that CE399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher due to accidental mixup with a bullet from some other source?
2. Is it possible that CE399 was deliberately substituted for the bullet found at Parkland?
3. Is it possible that the evidence as to the provenance of CE399 is accurate.
We can easily eliminate 1 because CE399, having been matched to the type of ammunition used in C2766 rifle (you don't even need to know that it had been fired by C2766), it could not have been accidentally substituted.
The no. 2 possibility would require one or more of the 5 people involved (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd) to be part of a conspiracy to plant evidence. A conspiracy would be required because there is no way that any of them could have had access to C2766 on their own after the assassination. Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas. So we look at the evidence.
First of all, we consider motive. Why would a conspirator involved in the most heinous act of the 20thC plant CE399? One answer is obvious: it would be to link C2766 and Oswald to the assassination and create a "patsy" on whom to pin the assassination.
But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination. That only works if a slightly damaged bullet makes sense to how the shots, injuries and discovered fragments (in the future) would occur. So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.
It would also not be known if there would be an opportunity to put CE399 into the evidence stream. That only arose because a bullet was actually discovered at Parkland.
So now we not only have a hospital staff or Secret Service officer being part of an elaborate conspiracy, but taking the risk of tampering with evidence with the result of demonstrating a conspiracy if the evidence did not fit or if a natural opportunity to insert a bullet into the evidence did not arise.
Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet. Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.
Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people. There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.
And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3.
All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:
1. Is it possible that CE399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher due to accidental mixup with a bullet from some other source?
2. Is it possible that CE399 was deliberately substituted for the bullet found at Parkland?
3. Is it possible that the evidence as to the provenance of CE399 is accurate.
We can easily eliminate 1 because CE399, having been matched to the type of ammunition used in C2766 rifle (you don't even need to know that it had been fired by C2766), it could not have been accidentally substituted.
The no. 2 possibility would require one or more of the 5 people involved (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd) to be part of a conspiracy to plant evidence. A conspiracy would be required because there is no way that any of them could have had access to C2766 on their own after the assassination. Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas. So we look at the evidence.
First of all, we consider motive. Why would a conspirator involved in the most heinous act of the 20thC plant CE399? One answer is obvious: it would be to link C2766 and Oswald to the assassination and create a "patsy" on whom to pin the assassination.
But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination. That only works if a slightly damaged bullet makes sense to how the shots, injuries and discovered fragments (in the future) would occur. So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.
It would also not be known if there would be an opportunity to put CE399 into the evidence stream. That only arose because a bullet was actually discovered at Parkland.
So now we not only have a hospital staff or Secret Service officer being part of an elaborate conspiracy, but taking the risk of tampering with evidence with the result of demonstrating a conspiracy if the evidence did not fit or if a natural opportunity to insert a bullet into the evidence did not arise.
Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet. Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.
Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people. There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.
And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3.
As usual, instead of dealing with actual evidence, and the arguments stemming from that evidence, I have presented in my previous posts, you have decided to counter with some sort of stream-of conscious, evidence-free, garbled speculation.It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967. It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was.
Fact - O P Wright, the civilian who hands over the bullet into the official chain of custody, categorically states that the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen was NOT CE399.
From this we can assume the bullet carried by Johnsen and given to Rowley in Washington was the pointy-tipped bullet Wright is unequivocally stating he gave to Johnsen.I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175). I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.
Fact - experienced Secret Service agent Johnsen and Head of Secret Service Rowley, both "forget" to initial CE399, a most basic prerequisite when handling evidence. And the importance of this particular piece of evidence cannot be understated.Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators? How do we know that? It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI.
It can be safely assumed that both men are aware that they must initial this evidence in order to maintain the chain of custody, so we are being expected to believe both men knowingly destroyed the chain of evidence. Key evidence in the murder of the President of the United States.
Let's forget the stupid notion of CE399 just falling out of Connally's leg as if a bullet entering flesh was like a hole drilled in wood and if you turn it upside down the bullet just falls out. It's not worth getting dragged into the silliness of that argument.I actually agree with you on this. CE399 did not go through JBC. CE399 was the first shot. There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK. JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot. He never felt the thigh shot. It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher. It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.
Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with.
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?If we were to have a discussion between LNers the main points in contention appear to be:
There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.
The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.
It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967. It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was.
What I am saying is that real evidence fits together and makes sense.
I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175). I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.
Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399 or at least a photo of it when he examined him under oath in March 1964 (6 H 128). But I don't see any reason to think that Specter was trying to hide anything. The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.
Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators? How do we know that? It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI.
I actually agree with you on this. CE399 did not go through JBC. CE399 was the first shot. There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK. JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot. He never felt the thigh shot. It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher. It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.
Jerry wants an echo chamber of people who all share the same faith-based dogma and pretend to do “research” that reinforces what they already believe.
Don’t let the door smack you in the ass.
Collins and I recently worked together on the carton box sizes. And before that, the palm-print size on the rifle barrel. But not without pages of rabbit-hole distraction. Just a sub-Forum for "LNers" versus hundreds of pro-CT Forums and blogs; this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.
Collins and I recently worked together on the carton box sizes. And before that, the palm-print size on the rifle barrel. But not without pages of rabbit-hole distraction. Just a sub-Forum for "LNers" versus hundreds of pro-CT Forums and blogs; this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.
You don't believe that Oswald was on the front steps waving a Cuban flag? And that Buell Frazier was secretly signaling that Oswald was standing on the stairs because he posed for a picture decades later with a finger extended? This case is straightforward and simple. Oswald did it. Everyone knows that including many of these nuts since they never take their evidence to anyone other than the Internet. What is going on now is just a circus to pass the time.
~Grin~
Like Mr. Organ, Mr. Smith flees questions he can't answer, and then spins his humiliation into a glorious victory.
It just ain't working anymore, guys!
Thumb1:
I might have posted ten times on the moderated forum. Seems like it didn't lack for CTers.
Getting time to bump "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" back to the top.
this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.
Well you obviously haven’t read any of it if you think Alan is saying that Lovelady is Oswald.
It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967. It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was.
What I am saying is that real evidence fits together and makes sense.
I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175). I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.
Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399 or at least a photo of it when he examined him under oath in March 1964 (6 H 128). But I don't see any reason to think that Specter was trying to hide anything. The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.
Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators? How do we know that? It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI.
I actually agree with you on this. CE399 did not go through JBC. CE399 was the first shot. There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK. JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot. He never felt the thigh shot. It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher. It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.
It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj1HKkJx/Stretcher-Bullet1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.
You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.
And then you come up with this gem:
I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.
Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??
Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen. Wright is absolutely certain the bullet he handed over to Johnsen is NOT CE399. Sometime later Wright is shown CE399 and he refuses to identify it as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day. Tomlinson also refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day.
There is nothing wrong with Wright's memory and his decades spent as a cop give him a good idea about different types of bullet. And the bullet he handled that day is a completely different type of bullet to the one he is asked to identify.
The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.
As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:
"Mr. Tomlinson, the purpose of this deposition proceeding is to take your deposition in connection with an inquiry made by the President's Commission in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy to determine from you all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy..."
The whole point of the deposition is to determine from Tomlinson "all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy."
"ALL THE FACTS."
But that's not what happens.
Tomlinson is called to testify because he is the man who discovered the bullet in Parkland.
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??
Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:
"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."
But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?
Surely it's because Specter knows that Tomlinson will not identify CE399 as the bullet he found that day. Worse, he might start describing the bullet with the pointed tip. This also feeds into the fact that Tomlinson is not brought before the WC to give his testimony, which is instead given at Parkland with only Specter and a court reporter in attendance. No awkward (or obvious) questions from anyone else.
The notion that Tomlinson was there to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery is a sick joke.
Your inference, that the Head of the Secret Service was unfamiliar with the concept of a chain of custody, is derisory.
There is a far more important point to be made here.
The last paragraph of the declassified Shanklin memo states the following:
"Obtain C1 (the original classification of CE399) from FBI laboratory and thereafter immediately exhibit to SA ROBERT E. JOHNSEN, Secret Service, who is attached to White House detail, and to JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, Secret Service, to have C1 identified."
Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.
Remember, it was Todd who was showing them the bullet - Todd, the man who received the bullet from Rowley, was asking Rowley to acknowledge that the bullet Todd was showing him was the bullet he gave him. Basically, it's as if Todd was telling him "this is the bullet you gave me that day. I am telling you this was the bullet you gave me. now, say you recognise it?"
But both Rowley and Johnsen refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. I can only imagine it was because the bullet they were being asked to identify (CE399), was so different from the bullet they handled, that they refused to identify it.
It's really extraordinary that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399.
It's really coincidental that the only men to put their initials on the bullet have no problem recognising it.
This paragraph is so mental, I don't know where to begin.
So I won't bother.
It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:
According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.
You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.
And then you come up with this gem:Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet. According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held. So six months after he was uncertain. But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!. Memories do not improve with age!
I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.
Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??
Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen.
The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet. The issue was where it came from. By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy. The evidence shows otherwise. David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:
...
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??
Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:
"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."
But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?
Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object. The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance. So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.
What he said..... Thumb1:
Andrew is trying to marginalize the chain of custody and completely ignores that Arlen Specter introduced the bullet we now know as CE399 into evidence during Dr. Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it is the bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
Obviously, that proof was never provided!
Not only that, but he also ignores that the WC asked the FBI for authentication of many pieces of evidence, including CE399, which would have been a strange thing to do if the chain of custody wasn't important.
Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.
If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet? Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?:
- "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."
The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all. The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.
Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with. The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet. According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held. So six months after he was uncertain. But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!. Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet. The issue was where it came from. By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy. The evidence shows otherwise. David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object. The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance. So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.
Every single sentence of your post is utter waffle, devoid of any content.It obviously has content. You just don't find it persuasive.
As usual, you have forgotten that these threads are a written record , any readers interested in the arguments presented can read through the last few pages and judge for themselves the strength of these arguments.That is exactly what the forum is for!
Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.
If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet? Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?:
- "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."
The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all. The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.
Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with. The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet. According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held. So six months after he was uncertain. But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!. Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet. The issue was where it came from. By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy. The evidence shows otherwise. David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object. The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance. So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.
This might be a bit of a quibble,No, not really.
Yes it is.
However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?
Only in theory, because it can never been determined with 100% certainty that complete information is available in a particular case.
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?
[turn out left pocket]
No evidence of Bentley keys here
[turn out right pocket]
No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.
I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED
This is not an area of the case I've given that much thought to in the past but my understanding of the evidence as it stands leads me to really suspect that CE399 was introduced into the evidence chain at some point.You have expressed the problem better than I could. The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated.
As I don't believe Oswald actually took the shots that day I am, by default, a Conspiracy Theorist. For Lone Nutters it's plain sailing, your narrative has been provided for you, your thinking has been done for you and, although there may be small variations in specific details, the outcome is set in stone. As a Cter I am part of a spectrum of thinking that ranges from eminently sensible through to I'm-riding-a-unicorn-to-my-nearest-mothership.
I'm a minimalist, that is to say, things happened as per the official narrative except it wasn't Oswald who took the shots. Even this leads to massive, unprovable assumptions.
But now I find myself being dragged into a much larger conspiracy and I find I have to play Devil's Advocate against myself!
The arguments I've presented in the last few pages are leading me to suspect FBI agent Elmer Todd as the person who introduced CE399 into the chain of custody. This leads to a massive problem as far as a conspiracy is concerned:
If CE399 is introduced into the chain of custody at the FBI lab in Washington on the evening of the 22nd, how is this possible if the rifle this bullet was fired from didn't get to the same FBI lab until the morning of the 23rd?
It seems beyond unlikely that Todd had a slightly distorted bullet on his person that could be matched to the MC. As Andrew has already pointed out, it is the completely random discovery of a bullet at Parkland that has led to the possibility that CE399 could be introduced in the first place.
The idea that Todd had this slightly distorted bullet on him just in case someone found a random bullet at Parkland is a non-starter.
I've no doubt the Unicorn Crew will have an instant solution to this problem.
But I'm not in a position where I can say "Wow, that's such a difficult question to answer I might as well ignore what the evidence is actually saying."
Maybe Wright is wrong or lying when he says the bullet had a pointed tip.
Maybe Thompson misunderstood or lied about what Wright actually said.
Maybe Johnsen didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Rowley didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Tomlinson genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Wright genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Johnsen genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Rowley genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe a bullet passing through two men, smashing bones on the way, doesn't leave a trace on the bullet.
Maybe a bullet can just fall out of a persons body.
Maybe Specter genuinely forgot to ask Tomlinson about the bullet.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...
On one hand, the evidence strongly suggests CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody, on the other, how could anyone have known that it needed to be introduced into the chain of custody.
You have expressed the problem better than I could. The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated.
I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.
C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact. And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.
You have expressed the problem better than I could.
That's because I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what's going on and allowing the evidence to guide my opinion. Unlike you, who's only interest is to peddle your long defunct theory that only you believe in.
The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated.
Wrong.
The litany of problems I have outlined in my previous posts ALL go away if it is assumed Todd placed CE399 into the chain of custody.
What happens is that a new set of problems arise.
Even if it is planted evidence, I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?
No-one could have expected the random discovery of a bullet at Parkland so it is difficult to imagine CE399 would have been "pre-prepared." I find it most unlikely Todd had a stash of bullets on him that matched the MC before the assassination occurred.
Another problem that arises when CE399 is taken out of the picture can be summed up by the question - What happened to all the bullets?
Without CE399 there are enough fragments to just about make a single bullet. What happened to the other two bullets that were supposed to have been fired from the SN?
I've no doubt there are other significant problems I haven't thought of yet.
I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.
I've read this sentence a few times but can't make out what it means. Because you use he phrase "I am alone on this", I can only assume it is a reference to your dead theory.
C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact. And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.
Putting aside your obvious attempt to shoehorn your dead theory into proceedings, I think there is something to what you're saying.
CE399 has been fired through/into something. I doubt there are few who would disagree with that. If it is planted evidence I have to assume that whoever fired it was trying to mimic what they thought the bullet should look like. They were trying to replicate the damage a bullet should have sustained in a specific scenario. This automatically rules out trying to mimic a bullet that caused the wounds to Connally as, common sense would dictate, this would require a bullet with a smashed nose.
Was it assumed on the night of the assassination that there had been three hits - one through JFK's neck, one causing the damage to Connally and the headshot. If so, the only bullet they could have been trying to replicate would have been the one that passed through JFK's neck.
This, alone, creates a whole slew of new problems if CE399 was planted into evidence.
It's getting tricky. ???
I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?
What makes you think that the bullet must have been fired that friday night? If we consider it to be possible that Todd switched the bullet, then why wouldn't also be possible that he marked the switched bullet at a later moment?But it's also possible that somebody else just scratched the initials on the new bullet, so that Todd could indeed recognize his mark.
It is a fact that the Parkland bullet and the rifle were both in Washington on saPersonay 11/23/63. It's possible the FBI knew early on that the bullet found at Parkland did not match the rifle. With Hoover already having stated that Oswald was the lone gunman, just how easy would it have been to switch the bullet on saPersonay and mark it with Todd's initials.
You have expressed the problem better than I could.Well, at least no one can accuse you of munificence!
That's because I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what's going on and allowing the evidence to guide my opinion. Unlike you, who's only interest is to peddle your long defunct theory that only you believe in.
The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated.Yes, but they are still problems with CE399!!
Wrong.
The litany of problems I have outlined in my previous posts ALL go away if it is assumed Todd placed CE399 into the chain of custody.
What happens is that a new set of problems arise.
C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact. And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.Exactly my point. CE399 does not have to explain JBC's chest and wrist wounds and until March 1964 no one was suggesting that CE399 caused those wounds. Then David Belin came along and had Robert Frazier opine that JBC could not have been hit after z240 (an opinion that, in my view, he was not qualified nor sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts to give). Since the FBI had mistakenly concluded that the first shot occurred no earlier than z210, that did not leave enough time for two shots (one for JFK and one for JBC). That is when Arlen Specter came up with the SBT.
...This automatically rules out trying to mimic a bullet that caused the wounds to Connally as, common sense would dictate, this would require a bullet with a smashed nose.
Was it assumed on the night of the assassination that there had been three hits - one through JFK's neck, one causing the damage to Connally and the headshot. If so, the only bullet they could have been trying to replicate would have been the one that passed through JFK's neck.
You has a strawman argeymentNot a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation. I replied with an example where complete information is achievable. That is, Martin responded directly to what I said, and I responded directly to what he said.
You has a strawman argeyment
Not a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation.
Alan, I wish you all the best if you are planning to debate Todd, but be aware that he will try to drag you down to his level.Martin, why is it that every time you try to come off High and Mighty you wind up making yourself look huffy and prissy?
Either that or he will keep on arguing, with pathetic arguments, until you lose all energy and want to jump off a cliff.
No he didn'tses. He used the word "case", meaning criminal case. You then cutely strawmanned what he'd said.I'm the person who brought the word "case" into the discussion ("However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence."). I meant it in the most general, Mirriam-Webster-definition-1.a. meaning: "a set of circumstances or conditions."
Now go bore someone else with your pocketful of nonsenses
::)
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?
[turn out left pocket]
No evidence of Bentley keys here
[turn out right pocket]
No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.
I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED
And so the conversation we had with Andrew is going off the rails, just like Todd intended.
Have fun with the next 10 pages or so of yes vs no arguments.
I don't think so.
To be honest, I reckon this thread has run it's course.
The weight of evidence regarding CE399, as it stands, strongly supports the view that it was not the bullet found by Tomlinson in Parkland.
The evidence supporting the counter-position, the CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, is almost non-existent.
It appears that at some point in the FBI lab in Washington, the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen, becomes CE399.
Beyond that we can only speculate as to what happened, who did it and why.
Excellent work!
But whatever about the 'what' and the 'who', the answer to 'Why?' is surely logical rather than speculative..........
Thumb1:
Thanks Alan.
It isn't an either/or situation.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.Logic has little to do with it. If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.
Logic has little to do with it. If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.
Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together. If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.
Who said anything about all the evidence being false?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.
the issue is whether the evidence fits together.
No. The evidence needs to be authentic and fit together.
Logic has little to do with it. If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.
Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together. If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.
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.
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.
What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?
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...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.
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 established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination
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.
so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses.
This statement is incorrect.
You may conclude from your example that you didn't have Bentley keys in your pocketses ( ::)) at the time you turned them out.
The Bentley keys may have been removed before you checked your pocketses, so you can't say definitively that you did not have Bentley keys in your pocketses.
What tests have been performed to detect the presence or absence Bentley key in your pocketses prior to you turning them out? We are missing key information (do you see what I did there? "Key" information. Do you get it? "Key" as in...oh, forget it..."
Even in this most basic of all examples there is not complete information.
The simplest criminal case is manifestly more complex than this, so the idea of having "complete information" is a non-starter.
Go back and read again and read the original premise: "I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses"
I stated it in the immediate now ("I have") for a reason. It doesn't leave time between formulating the theory and testing it to make room for unnoticed extrapocketal key excursion without resorting to magical thinking.
Arguments for the sake of arguments....I guess I shouldn't disappoint you.
Nobody is interested and still he tries to keep his pathetic argument going. Such a desperate need to "win" that he doesn't understand he has already lost.
I'm pretty sure he's going to argue about this next.... :D
Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?
I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.
You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.
You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.
If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?
Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?
So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?
You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.
You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.
If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?
Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?
So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?
More obsessive harking. You're becoming Arnold Rowland.
Remember, folks, the innocent question that provoked all this: "Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?"
You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks. Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.
You forget you were going on about it.
"Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to
have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the
way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human
tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent
decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with."
My, what drama and sarcasm.
So, you no longer think blood and tissue was picked up as the bullet "traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way". OK.
You just mentioned "wipe". Blood might not have had time to dry in order to stick to the surface of the bullet. Presumably, during the ride to Parkland, the bullet was lodged in an area where there was little air. Connally's clothing was removed early-on. Could be a subject for experimentation, but you critics don't seem interested in that approach.
You're inventing silly roadblocks. Maybe the bullet didn't pass all the way through the trousers. Or the bullet hole in the clothing remained over the missile in-shoot for awhile. Have you seen the angle of knee bend required to sit in one of those jump-seats, that makes the upper part of the pants tight near the knees? And not much room to straighten the legs after he collapsed onto Nellie.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth875422/m1/1/high_res/)
Here's a picture of Connally wearing dress pants. The right leg is down, showing the clothing was loose when upright. The left leg is partially up showing the clothing tight against the upper surface of the thigh near the knee. And the amount of leg bend in the car was much greater.
If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?
Was Connally left unattended for a few minutes while a "conspirator" dug the bullet out of his thigh? Were the doctors and nurses who treated Connally in on the "conspiracy" when they took X-rays and said there was no bullet in his thigh?
You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.
Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.
If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?
Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened. :D
What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?
Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28495-bardwell-odum-ce2011-and-ce399/) ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.
Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.
Odum said he couldn't remember.
One can gauge the primary motivation for Aguilar/Thompson's cajoling of Odum, with:
"For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once
secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for
him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had
worked for and admired."
The guy said he couldn't remember but that it might have happened. But the authors score it as a victory that "besmirches" the Bureau.
The AirTel has all the information and is formatted the same same as a FC-302. Odum was 82 and trying to remember some insignificant request mission from four decades ago (the "Magic Bullet" acquired most of its notoriety later). Odum might have thought they were talking about him having the bullet in hand on the day of the assassination. We'll never know because the authors' phone and visit transcripts are sealed until 2072.
And then there is this; if Odum received CE399 and later returned it, his name or initial should be recorded in the chain of custody! It isn't... Go figureOnly one person needs to initial the bullet. Why would Odum add his initials to a bullet that already has been initialed by an FBI agent?
Is this the question that got Andrew and Jerry running for cover?
Only one person needs to initial the bullet. Why would Odum add his initials to a bullet that already has been initialed by an FBI agent?
Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened. :D
What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?
Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28495-bardwell-odum-ce2011-and-ce399/) ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.
Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.
Bardwell Odum ultimately deferred to the FBI documentation. He essentially told Thompson that if FBI documents say that he showed CE-399 to Wright and Tomlinson, then he did indeed. He also recalled being in Wright's office sometime after the assasination.
Then why is his name not mentioned in the chain of custody for CE399?
Why would it be? The bullet didn't really need a chain of custody anyway. Also, it had already been examined by the FBI and admitted into evidence during WC testimony.
Then why did Specter introduce the bullet into evidence (during Humes' testimony) subject to later authentication?
Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally.
And why did the WC ask the FBI for authentication by way of the chain of custody? You know, the reason for which Odum was allegedly given the bullet to begin with?
Are you actually arguing that Odum's name didn't have to be in the chain of custody of CE399 when the sole purpose for him allegedly having it in the first place is to establish a conclusive chain of custody? Really?
I don't know why.
Is that what it was for? Authentication by way of the chain of custody? How do you know?
Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.