JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 16, 2025, 02:43:53 PM
-
If you’ve been following other threads, you know that several FBI documents refer to persons in the chain of custody of CE 399 as being unable to “identify” CE 399 as the bullet Tomlinson found at Parkland. These conversations occurred in June of 1964, after the WC had asked the FBI to document the chain of custody. The conversations were summarized in WC CE 2011.
CTers appear not to understand what this non-identification means, exaggerate its significance, and suggest it is fatal to the chain of custody.
When an exhibit such as CE 399 is offered into evidence at trial, the first step is always identification. Every lawyer – indeed, every FBI and SS agent – knows this. “Identification” is a legal term of art.
With an unsophisticated witness, the exchange at trial may go like this:
Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 and ask if you can identify it?”
Witness: “I wrote this to my cousin Shirley just after …”
Lawyer: “No, right now I just want you to tell the court whether you can identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9?”
Witness: “Oh. Yes, it’s a letter I wrote to my cousin Shirley.”
The chain of custody of CE 399 goes like this: Tomlinson → Wright → SS Johnsen → SS Rowley → FBI Todd → FBI Frazier. Todd and Frazier initialed the bullet, so the concern is with those below them.
CTers seem to think identification must go like this at every stage:
Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as State’s [or Prosecution’s] Exhibit 399 and ask if you can identify it?”
Tomlinson: “Sure, it’s the bullet I found on a stretcher at Parkland the day of the assassination of President Kennedy.”
Lawyer: “No doubt about that?”
Tomlinson: “No, I’ll never forget that moment. I examined the bullet carefully and noticed the peculiar flattening at the base that we see right here on Exhibit 399.”
This would be nice, but no way is it essential. The chain of custody requirement is that when we’re all done and CE 399 is offered into evidence, there is a likelihood it is the bullet found at Parkland. The chain does not have to be perfect at every stage. If the defense can establish significant doubt, then the exhibit may not be admitted. Lesser defects go to the weight the court or jury gives to the exhibit after it is in evidence.
A realistic identification by Tomlinson might go like this:
Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as Prosecution’s Exhibit 399 and ask if you can identify it?”
Tomlinson: “It’s a bullet in a little plastic bag.”
Lawyer: “Yes, take a closer look and tell the court if you can identify it more specifically.”
Tomlinson: “Well, it looks like the bullet I found on a stretcher at Parkland hospital the day the President was assassinated.”
Lawyer: “Tell the court why you say that.”
Tomlinson: “Well, it’s basically what I remember. I really didn’t look that closely at the bullet and the day was total chaos anyway. I can say it doesn’t look completely different from what I found.”
Lawyer: “OK, but you’re saying you’re not sure?”
Tomlinson: “Right. I have no way of being certain.”
Lawyer: “Have you seen that bullet in that bag before?”
Tomlinson: “Yes, a view weeks ago.”
Lawyer: “Describe the circumstances.”
Tomlinson: “Some FBI agent came to Parkland and asked me if I could identify it as the bullet I found on the stretcher.”
Lawyer: “Do you recall what you told him?”
Tomlinson: “Not exactly, but basically what I just told you – it looks like the same bullet, but there is no way I can be sure it is. I didn’t pay that much attention in the first place, and I have no way of knowing what happened after Mr. Wright gave the bullet we found to some Secret Service guy the day of the assassination.”
Lawyer: “Did you tell the FBI agent you could not identify the bullet?”
Tomlinson: “I don’t remember if I used that exact word, but I pretty much told him what I just told you.”
Lawyer: “Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson. That’s all I have for this witness, your honor.”
Is this a sufficient identification? I guarantee you it is. The defense could then attempt to poke holes in Tomlinson’s testimony, of course. Exhibit 399 would not be offered into evidence at this point, Tomlinson merely being the first link in the chain.
Assuming Wright testified he was sure the bullet was a pointy-headed hunting slug, would this inevitably be fatal? Not at all. If Wright’s testimony were bracketed by Tomlinson and Johnsen making the sort of identification described above, Wright’s testimony might reasonably be chalked up to faulty memory. The court or jury could consider his testimony in deciding how much weight to give CE 399, but his testimony surely would not keep CE 399 out of evidence.
If Johnsen and Rowley gave similar testimony, this likewise would probably be sufficient identification. I don’t actually know to what extent Johnsen and Rowley documented their receipt of the bullet, but if they violated some SS rule by not initialing it this would be significant but by no means inevitably fatal.
I think it’s unlikely there would have been a significant chain-of-custody issue with CE 399. When CE 399 was shown to Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley in June of 1964 at the request of the WC, it was in the custody of Todd (for Johnson and Rowley) and Odum or someone (for Tomlinson and Wright). If Odum said “No way – I never handled the bullet and didn’t go to Parkland at all,” this would merely cast doubt on the accuracy of CE 2011. If Tomlinson and Wright said no more than “Yeah, some FBI guy showed it to me at Parkland in June,” this would put the Odum issue to bed. If that “FBI guy” could be accurately described or identified, so much the better.
The bottom line: Characters like Jim DiEugenio who fixate on NO WAY WOULD CE 399 EVER HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AT TRIAL!!! simply don’t know what they are talking about. It might not have been admitted, but my pretty confident guess is that it would have been. When they further suggest AND THUS WE CAN’T TRUST CE 399 AT ALL!!! they are merely spouting Conspiracy World hyperbole. The suggestion is that CE 2011 somehow locks in Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley as being UNABLE TO IDENTIFY CE 399 AND NOTHING THEY COULD SAY AT TRIAL COULD CHANGE THIS. This is not true at all. We don't even know who wrote CE 2011, and it is nothing but a second- or third-hand summary that suggests no more than that they could not honestly say they were certain CE 399 was the bullet they had previously handled.
-
It seems to me that the physical ballistic evidence showing that CE399 was fired from the same rifle that other bullet fragments (that were recovered from the limo) were fired from should also be considered. In other words, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered when forming conclusions.
-
Why in the world would anybody think that, if this case had gone to trial, the defense would object to CE 399 being admitted into evidence?
Just consider what happened when Specter introduced CE 399 into evidence during the testimony of Dr. Humes;
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. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)
and instantly needed to lie when Dulles started asking questions about where CE 399 was found;
Mr. DULLES - Yes. I wonder if there is other evidence of this.
Mr. SPECTER - There has been other evidence, Mr. DULLES - If I may say at this point, we shall produce later, subject to sequential proof, evidence that the stretcher on which this bullet was found was the stretcher of Governor Connally. We have a sequence of events on the transmission of that stretcher which ties that down reasonably closely, so that on the night of the autopsy itself, as the information I have been developing indicates, the thought preliminarily was that was from President Kennedy's stretcher, and that is what led to the hypothesis which we have been exploring about but which has since been rejected. But at any rate the evidence will show that it was from Governor Connally's stretcher that the bullet was found.
We now know, and at trial this would have been shown as well, that not only was there no "other evidence" but no proof that the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher was ever provided.
It should be noted that when Dr Humes testified, Specter had already taken a deposition from Tomlinson and thus knew that there was no certainty on Tomlinson's part on which stretcher the bullet had been found.
The admittance of CE 399 into evidence would also have opened up the opportunity for the defense to have Tomlinson and Wright testify and not only ask them if they could identify the bullet (which of course they could not) but also ask them if Odum had shown them that bullet in April 1964 and if their statements (if they were made at all) were correctly represented by the FBI.
IMO CE 399 would serve the defense much better having been admitted into evidence then not
-
It seems to me that the physical ballistic evidence showing that CE399 was fired from the same rifle that other bullet fragments (that were recovered from the limo) were fired from should also be considered. In other words, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered when forming conclusions.
Yes, but you have to get it into evidence to be able to discuss it at all. No one could testify that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle unless and until it had been admitted into evidence.
-
Just a quick addition:
Tomlinson, of course, did testify for the Warren Commission. He was interrogated under oath by Specter at Parkland on March 20, 1964 (almost three months before he was questioned by Odum or some other FBI agent about CE 399). He was grilled about the stretchers, not the bullet.
I was struck by what an amazing and excellent witness he was – excellent in the sense of refusing to allow Specter to put words in his mouth or to be badgered into saying anything other than the truth as he recalled it. A lowly plant engineer, he firmly held his ground.
Read this remarkable exchange. Not only does it mesh well with my imaginary testimony, but I think it gives a good idea as to how the June 1964 conversation about CE 399 might have gone and why CE 2011 said he couldn’t identify it as the bullet he found.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn’t say for sure, I really don’t remember.
Mr. SPECTER. And do you recollect whether or not you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. What do you mean?
Mr. SPECTER. You say you can’t really take an oath today to be sure whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I’m just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, has your recollection always been the same about the situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret Service man and
when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; I told him that I wasn’t sure.
Mr. SPECTER. So, what you told the Secret Service man was just about the same thing as you have told me today?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. When I first started to ask you about this, Mr. Tomlinson, you initially identified stretcher A as the one which came off of the elevator car?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I think it’s just like that.
Mr. SPECTER. And, then, when-
Mr. TOMLINSON (interrupting). Here’s the deal- I rolled that thing off, we got a call, and went to second floor, picked the man up and brought him down.
He went on over across, to clear out of the emergency area, but across from it, and picked up two pints of, I believe it was, blood. He told me to hold for him, he had to get right back to the operating room, so I held, and the minute he hit there, we took off for the second floor and I came back to the ground. Now, I don’t know how many people went through that-I don’t know how many people hit them- I don’t know anything about what could have happened to them in between the time I was gone, and I made several trips before I discovered the bullet on the end of it there.
Mr. SPECTER. You think, then, that this could have been either, you took out of the elevator as you sit here at the moment, or you just can’t be sure?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could be, but I can’t be positive or positively sure, I think it was A, but I’m not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. That you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, before I started to ask you questions under oath, which have been taken down here, I told you, did I not, that the Secret Service man
wrote a report where he said that the bullet was found on the stretcher which you took off of the elevator- I called that to your attention, didn’t I?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; you told me that.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, after I tell you that, does that hare any effect on refreshing your recollection of what you told the Secret Service man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, it really doesn’t-it really doesn’t.
Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the stretcher you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I told you that the Secret Service man said it was-that you had said the stretcher you took off of the elevator was the one that you found the bullet off, and when we talked about the whole matter and talked over the entire situation, you really can’t be completely sure about which stretcher you took off of the elevator, because you didn’t push the stretcher that you took off of the elevator right against the wall at first?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what you told me before?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don’t remember telling him definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could have been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn’t know where--
Mr. TOMLINSON (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been brought down from the second floor.
Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from, whether it was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been-I’m not sure whether it was A I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I’m not clear on that-whether I absolutely made a positive statement to that effect.
Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. But, you don’t remember whether you told him it was A you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think it was A-I’m not really sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Which did you tell the Secret Service agent-that you thought it was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Really, I couldn’t be real truthful in saying I told him this or that.
Mr. SPECTER. You just don’t remember for sure whether you told him you thought it was A or not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I really don’t remember. I’m not accustomed to being questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they are
writing down everything, I mean.
MR. SPECTER. That’s all right. I understand exactly what you are saying and I appreciate it and I really just want to get your best recollection.
We understand it isn’t easy to remember all that went on, on a day like November 22nd, and that a man’s recollection is not perfect like every other part
of a man, but I want you to tell me just what you remember, and that’s the best you can do today, and I appreciate that, and so does the President’s Commission, and that’s all we can ask a man.
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I’m going to tell you all I can, and I’m not going to tell you something I can’t lay down and sleep at night with either.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know where the stretcher came from that you found on the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I do not. It could have come from two, it could have come from three, it could have come from some other place.
-
Regarding the comments of he who is Not Worth My Time, who suggests the Oswald defense would not have objected to the admission of CE 399 (even though it's a fixation with CTers like Jim DiEugenio!):
1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.
2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.
3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.
4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399. If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.
5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts. This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.
-
Regarding the comments of he who is Not Worth My Time, who suggests the Oswald defense would not have objected to the admission of CE 399 (even though it's a fixation with CTers like Jim DiEugenio!):
1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.
2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.
3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.
4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399. If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.
5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts. This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.
You seem to be replying a lot to somebody you claim isn't worth your time. It's really pathetic!
1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.
And all of those points would run into serious problems. Except for a photocopy of a microfilm showing an order form, which an FBI expert claimed (despite another expert saying such claims can not be made with 100% certainty) that it was written, there is no conclusive evidence that rifle that fired CE 399 did in fact belong to Oswald. That's can of worms # 1
The second one is that there is no evidence that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 was ever at Parkland. That's can of worms #2
For these two reasons alone the defense would not object to CE 399 being entered into evidence, because it would allow them to completely destroy the prosecutor's case.
2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.
Self serving speculation based on facts not in evidence or at least not proven.
3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.
Well your original post was nothing more that self serving BS. Tomlinson and Wright have never confirmed that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found and saw on 11/22/63. Wright actually is on record saying that CE 399 is not the pointed bullet he received from Tomlinson. So if the prosecution puts both men on that stand to confirm the chain of custody it would actually even be better for the defense. You have already stated that you were impressed by the way Tomlinson stood his ground against Specter. Why would he not do the same at a trial? But even if the prosecution got Tomlinson to say what they wanted him to say, the defense would still have another shot at him to set the record straight and create plausible reasonable doubt.
4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399
We're already beyond the admissibility of CE 399. In my scenario the defense would not object to CE 399 being admitted into evidence.
If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.
The defense does not have to attempt to impeach Tomlinson and Wright. All they need to do is let both men say what they have been saying. So, we have to assume that the prosecution are not going to get a positive identification from Tomlinson or Wright. Which leaves the prosecution with a problem. Do they call Odum as a witness or accept that they can not show that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one Tomlinson found? In both cases they are screwed !
5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts.
Oh superior one ( :D), tell me, what makes you thinl I'm a CTer or a non-lawyer?
This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.
And there is the die hard LN cult manuscript!
It basically says, why obsess about discrepancies in the the evidence, when we already know that Oswald fired CE399 from his rifle. Never mind that we can't conclusively prove that it was Oswald's rifle to begin with.
Your opinions about this case are not based on facts and/or critical examination of the evidence. Instead it's about assumptions, cherry picked evidence and a massive subjective bias.
-
Except for a photocopy of a microfilm showing an order form, which an FBI expert claimed (despite another expert saying such claims cannot be made with 100% certainty) that it was written, there is no conclusive evidence that rifle that fired CE 399 did in fact belong to Oswald.
From the Warren Report:
According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in hand printing, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the hand printing of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. [5] Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks. [6] (See app. X, p. 568-569.)
In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a U.S. postal money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex., on March 12, 1963. [7] The canceled money order was obtained from the Post Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. [8] (See Commission Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)
From Klein's records it was possible to trace the processing of the order after its receipt. A bank deposit made on March 13, 1963, included an item of $21.45. Klein's shipping order form shows an imprint made by the cash register which recorded the receipt of $21.45 on March 13, 1963. This price included $19.95 for the rifle and the scope, and $1.50 for postage and handling. The rifle without the scope cost only $12.78. [9]
. . . . . . .
Weedyman,
Given the fact that you believe the order coupon was forged by some evil, evil person to frame Oswald as "the patsy" because . . . gasp . . . some FBI expert said you can't trust a crummy microfilm of something regarding the handwriting that's on it, I've got to ask you a question:
How many evil, evil bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting and the all-important cover up?
Oodles and gobs?
-
You seem to be replying a lot to somebody you claim isn't worth your time. It's really pathetic!
As I said to another NWNT poster, I reserve the right to respond if it amuses me to expose the flaws in your thinking. Hence, I will peek into the NWMT bin once more, pathetic as it may be. I will then simply declare victory and move on.
1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.
And all of those points would run into serious problems. Except for a photocopy of a microfilm showing an order form, which an FBI expert claimed (despite another expert saying such claims can not be made with 100% certainty) that it was written, there is no conclusive evidence that rifle that fired CE 399 did in fact belong to Oswald. That's can of worms # 1
The second one is that there is no evidence that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 was ever at Parkland. That's can of worms #2
For these two reasons alone the defense would not object to CE 399 being entered into evidence, because it would allow them to completely destroy the prosecutor's case.
Uh-huh, defense lawyers cannily allow explosive evidence to be admitted because they think they can use it to "destroy" the critical points the prosecution is trying to make with it. Uh-huh, that happens all the time - not. Think about what you are suggesting. On your second inane point, CE 399 would never have been admitted into evidence unless the testimony of Tomlinson, Wright and Johnsen had established the likelihood that it was indeed found at Parkland.
2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.
Self serving speculation based on facts not in evidence or at least not proven.
I have no clue what you are even talking about. The prosecution would have wanted CE 399 admitted into evidence so the prosecution could show that it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, had been found in proximity to JFK and Connally, and could explain their wounds. Once it was admitted into evidence, the defense could certainly have attempted to show that it had not been fired from Oswald's rifle and could not explain their wounds. The defense might or might not have been successful. But any notion that the defense would have allowed CE 399 to be admitted because the defense was so confident it could prevail on the substantive issues is just nuts; such a tactic would have been ineffective assistance of counsel (i.e., malpractice) to the nth degree.
3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.
Well your original post was nothing more that self serving BS. Tomlinson and Wright have never confirmed that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found and saw on 11/22/63. Wright actually is on record saying that CE 399 is not the pointed bullet he received from Tomlinson. So if the prosecution puts both men on that stand to confirm the chain of custody it would actually even be better for the defense. You have already stated that you were impressed by the way Tomlinson stood his ground against Specter. Why would he not do the same at a trial? But even if the prosecution got Tomlinson to say what they wanted him to say, the defense would still have another shot at him to set the record straight and create plausible reasonable doubt.
You have a stunning ability to miss the point. We have no idea what Tomlinson and Wright would have said at trial. My point was simply that a couple of FBI documents saying they could "not identify" CE 399 do not carry the dark implications that Thompson and Aguilar suggest. My imaginary testimony was simply an effort to show how Tomlinson's testimony at trial could have satisfied the "identify" requirement and yet have been consistent with the FBI documents. His actual testimony about the stretchers supports this. My guess is that he told Odum something like "Look, I have no way of saying for certain that's the same bullet, and I'm not going to pretend I do, but it's consistent with what I saw." Shanklin and the author of CE 2011 turned this into "could not identify."
Wright is "on the record" - really? We have Thompson's and Aguilar's word for what he supposedly said in an at-home interview in 1967. That is not on the record. We have no idea what he would've said at a trial in 1964. As I said, even if he stuck with his pointy-headed story, it would not impair the chain of custody if those on either side - Tomlinson and Johnsen - said the bullet was not pointy-headed or if his recollection could otherwise be called into doubt.
4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399
We're already beyond the admissibility of CE 399. In my scenario the defense would not object to CE 399 being admitted into evidence.
Your "scenario" is beyond goofy. My first law review article was about ineffective assistance of counsel by criminal defense attorneys, and your "scenario" would be a guaranteed ineffective assistance claim. (Are you aware that in the mock trial of Oswald, the defense did object to CE 399 - Spence being no fool - and the judge, a sitting federal judge, ruled it admissible at a pretrial evidentiary hearing? So much for your "scenario.")
If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.
The defense does not have to attempt to impeach Tomlinson and Wright. All they need to do is let both men say what they have been saying. So, we have to assume that the prosecution are not going to get a positive identification from Tomlinson or Wright. Which leaves the prosecution with a problem. Do they call Odum as a witness or accept that they can not show that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one Tomlinson found? In both cases they are screwed !
You continue to make no sense. Call Odum as a witness??? What could Odum say that would assist the prosecution in establishing the chain of custody of CE 399? The chain of custody would be determined by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier, period. You and I have no idea what Tomlinson "had been saying." That was the entire point of my imaginary testimony - the FBI documents could well be correct that he "could not identify" CE 399 when it was shown to him by Odum, yet whatever he actually said to Odum might, if repeated at trial, indeed satisfy the identification requirement. You seemingly do not grasp this.
As for Wright, once again I say that all we know is what he supposedly told Thompson in 1967. I find that describing a pristine bullet that was not CE 399, and then pulling an example out of a desk drawer, rather bizarre. We do not know what he would have testified at trial. It sounds as though what he said to Odum is similar to what Tomlinson said. If he testified at trial it was pointy-headed, then as I said previously this would not have been an admission-killer if Tomlinson and Todd testified it was not pointy-headed or his recollection were otherwise called into doubt.
5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts.
Oh superior one ( :D), tell me, what makes you thinl I'm a CTer or a non-lawyer?
There is a talent called "thinking like a lawyer." It's what law school is all about. Your posts are SO FAR from "thinking like a lawyer" that I would bet my house, car and favorite cat you are not a lawyer or anything like a lawyer. I would weep for your clients if you were.
I would tend to guess some kind of salesman. Close?
As for a CTer, I guess I do tend to assume that those who quack and waddle like CTers are in fact CTers. Do non-CTers refer to "the die hard LN cult manuscript" as you do below? My sincere apologies if you're actually a CIA-sponsored cognitive infiltrator just like me. Let's do lunch at Langley during the conference next week!
This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.
And there is the die hard LN cult manuscript!
It basically says, why obsess about discrepancies in the the evidence, when we already know that Oswald fired CE399 from his rifle. Never mind that we can't conclusively prove that it was Oswald's rifle to begin with.
Your opinions about this case are not based on facts and/or critical examination of the evidence. Instead it's about assumptions, cherry picked evidence and a massive subjective bias.
Neener, neener, yada yada, on it goes. Back in the NWMT bin for you. Pound on the lid if you need anything.
-
The chain of custody of CE 399 goes like this: Tomlinson → Wright → SS Johnsen → SS Rowley → FBI Todd → FBI Frazier. Todd and Frazier initialed the bullet, so the concern is with those below them.
Would Tomlinson and Wright even be links in a chain of custody? I do agree that chain of custody of CE-399 would not be an issue. I wouldn't have thought that Tomlinson could have satisfied the court on it though. Frazier and Todd had both scratched their marks on it and it is a non-fungible item. Either one of their positive identifications would suffice. Frazier actually was able to positively identify it during his WC testimony by locating his mark on it.
-
From the Warren Report:
According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in hand printing, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the hand printing of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. [5] Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks. [6] (See app. X, p. 568-569.)
In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a U.S. postal money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex., on March 12, 1963. [7] The canceled money order was obtained from the Post Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. [8] (See Commission Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)
From Klein's records it was possible to trace the processing of the order after its receipt. A bank deposit made on March 13, 1963, included an item of $21.45. Klein's shipping order form shows an imprint made by the cash register which recorded the receipt of $21.45 on March 13, 1963. This price included $19.95 for the rifle and the scope, and $1.50 for postage and handling. The rifle without the scope cost only $12.78. [9]
. . . . . . .
Weedyman,
Given the fact that you believe the order coupon was forged by some evil, evil person to frame Oswald as "the patsy" because . . . gasp . . . some FBI expert said you can't trust a crummy microfilm of something regarding the handwriting that's on it, I've got to ask you a question:
How many evil, evil bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting and the all-important cover up?
Oodles and gobs?
Given the fact that you believe the order coupon was forged by some evil, evil person to frame Oswald as "the patsy"
Not that it surprises me, but you are not paying attention. Where did you get the idea from that it is my opinion that the order coupon was forged?
It probably goes way over your head, but let me ask you a question anyway; Even if it was 100% absolutely certain that the handwriting of the order coupon and envelope was Oswald's, how in the world does that prove that he (Oswald) bought, received and subsequently owned a rifle?
I'll come back to you in about three months or so, to see if you have figured it out.
-
As I said to another NWNT poster, I reserve the right to respond if it amuses me to expose the flaws in your thinking. Hence, I will peek into the NWMT bin once more, pathetic as it may be. I will then simply declare victory and move on.
Uh-huh, defense lawyers cannily allow explosive evidence to be admitted because they think they can use it to "destroy" the critical points the prosecution is trying to make with it. Uh-huh, that happens all the time - not. Think about what you are suggesting. On your second inane point, CE 399 would never have been admitted into evidence unless the testimony of Tomlinson, Wright and Johnsen had established the likelihood that it was indeed found at Parkland.
I have no clue what you are even talking about. The prosecution would have wanted CE 399 admitted into evidence so the prosecution could show that it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, had been found in proximity to JFK and Connally, and could explain their wounds. Once it was admitted into evidence, the defense could certainly have attempted to show that it had not been fired from Oswald's rifle and could not explain their wounds. The defense might or might not have been successful. But any notion that the defense would have allowed CE 399 to be admitted because the defense was so confident it could prevail on the substantive issues is just nuts; such a tactic would have been ineffective assistance of counsel (i.e., malpractice) to the nth degree.
You have a stunning ability to miss the point. We have no idea what Tomlinson and Wright would have said at trial. My point was simply that a couple of FBI documents saying they could "not identify" CE 399 do not carry the dark implications that Thompson and Aguilar suggest. My imaginary testimony was simply an effort to show how Tomlinson's testimony at trial could have satisfied the "identify" requirement and yet have been consistent with the FBI documents. His actual testimony about the stretchers supports this. My guess is that he told Odum something like "Look, I have no way of saying for certain that's the same bullet, and I'm not going to pretend I do, but it's consistent with what I saw." Shanklin and the author of CE 2011 turned this into "could not identify."
Wright is "on the record" - really? We have Thompson's and Aguilar's word for what he supposedly said in an at-home interview in 1967. That is not on the record. We have no idea what he would've said at a trial in 1964. As I said, even if he stuck with his pointy-headed story, it would not impair the chain of custody if those on either side - Tomlinson and Johnsen - said the bullet was not pointy-headed or if his recollection could otherwise be called into doubt.
Your "scenario" is beyond goofy. My first law review article was about ineffective assistance of counsel by criminal defense attorneys, and your "scenario" would be a guaranteed ineffective assistance claim. (Are you aware that in the mock trial of Oswald, the defense did object to CE 399 - Spence being no fool - and the judge, a sitting federal judge, ruled it admissible at a pretrial evidentiary hearing? So much for your "scenario.")
You continue to make no sense. Call Odum as a witness??? What could Odum say that would assist the prosecution in establishing the chain of custody of CE 399? The chain of custody would be determined by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier, period. You and I have no idea what Tomlinson "had been saying." That was the entire point of my imaginary testimony - the FBI documents could well be correct that he "could not identify" CE 399 when it was shown to him by Odum, yet whatever he actually said to Odum might, if repeated at trial, indeed satisfy the identification requirement. You seemingly do not grasp this.
As for Wright, once again I say that all we know is what he supposedly told Thompson in 1967. I find that describing a pristine bullet that was not CE 399, and then pulling an example out of a desk drawer, rather bizarre. We do not know what he would have testified at trial. It sounds as though what he said to Odum is similar to what Tomlinson said. If he testified at trial it was pointy-headed, then as I said previously this would not have been an admission-killer if Tomlinson and Todd testified it was not pointy-headed or his recollection were otherwise called into doubt.
There is a talent called "thinking like a lawyer." It's what law school is all about. Your posts are SO FAR from "thinking like a lawyer" that I would bet my house, car and favorite cat you are not a lawyer or anything like a lawyer. I would weep for your clients if you were.
I would tend to guess some kind of salesman. Close?
As for a CTer, I guess I do tend to assume that those who quack and waddle like CTers are in fact CTers. Do non-CTers refer to "the die hard LN cult manuscript" as you do below? My sincere apologies if you're actually a CIA-sponsored cognitive infiltrator just like me. Let's do lunch at Langley during the conference next week!
Neener, neener, yada yada, on it goes. Back in the NWMT bin for you. Pound on the lid if you need anything.
To quote Elvis; Don't let your arrogant head get too big because it'll break your neck!
You do understand that patronizing is a sign of extreme weakness, don't you.
There isn't anything of significant value in the world salad you've just written, so I'll ignore it.
-
Would Tomlinson and Wright even be links in a chain of custody? I do agree that chain of custody of CE-399 would not be an issue. I wouldn't have thought that Tomlinson could have satisfied the court on it though. Frazier and Todd had both scratched their marks on it and it is a non-fungible item. Either one of their positive identifications would suffice. Frazier actually was able to positively identify it during his WC testimony by locating his mark on it.
I believe they would be necessary. The chain of custody has to extend from the discovery of the item of evidence to it being offered at trial. Particularly with the confusing CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, the defense would be arguing precisely what the chain of custody is intended to prevent - i.e., that CE 399 originated with the FBI (Todd and Frazier) and was not in fact the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright. It was fabricated by the FBI as an additional item of evidence against Oswald. Hence, I believe Tomlinson and Wright would have been necessary.
My point with the imaginary testimony of Tomlinson was that he could have been just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher at his WC testimony and that this still would have satisfied the "identification" requirement. All he really needed to say was "I found a bullet at Parkland and I have no way of knowing with any certainty whether CE 399 is it because I didn't pay that much attention, but I have no reason to say CE 399 isn't it." The identification requirement, as one works through the chain of custody, does not require every witness to testify "Yes, absolutely, no question, that's it." Not at all.
-
I believe they would be necessary. The chain of custody has to extend from the discovery of the item of evidence to it being offered at trial. Particularly with the confusing CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, the defense would be arguing precisely what the chain of custody is intended to prevent - i.e., that CE 399 originated with the FBI (Todd and Frazier) and was not in fact the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright. It was fabricated by the FBI as an additional item of evidence against Oswald. Hence, I believe Tomlinson and Wright would have been necessary.
My point with the imaginary testimony of Tomlinson was that he could have been just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher at his WC testimony and that this still would have satisfied the "identification" requirement. All he really needed to say was "I found a bullet at Parkland and I have no way of knowing with any certainty whether CE 399 is it because I didn't pay that much attention, but I have no reason to say CE 399 isn't it." The identification requirement, as one works through the chain of custody, does not require every witness to testify "Yes, absolutely, no question, that's it." Not at all.
You really don't understand that your are massively contradicting yourself, right?
I believe they would be necessary. The chain of custody has to extend from the discovery of the item of evidence to it being offered at trial. Particularly with the confusing CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, the defense would be arguing precisely what the chain of custody is intended to prevent - i.e., that CE 399 originated with the FBI (Todd and Frazier) and was not in fact the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright. It was fabricated by the FBI as an additional item of evidence against Oswald. Hence, I believe Tomlinson and Wright would have been necessary.
Exactly right, the sole purpose of the chain of custody is that the piece of evidence found at the crime scene is in fact the same as the piece of evidence presented at trial.
My point with the imaginary testimony of Tomlinson was that he could have been just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher at his WC testimony and that this still would have satisfied the "identification" requirement. All he really needed to say was "I found a bullet at Parkland and I have no way of knowing with any certainty whether CE 399 is it because I didn't pay that much attention, but I have no reason to say CE 399 isn't it."
And this is were you contradict yourself. If Tomlinson was "just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher" it would not satisfy the chain of custody requirements, because being uncertain does in no way ensure that the piece of evidence found at the crime scene is in fact the same as the piece of evidence presented at trial. It is not an identification when the witness basically says that he can't identify the item.
-
You really don't understand that your are massively contradicting yourself, right?
I believe they would be necessary. The chain of custody has to extend from the discovery of the item of evidence to it being offered at trial. Particularly with the confusing CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, the defense would be arguing precisely what the chain of custody is intended to prevent - i.e., that CE 399 originated with the FBI (Todd and Frazier) and was not in fact the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright. It was fabricated by the FBI as an additional item of evidence against Oswald. Hence, I believe Tomlinson and Wright would have been necessary.
Exactly right, the sole purpose of the chain of custody is that the piece of evidence found at the crime scene is in fact the same as the piece of evidence presented at trial.
My point with the imaginary testimony of Tomlinson was that he could have been just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher at his WC testimony and that this still would have satisfied the "identification" requirement. All he really needed to say was "I found a bullet at Parkland and I have no way of knowing with any certainty whether CE 399 is it because I didn't pay that much attention, but I have no reason to say CE 399 isn't it."
And this is were you contradict yourself. If Tomlinson was "just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher" it would not satisfy the chain of custody requirements, because being uncertain does in no way ensure that the piece of evidence found at the crime scene is in fact the same as the piece of evidence presented at trial. It is not an identification when the witness basically says that he can't identify the item.
Golly, this man will simply not stay in his NWMT bin, will he? Who keeps letting him out - do I need to install a Kryptonite lock or something?
There is no contradiction. TRY READING MY ORIGINAL POST.
You once again demonstrate that you are a door-to-door Tupperware salesman and not a lawyer. (Nothing against Tupperware salesmen, of course. They just typically don't think like lawyers.)
The chain of custody is not evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis. It is evaluated on the basis of the totality of the testimony and evidence.
Given the circumstances in which CE 399 was found, there would be little expectation that witnesses such as T and W would testify months later "Damn right that's the bullet I found. I examined it closely at the time. No question in my mind."
If they HAD testified in that manner, in fact, it would have been suspicious in its own right. They would have looked like the classic overly-coached-by-their-lawyer witnesses.
If Tomlinson and Wright had both testified "No way is that it, the bullet I saw was a distinctly pointy-headed slug with a little yellow happy face on the side that we laughed about at the time" - well, yes, that would kill the chain of custody of CE 399.
If they had both testified "Well, obviously, I can't say that's the exact bullet because I didn't pay that much attention at the time and I don't know the full provenance of this CE 399, but there is nothing about CE 399 that would cause me to say it isn't the bullet" - then, indeed, by the time Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier had testified the chain of custody would have been satisfactory even if Johnsen and Rowley had testified the same way.
The test for admission is whether, when all is said and done, there is a likelihood the bullet being offered into evidence is the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland. It is not some "Gotcha!" test where evidence is kept out because every witness isn't able to provide an exact identification.
There is nothing further I can or will say about this because your obtuseness is either willful or impenetrable. If you choose to keep chiming in, I am simply going to ignore you.
-
Golly, this man will simply not stay in his NWMT bin, will he? Who keeps letting him out - do I need to install a Kryptonite lock or something?
There is no contradiction. TRY READING MY ORIGINAL POST.
You once again demonstrate that you are a door-to-door Tupperware salesman and not a lawyer. (Nothing against Tupperware salesmen, of course. They just typically don't think like lawyers.)
The chain of custody is not evaluated on a witness-by-witness basis. It is evaluated on the basis of the totality of the testimony and evidence.
Given the circumstances in which CE 399 was found, there would be little expectation that witnesses such as T and W would testify months later "Damn right that's the bullet I found. I examined it closely at the time. No question in my mind."
If they HAD testified in that manner, in fact, it would have been suspicious in its own right. They would have looked like the classic overly-coached-by-their-lawyer witnesses.
If Tomlinson and Wright had both testified "No way is that it, the bullet I saw was a distinctly pointy-headed slug with a little yellow happy face on the side that we laughed about at the time" - well, yes, that would kill the chain of custody of CE 399.
If they had both testified "Well, obviously, I can't say that's the exact bullet because I didn't pay that much attention at the time and I don't know the full provenance of this CE 399, but there is nothing about CE 399 that would cause me to say it isn't the bullet" - then, indeed, by the time Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier had testified the chain of custody would have been satisfactory even if Johnsen and Rowley had testified the same way.
The test for admission is whether, when all is said and done, there is a likelihood the bullet being offered into evidence is the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland. It is not some "Gotcha!" test where evidence is kept out because every witness isn't able to provide an exact identification.
There is nothing further I can or will say about this because your obtuseness is either willful or impenetrable. If you choose to keep chiming in, I am simply going to ignore you.
If you choose to keep chiming in, I am simply going to ignore you.
Bla bla bla.... heard it all before....
First you were going to leave this forum which you figured was beneath you, and then - in Trump like fashion - you changed your mind and started an avalanche of arrogant word salad post.
Then you decided that several members were not worth your time and yet here you are consuming a massive amount of time to reply to one of those members.
And now you claim you are going to ignore me.... Of course you are, as your childish insults do not make any kind of impression, your speculative assumptions and your pathetic fictional dialogue simply do not work, it might be your best option to simply run away.
Let's see how long it will take before you start to not ignore me :D
Oh BTW, whether you like it or not, I reserve the right to reply to any of your selfserving BS posts. You are not the only LN clown who is afraid to reply to my posts!
-
[...]
Weedyman,
How many evil, evil bad guys and really, really bad girls do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few?
Oodles and gobs?
-
I believe they would be necessary. The chain of custody has to extend from the discovery of the item of evidence to it being offered at trial. Particularly with the confusing CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, the defense would be arguing precisely what the chain of custody is intended to prevent - i.e., that CE 399 originated with the FBI (Todd and Frazier) and was not in fact the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright. It was fabricated by the FBI as an additional item of evidence against Oswald. Hence, I believe Tomlinson and Wright would have been necessary.
My point with the imaginary testimony of Tomlinson was that he could have been just about as "iffy" as he was about the stretcher at his WC testimony and that this still would have satisfied the "identification" requirement. All he really needed to say was "I found a bullet at Parkland and I have no way of knowing with any certainty whether CE 399 is it because I didn't pay that much attention, but I have no reason to say CE 399 isn't it." The identification requirement, as one works through the chain of custody, does not require every witness to testify "Yes, absolutely, no question, that's it." Not at all.
I believe that you are right. I had read different takes on it but this is the one that I had in mind:
According to one position, a "chain-of custody foundation is not required ... for periods before the evidence comes into the possession of law enforcement personnel."
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
I hadn't bothered to actually read the professor's opinion on it.
-
I believe that you are right. I had read different takes on it but this is the one that I had in mind:
According to one position, a "chain-of custody foundation is not required ... for periods before the evidence comes into the possession of law enforcement personnel."
https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
I hadn't bothered to actually read the professor's opinion on it.
Thanks - that's an excellent article.
I think technically "chain of custody" does refer to the period of custody by agents of the prosecution (police, detectives, etc.). If Johnsen had been present when Tomlinson and Wright found the bullet, T and W would have been irrelevant. But since the bullet came into Johnsen's possession via Wright, and not at the time and location where it was found, then as the article suggests the period before it came into Johnsen's possession (and thus T and W) would be important. Probably in most cases Johnsen's testimony alone would be sufficient, but not with the red flags raised by CE 2011 and Shaklin's AIRTEL. It would be interesting to know what arguments Gerry Spence made about CE 399 at the evidentiary prehearing in the mock trial.
-
If you choose to keep chiming in, I am simply going to ignore you.
Bla bla bla.... heard it all before....
First you were going to leave this forum which you figured was beneath you, and then - in Trump like fashion - you changed your mind and started an avalanche of arrogant word salad post.
Then you decided that several members were not worth your time and yet here you are consuming a massive amount of time to reply to one of those members.
And now you claim you are going to ignore me.... Of course you are, as your childish insults do not make any kind of impression, your speculative assumptions and your pathetic fictional dialogue simply do not work, it might be your best option to simply run away.
Let's see how long it will take before you start to not ignore me :D
Oh BTW, whether you like it or not, I reserve the right to reply to any of your selfserving BS posts. You are not the only LN clown who is afraid to reply to my posts!
Oh, dear, what to do with folks like Martin?
Let's see, I am just like Trump, an "LN clown" who is "afraid" to reply to Martin's posts, and a purveyor of "an avalanche of arrogant word salad posts," "childish insults," "pathetic fictional dialogue" and "self-serving BS posts." Well, perhaps.
I think it would be fair to say I've gotten under Martin's skin, yes?
I actually started this narrowly focused thread in a sincere effort to provide a retired lawyer's perspective on how a chain of custody works, what it means for a witness to identify an item of evidence, and why the CT arguments about CE 399 (strictly in relation to the chain of custody) are flawed. I really didn't picture this thread generating any hysteria.
Martin immediately went off on the tangent that I was completely misguided because the Oswald defense would have not objected to the admission of CE 399 at all. I responded to each of his posts at considerable length. By his second post, I was "pathetic" and the purveyor of "self-serving BS," "the diehard LN cult manuscript," and "assumptions, cherry-picked evidence and a massive subjective bias." Later, I was accused of "massively contradicting myself," of possessing an "arrogant big head" and of posting a "word salad" unworthy of a response.
I warned Martin early in our relationship, when he questioned whether I was a lawyer at all, that he was dealing with a master of snarkiness and that if he chose to play this game he was going find out what master-level snarkiness looks like. He didn't take the hint.
Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed. At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway? Playing with the issues is kind of fun in the same way jigsaw puzzles (or perhaps chess) are fun, and that's about it. It's mental exercise, but it isn't going anywhere. If you're in love with your theory, go for it - but recognize that you're just playing around with ideas and that others, including LNers, are equally in love with their theories. If you become the functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist about it, all the fun goes poof.
The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke. There are even LNers who don't get the joke. Do you think I'm serious with my Caped Factoid Buster nonsense? With assigning folks like Martin to some imaginary bin of those who are Not Worth My Time? Good Lord. On every forum on which I've ever participated - even golf and motorcycle forums - I've found it amusing to create some over-the-top persona and turn him loose. If he makes you come unglued, that's your problem and frankly a source of mirth for me until it reaches the level of upsetting someone to the extent it seems to have done with Martin. If you can't deal with master-level snarkiness, don't provoke me by playing that game; if you can, bring it - the wittier the better!
That being said, I shall herewith release Martin and his compadres from the imaginary Not Worth My Time bin and, if they say anything worthwhile (unlikely, but it could happen! :D) pledge myself to respond in a restrained and statesmanlike manner worthy of my Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary training.
Or maybe not. :D
-
Thanks - that's an excellent article.
I think technically "chain of custody" does refer to the period of custody by agents of the prosecution (police, detectives, etc.). If Johnsen had been present when Tomlinson and Wright found the bullet, T and W would have been irrelevant. But since the bullet came into Johnsen's possession via Wright, and not at the time and location where it was found, then as the article suggests the period before it came into Johnsen's possession (and thus T and W) would be important. Probably in most cases Johnsen's testimony alone would be sufficient, but not with the red flags raised by CE 2011 and Shaklin's AIRTEL. It would be interesting to know what arguments Gerry Spence made about CE 399 at the evidentiary prehearing in the mock trial.
I'm not seeing red flags in CE-2011 and Shanklin's Airtel. They both seem to be saying the same thing. Neither Wright nor Tomlinson could positively identify exhibit C1 as the bullet that they handled at Parkland on Nov 22. Understandably so. The Airtel is misinterpreted by many in the CT camp. Wright and Tomlinson both told Bardwell Odum that the bullet appeared to be the one they handled but they were not positive that it was the same one. CTs were ecstatic when Thompson and Aguilar reported that Odum denied to them that he had ever handled CE-399. Thompson eventually burst their bubble when he admitted that Odum recovered some memory of being in Wright's office at Parkland and ended up deferring to the FBI document.
-
Oh, dear, what to do with folks like Martin?
Let's see, I am just like Trump, an "LN clown" who is "afraid" to reply to Martin's posts, and a purveyor of "an avalanche of arrogant word salad posts," "childish insults," "pathetic fictional dialogue" and "self-serving BS posts." Well, perhaps.
I think it would be fair to say I've gotten under Martin's skin, yes?
I actually started this narrowly focused thread in a sincere effort to provide a retired lawyer's perspective on how a chain of custody works, what it means for a witness to identify an item of evidence, and why the CT arguments about CE 399 (strictly in relation to the chain of custody) are flawed. I really didn't picture this thread generating any hysteria.
Martin immediately went off on the tangent that I was completely misguided because the Oswald defense would have not objected to the admission of CE 399 at all. I responded to each of his posts at considerable length. By his second post, I was "pathetic" and the purveyor of "self-serving BS," "the diehard LN cult manuscript," and "assumptions, cherry-picked evidence and a massive subjective bias." Later, I was accused of "massively contradicting myself," of possessing an "arrogant big head" and of posting a "word salad" unworthy of a response.
I warned Martin early in our relationship, when he questioned whether I was a lawyer at all, that he was dealing with a master of snarkiness and that if chose to play this game he was going find out what master-level snarkiness looks like. He didn't take the hint.
Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed. At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway? Playing with the issues is kind of fun in the same way jigsaw puzzles (or perhaps chess) are fun, and that's about it. It's mental exercise, but it isn't going anywhere. If you're in love with your theory, go for it - but recognize that you're just playing around with ideas and that others, including LNers, are equally in love with their theories. If you become the functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist about it, all the fun goes poof.
The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke. There are even LNers who don't get the joke. Do you think I'm serious with my Caped Factoid Buster nonsense? With assigning folks like Martin to some imaginary bin of those who are Not Worth My Time? Good Lord. On every forum on which I've ever participated - even golf and motorcycle forums - I've found it amusing to create some over-the-top persona and turn him loose. If he makes you come unglued, that's your problem and frankly a source of mirth for me until it reaches the level of upsetting someone to the extent it seems to have done with Martin. If you can't deal with master-level snarkiness, don't provoke me by playing that game; if you can, bring it - the wittier the better!
That being said, I shall herewith release Martin and his compadres from the imaginary Not Worth My Time bin and, if they say anything worthwhile (unlikely, but it could happen! :D) pledge myself to respond in a restrained and statesmanlike manner worthy of my Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary training.
Or maybe not. :D
If you want him to ignore you just say you think Ruth Paine was the shooter behind the fence. Or Jackie shot JFK. Or Greer. And everything was faked, Oswald was framed, then everything was covered up, then the coverups were covered up ad infinitum. Promote the Lifton theory. The two Oswalds theory. The leprechauns theory. Whatever. Any conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory.
Will he challenge your evidence? Ask about chain of possession for that evidence? Raise legal questions? Demand this or that? Nope. Not a thing. You won't hear from him again.
-
I'm not seeing red flags in CE-2011 and Shanklin's Airtel. They both seem to be saying the same thing. Neither Wright nor Tomlinson could positively identify exhibit C1 as the bullet that they handled at Parkland on Nov 22. Understandably so. The Airtel is misinterpreted by many in the CT camp. Wright and Tomlinson both told Bardwell Odum that the bullet appeared to be the one they handled but they were not positive that it was the same one. CTs were ecstatic when Thompson and Aguilar reported that Odum denied to them that he had ever handled CE-399. Thompson eventually burst their bubble when he admitted that Odum recovered some memory of being in Wright's office at Parkland and ended up deferring to the FBI document.
I really don't see red flags either. A defense attorney might attempt to impeach Tomlinson or Wright with them, but that would go nowhere for the reasons we both recognize. The authors of the two documents were FBI men who, I believe, were using "identify" in a technical sense and not the sense of "refusal" or "we have a big problem here" as Thompson and Aguilar imply. I wasn't aware of what you say in your final sentence, but that certainly takes the wind out of the Odum thing. The only real puzzle is what was going on with Wright when he met with Thompson in 1967. Martin may even be right, albeit not for the reasons he suggests: the Oswald defense might not have objected to CE 399 at all because the notion that Johnsen and the others were lying and the bullet had been fabricated by firing it into a tank of water is simply too far-fetched and desperate to have much appeal. Much Ado About Nothing does pretty well sum up my view of the arguments about CE 399 having a chain of custody problem or being inauthentic.
-
I really don't see red flags either. A defense attorney might attempt to impeach Tomlinson or Wright with them, but that would go nowhere for the reasons we both recognize. The authors of the two documents were FBI men who, I believe, were using "identify" in a technical sense and not the sense of "refusal" or "we have a big problem here" as Thompson and Aguilar imply. I wasn't aware of what you say in your final sentence, but that certainly takes the wind out of the Odum thing. The only real puzzle is what was going on with Wright when he met with Thompson in 1967. Martin may even be right, albeit not for the reasons he suggests: the Oswald defense might not have objected to CE 399 at all because the notion that Johnsen and the others were lying and the bullet had been fabricated by firing it into a tank of water is simply too far-fetched and desperate to have much appeal. Much Ado About Nothing does pretty well sum up my view of the arguments about CE 399 having a chain of custody problem or being inauthentic.
I tried timestamping it at 19:40. Just to let you know in case it doesn't open there for you.
-
If you want him to ignore you just say you think Ruth Paine was the shooter behind the fence. Or Jackie shot JFK. Or Greer. And everything was faked, Oswald was framed, then everything was covered up, then the coverups were covered up ad infinitum. Promote the Lifton theory. The two Oswalds theory. The leprechauns theory. Whatever. Any conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory.
Will he challenge your evidence? Ask about chain of possession for that evidence? Raise legal questions? Demand this or that? Nope. Not a thing. You won't hear from him again.
I'm currently hard at work on the Alien Angle. Will that suffice? This video, posted at the Ed Forum today by Douglas Caddy, is somewhat more interesting than it looks. I first heard this theory at the 1989 MUFON conference in Las Vegas, where wacky John Lear and scary Bill Cooper assured us credulous UFO types that JFK had been shot by Greer (with a .45!) because he was about to reveal the Alien Presence.
-
I tried timestamping it at 19:40. Just to let you know in case it doesn't open there for you.
WHAT THE HECK???
This was a 2003 symposium. Tink says Odum called him "two days after" their visit to his home (and in fact tried to call them before they left Dallas) and pretty much cleared up the mystery. Their seminal article, "The Magic Bullet: More Magical Than We Knew," HAD to have been written more than two days after their visit to Odum, so WHY does it trumpet the "Odum mystery" as though it were highly significant ("Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up.")? The online version of the article has a 2005 editor's note but nothing new about Odum, and the supposed Odum mystery is still a favorite of CTers.
Is this just raw dishonesty? Tink was a professor of philosophy and has an engaging way that makes you want to like and believe him, but this isn't the first time he's taken me aback.
-
I'm currently hard at work on the Alien Angle. Will that suffice? This video, posted at the Ed Forum today by Douglas Caddy, is somewhat more interesting than it looks. I first heard this theory at the 1989 MUFON conference in Las Vegas, where wacky John Lear and scary Bill Cooper assured us credulous UFO types that JFK had been shot by Greer (with a .45!) because he was about to reveal the Alien Presence.
Unfortunately, Caddy (who is one of my FB "friends"), at *Harley Schlanger's request in early 2016, set up a meeting in Houston between Roger Stone and Schlanger shortly after the latter had returned from Moscow, where Caddy believes he attended the 10 December 2015 RT Dinner with Vladimir Putin, Mike Flynn, and Jill "Anti-Vax" Stein. After the meeting, Stone sent Caddy a thank-you e-mail in which he mentioned that and Schlanger were working together to destroy "The Globalists," and that he had a backchannel to Trump.
*Schlanger is a member of the pro-Russia Lyndon LaRouche organization.
-
In the [1986] mock trial of Oswald, the defense did object to CE 399 - Spence being no fool - and the judge, a sitting federal judge, ruled it admissible at a pretrial evidentiary hearing.
"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge
Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time,
ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible
at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi (Via letter to DVP); August 2009
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html
And still more "CE399 Chain of Custody" talk here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1135.html#The-SBT-And-Chain-Of-Custody-For-CE399
-
WHAT THE HECK???
This was a 2003 symposium. Tink says Odum called him "two days after" their visit to his home (and in fact tried to call them before they left Dallas) and pretty much cleared up the mystery. Their seminal article, "The Magic Bullet: More Magical Than We Knew," HAD to have been written more than two days after their visit to Odum, so WHY does it trumpet the "Odum mystery" as though it were highly significant ("Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up.")? The online version of the article has a 2005 editor's note but nothing new about Odum, and the supposed Odum mystery is still a favorite of CTers.
Is this just raw dishonesty? Tink was a professor of philosophy and has an engaging way that makes you want to like and believe him, but this isn't the first time he's taken me aback.
I do give credit to Tink for sharing the content of Odum's phone call, even though he downplayed it and never included it in the article. Tink does come across as a very likeable guy. I don't get the same vibes from his co-author of "Even More Magical Than We Knew". Aguilar seems to have a bit of a nasty streak in him.
-
"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge
Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time,
ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible
at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi (Via letter to DVP); August 2009
More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html
And still more "CE399 Chain of Custody" talk here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1135.html#The-SBT-And-Chain-Of-Custody-For-CE399
Thanks DVP, that first link you provided (to the email from Vince Bugliosi) is very interesting. Here is a short exerpt with some underlining by me:
About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.
Based on that, and what follows in the email, I am led to believe that the other evidence would be considered at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. And, that therefore, in this case anyway, the chain of custody is not the only consideration that determines the admissibility of the evidence. And that seems to me to be the way it should be for justice to be served.
-
Speculation & opinion doesn't mean very much 30+ years too late.
-
Thanks DVP, that first link you provided (to the email from Vince Bugliosi) is very interesting. Here is a short exerpt with some underlining by me:
About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.
Based on that, and what follows in the email, I am led to believe that the other evidence would be considered at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. And, that therefore, in this case anyway, the chain of custody is not the only consideration that determines the admissibility of the evidence. And that seems to me to be the way it should be for justice to be served.
Prepare yourself, CTers: I think Bugliosi was dead wrong! Comically, ludicrously wrong!
Somewhere early in this thread, I saw this quote from Bugliosi on DVP's site and winced:
What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.
Uh, no. The issue with the chain of custody of CE 399 is whether it is the bullet found at Parkland - that any nothing more.
You don't get to argue backwards: "Hey, it was fired from Oswald's rifle and explains the SBT, ergo it must have been found on a stretcher at Parkland."
The fact it was fired from Oswald's rifle and might explain the SBT is precisely why the defense would suggest it was PLANTED.
Perhaps mock trials have mock chains of custody, but in the real world the chain of custody would be confined to what Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier - those who had custody of it - had to say. As I stated, the issue would be a likelihood CE 399 came into the possession of the authorities in the circumstances they say it did and remained in their custody until trial.
You HAVE TO GET IT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Then the prosecution and defense can start making their arguments as to how it fits into the case. Whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle or could explain the SBT could still be hotly debated. Indeed, the defense could still argue it was planted at Parkland for Tomlinson to find.
As I've suggested, this isn't a super-demanding standard. Unless Tomlinson and Wright just flat denied CE 399 was the bullet or anything like it, there wouldn't be a problem.
But you don't get to argue backwards from evidence and speculation having nothing to do with the chain of custody.
-
Here's an excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the "chain of custody" topic....
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifhT47qSGA84VT8NSza1TI_P9GRAaKoGhCtFBjwTh5bMJ3_d9YXNPdUhcS_kZv759crPmxF_Mw8FE8VWjW-dNNdS_WSJKWyqS6L6YDK0_L7WxZAlEAtsIG-8ay7bmHEeX9wmN04NeZT0tTrUADzck6SZoE2aci98hYJU0oj2kslL_SPccFoPRxrNch/s870/Reclaiming%20History%20Book%20Excerpt%20--%20Page%20442%20Of%20Endnotes.png)
-
Prepare yourself, CTers: I think Bugliosi was dead wrong! Comically, ludicrously wrong!
Somewhere early in this thread, I saw this quote from Bugliosi on DVP's site and winced:
What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.
Uh, no. The issue with the chain of custody of CE 399 is whether it is the bullet found at Parkland - that any nothing more.
You don't get to argue backwards: "Hey, it was fired from Oswald's rifle and explains the SBT, ergo it must have been found on a stretcher at Parkland."
The fact it was fired from Oswald's rifle and might explain the SBT is precisely why the defense would suggest it was PLANTED.
Perhaps mock trials have mock chains of custody, but in the real world the chain of custody would be confined to what Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier - those who had custody of it - had to say. As I stated, the issue would be a likelihood CE 399 came into the possession of the authorities in the circumstances they say it did and remained in their custody until trial.
You HAVE TO GET IT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Then the prosecution and defense can start making their arguments as to how it fits into the case. Whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle or could explain the SBT could still be hotly debated. Indeed, the defense could still argue it was planted at Parkland for Tomlinson to find.
As I've suggested, this isn't a super-demanding standard. Unless Tomlinson and Wright just flat denied CE 399 was the bullet or anything like it, there wouldn't be a problem.
But you don't get to argue backwards from evidence and speculation having nothing to do with the chain of custody.
Okay, if you believe that Vince Bugliosi is wrong, I won’t argue the point. I will say that apparently it isn’t just me who is misinterpreting what Bugliosi is apparently trying to say.
-
Oh, dear, what to do with folks like Martin?
Let's see, I am just like Trump, an "LN clown" who is "afraid" to reply to Martin's posts, and a purveyor of "an avalanche of arrogant word salad posts," "childish insults," "pathetic fictional dialogue" and "self-serving BS posts." Well, perhaps.
I think it would be fair to say I've gotten under Martin's skin, yes?
I actually started this narrowly focused thread in a sincere effort to provide a retired lawyer's perspective on how a chain of custody works, what it means for a witness to identify an item of evidence, and why the CT arguments about CE 399 (strictly in relation to the chain of custody) are flawed. I really didn't picture this thread generating any hysteria.
Martin immediately went off on the tangent that I was completely misguided because the Oswald defense would have not objected to the admission of CE 399 at all. I responded to each of his posts at considerable length. By his second post, I was "pathetic" and the purveyor of "self-serving BS," "the diehard LN cult manuscript," and "assumptions, cherry-picked evidence and a massive subjective bias." Later, I was accused of "massively contradicting myself," of possessing an "arrogant big head" and of posting a "word salad" unworthy of a response.
I warned Martin early in our relationship, when he questioned whether I was a lawyer at all, that he was dealing with a master of snarkiness and that if he chose to play this game he was going find out what master-level snarkiness looks like. He didn't take the hint.
Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed. At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway? Playing with the issues is kind of fun in the same way jigsaw puzzles (or perhaps chess) are fun, and that's about it. It's mental exercise, but it isn't going anywhere. If you're in love with your theory, go for it - but recognize that you're just playing around with ideas and that others, including LNers, are equally in love with their theories. If you become the functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist about it, all the fun goes poof.
The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke. There are even LNers who don't get the joke. Do you think I'm serious with my Caped Factoid Buster nonsense? With assigning folks like Martin to some imaginary bin of those who are Not Worth My Time? Good Lord. On every forum on which I've ever participated - even golf and motorcycle forums - I've found it amusing to create some over-the-top persona and turn him loose. If he makes you come unglued, that's your problem and frankly a source of mirth for me until it reaches the level of upsetting someone to the extent it seems to have done with Martin. If you can't deal with master-level snarkiness, don't provoke me by playing that game; if you can, bring it - the wittier the better!
That being said, I shall herewith release Martin and his compadres from the imaginary Not Worth My Time bin and, if they say anything worthwhile (unlikely, but it could happen! :D) pledge myself to respond in a restrained and statesmanlike manner worthy of my Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary training.
Or maybe not. :D
Well, it didn't take you very long to stop ignoring me. :D
Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed.
And there is the classic LN claim about the "verdict of history" which is typically used when arguments fail to persuade.
At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway?
At any level, I, for one, do not care if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I have said so many times already. It's an historical event and nothing we can do or say now will alter that. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much point in trying to determine who was behind it or how it was done, if it was a conspiracy. Any evidence there might have been pointing to a conspiracy has disappeared a long time ago and most of the people involved are already dead or will soon be. As far as Oswald is concerned, if he did it alone, so be it. All I am really interested in is finding out if the evidence actually supports the "Oswald was the lone gunman" claim made by the WC.
The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke.
Hilarious. Just because I have a different opinion than you, you jump to this pathetic conclusion. You sound like a school bully who pushes people around and when he gets confronted about it, he says "hey, it's just a joke. It's not serious"!
So, let's get back to the topic of this thread.
In an earlier post you asked what sense it made to call Odum as a witness, because the chain of custody would be determined by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier. Then you make the argument that nobody knows what Tomlinson "had been saying" and that the FBI documents (CE 2011 and the Airtel) could well be correct. You assume implicitly that what Tomlinson said to Odum would satisfy the identification requirement, but you ignore completely the possibility that Odum never talked with Tomlinson and Wright in the first place. Tomlinson said in his deposition that he was shown a bullet once, in late November 1963, by SAC Shanklin. He said the same thing to Marcus in 1966. You then downplay what Wright told Thompson in 1967 by calling what he said "rather bizarre" and you make the speculative claim that "It sounds as though what he said to Odum is similar to what Tomlinson said". I'm not sure where you get that from, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Obviously, this is all theory, because if Oswald had lived and there was a trial, CE 2011 and the Airtel, would likely not even exist. Tomlinson and Wright would simply be called as a witness by either the prosecution or the defense, depending on what they would say under oath. Having said that, in this hypothetical scenario, Odum would be a crucial witness, because if he did indeed not have CE399 and did not show it to Tomlinson and Wright, it would completely destroy the credibility of CE2011.
As for Tomlinson and Wright, you said in another post;
If Tomlinson and Wright had both testified "No way is that it, the bullet I saw was a distinctly pointy-headed slug with a little yellow happy face on the side that we laughed about at the time" - well, yes, that would kill the chain of custody of CE 399.
If they had both testified "Well, obviously, I can't say that's the exact bullet because I didn't pay that much attention at the time and I don't know the full provenance of this CE 399, but there is nothing about CE 399 that would cause me to say it isn't the bullet" - then, indeed, by the time Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier had testified the chain of custody would have been satisfactory even if Johnsen and Rowley had testified the same way.
The test for admission is whether, when all is said and done, there is a likelihood the bullet being offered into evidence is the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland. It is not some "Gotcha!" test where evidence is kept out because every witness isn't able to provide an exact identification.
This is exactly the reason why your imaginary testimony by Tomlinson depends on him saying "it looks like the same bullet, but there is no way I can be sure". And once again you speculate that CE 2011 and the Airtel could well be correct.
The reason why I said that I am not convinced that the defense would object to CE 399 being entered into evidence is that fighting the admissibility in the knowledge that excluding evidence because of a weak chain of custody is extremely rare and may give that piece of evidence more credibility than it deserves. It would of course depend on what Tomlinson and Wright would say, but if their testimony benefits the defense they may prefer to destroy CE399 and the prosecution's case at trial, in much the same way as Johnny Cochran used the "gloves don't fit" incident.
The real question that should be asked, but somehow never is, is why do we have to speculate about what Tomlinson and Wright may have said. Why do we only have an FBI document, written by an unidentified officer, and an airtel that makes the "it looks like the same bullet" claim. This is a crucial piece of evidence, so why not have Tomlinson and Wright make an affidavit and eliminate the need for speculation? This alone, IMO, justifies the conclusion that the FBI had an ulterior motive for dealing with this matter in an airtel and an unsigned document (CE 2011).
-
I’ll conclude my little dissertation because it’s going pretty far into the weeds. You’re probably all happy you never went to law school (or will be by the time I finish here).
My original purpose was merely to show that the typical CT argument about “massive chain of custody problems” with CE 399 simply isn’t true and that “identification” doesn’t mean what CTers suggest it does.
I think I now understand what Bugliosi was talking about, and it wasn’t the narrow chain of custody issue. It was Rule 403, so stay tuned. I will have to amend my statement from Bugliosi being "comically, ludicrously wrong" to Bugliosi "talking about something entirely different from the chain of custody" in his exchange with DVP. The latest extract from his book is indeed talking specifically about the c-of-c and making the same points I have made.
By the time CE 399 was offered into evidence at trial, the defense would have interviewed everyone from Tomlinson on up. If it were clear that there were no serious c-of-c issues, the defense might have stipulated to the admission of CE 399. The prosecution and defense commonly try to work through as many of these issues as possible before trial. Probably the majority of exhibits, even at a criminal trial, are stipulated into evidence.
This is why I said Martin’s point was correct, but not for the reasons he states. If the defense realized there were no serious c-of-c issues, they might have stipulated to admission and fought the larger battle of what the significance of CE 399 actually is at trial. If there were serious c-of-c issues, however, the defense would have loved to keep CE 399 out; they would not have stipulated to admission for “strategic” reasons.
The c-of-c issue is, “Where did CE 399 come from? How did it get into the hands of law enforcement?” The prosecution says it came from a stretcher in Parkland, was found there by Tomlinson and Wright, and given to Johnsen. Two key arguments for the defense would be (1) “No, it wasn’t. That isn’t the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright.” or (2) “It was planted there by someone other than Tomlinson and Wright to implicate Oswald.” Argument #2 really isn’t a c-of-c argument per se, any more than “It was fired from Oswald’s rifle” is a c-of-c argument.
If the c-of-c testimony established a likelihood that CE 399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright, that would put the c-of-c issue to rest. Now we’d be off to the races on all the other issues: It was or wasn’t fabricated and planted by persons unknown, it was or wasn’t found somewhere else and placed on the stretcher, it was or wasn’t fired from Oswald’s rifle, it does or doesn’t support the SBT. Contrary to what I understood Bugliosi to be suggesting, these are all post c-f-c issues.
I think Bugliosi was talking about “admission” (into evidence) rather than “identification” and c-of-c. A pretrial evidentiary hearing can go far beyond the mere issue of custody. In federal courts, it’s called a Rule 403 hearing (Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence). Apart from any issue of c-of-c, “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” The courts have said the exclusion is an extraordinary remedy and must be used sparingly.
(My experience is almost entirely civil. There, we typically file a pretrial "motion in limine" to exclude evidence or testimony. The reasons are usually similar to those set forth in Rule 403. Rule 403 applies in civil cases as well, but I no experience with it in this context since motions in limine are far more common.)
It’s certainly possible that, for example, the defense might argue at a Rule 403 hearing that CE 399 should be excluded because the likelihood of it being fabricated and planted is simply too great. They would obviously need some reasonably compelling evidence of this. I don’t see how the prosecution argument that it was fired from Oswald’s rifle would be relevant at a 403 hearing, but this is probably what Bugliosi was talking about.
In his exchange with DVP, Bugliosi says the issue is whether there is a likelihood CE 399 is what the prosecution says it is. Yes, but at the c-of-c stage what the prosecution says is simply that it’s “a bullet found by Tomlinson and Wright on a stretcher at Parkland and given to Johnsen, who then gave it to Rowley, who gave it to Todd, who gave it to Frazier.” That’s all, period.
If there was no serious issue about this and CE 399 had been stipulated into evidence, then perhaps no one but Frazier would have been required to testify. There would have been no identification requirement because there would have been no c-of-c issue. He could have simply testified “This is a bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland that the FBI crime lab determined had been fired from Oswald’s rifle.”
But if there were c-of-c issues, at a pretrial evidentiary hearing or at trial, the testimony could not start with the SS and FBI and some presumption they are good guys who always tell the truth. Quite the contrary, for good reason. Tomlinson and/or Wright would at least have to be able to say “I have no reason to say this is not the bullet found on the stretcher and given to Johnsen.” They would not have to say “Yes, that’s definitely it” to satisfy the identification requirement – but if they both said “That’s definitely not it,” the game would likely be over for CE 399.
If there had been a Rule 403 hearing and the court had declined to exclude CE 399, the defense could still have made at trial most of the arguments that CTers love to make.
End of lecture, or word salad as the case may be.
-
It seems to me that Martin continues to misunderstand the significance of Odum, CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright. Thanks to Tom Gram, we now know why no 302s were generated by Odum or Todd- i.e., this had become the FBI's standard practice in dealing with the WC's voluminous requests.
CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay. They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.
If Odum could testify "Well, actually, they both told me CE 399 looked nothing like the pointy-headed slug they found on the stretcher," then, sure, that would be relevant.
We can now be pretty sure that Odum did show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright. But even if this were still an open issue, it would not be relevant to the c-of-c or admissibility of CE 399. It would be relevant, perhaps, to some broader issue like "the FBI makes mistakes" or "you can't trust everything in the FBI documents."
-
It seems to me that Martin continues to misunderstand the significance of Odum, CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright. Thanks to Tom Gram, we now know why no 302s were generated by Odum or Todd- i.e., this had become the FBI's standard practice in dealing with the WC's voluminous requests.
CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay. They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.
If Odum could testify "Well, actually, they both told me CE 399 looked nothing like the pointy-headed slug they found on the stretcher," then, sure, that would be relevant.
We can now be pretty sure that Odum did show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright. But even if this were still an open issue, it would not be relevant to the c-of-c or admissibility of CE 399. It would be relevant, perhaps, to some broader issue like "the FBI makes mistakes" or "you can't trust everything in the FBI documents."
I never said that Odum testifying had anything directly to do with the chain of custody. His testimony would only serve to verify or discredit the information about the chain of custody some unidentified FBI agent provided to the WC in CE 2011. If Odum didn't show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright the information in CE 2011 is proven false.
Thanks to Tim, we now know that Odum almost immediately changed his tune and that even Tink Thompson quickly accepted that Odum had shown CE 399 to Wright.
Why are you misrepresenting this? Thompson did not accept that Odum had shown CE399 to Wright. On two separate occasions, the first one being a phone call and the second one a personal meeting in Dallas, Odum stated that he never had CE399 or had shown it to anybody. One can only speculate about what happened after the meeting, but Thompson remarked that when they talked to Odum he had not read the documents they had sent him (i.e. CE 2011). Two days after the meeting, Odum called Thompson and stated that he now vaguely remembered being in Wright's office for some unknown reason. He subsequently concluded that the reason "must have been" that he showed CE 399 to Wright. It is more than possible that Odum at that time had read CE2011 which made him doubt his own memory. The phone call to Thompson, after the meeting, was most likely - as Thompson concluded - to bring his statement more in line with with CE 2011. If you look at it honestly, it's not surprising that Odum would question his own memory, simply because he trusted the percieved veracity of CE 2011. All that Odum really did is vaguely remember being in Wright's office and imagine the rest. One thing is for sure Odum and Wright looking at the bullet in a transparant plastic bag doesn't match with what Specter told Humes during his testimony;
(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show,in a plastic case in a cotton background.
Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
We know that Tomlinson said in his deposition that, a few days after the assassination, SAC Shanklin showed a bullet to him and Wright, in Wright's office (could it be that Odum was present as well and vaguely remembered that?) and that this was the only time he was shown a bullet. We also know that Tomlinson, in 1966, told Marcus the same thing. Now, did Tomlinson simply forget the meeting with Odum, in June 1964,or did that meeting never take place?
CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL are irrelevant to CE 399 - either the c-of-c issue or the admissibility issue. Insofar as what Tomlinson or Wright said to Odum, they are second- or third-hand hearsay.
And yet, after questioning the chain of custody, the WC accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof for that same chain of custody. Go figure!
They contain nothing inconsistent with Tomlinson or Wright being able to identify CE 399. If the defense attempted to impeach their pretrial or trial testimony with CE 2011, Shanklin's AIRTEL, or even Odum's in-person testimony and their answers were "Right, I told Odum I couldn't identify CE 399 because I didn't pay close attention the day we found the bullet and I have no way of knowing where CE 399 came from, but I can say I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found and gave to the Secret Service guy," THIS WOULD SATISFY THE C-OF-C ID REQUIREMENT. They wouldn't have to say, and wouldn't be expected to say, more than this.
You keep assuming that Tomlinson and Wright would say "I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found", but what if they said "Odum never showed us any bullet and the one you now show us (which would be CE 399) isn't the one we found" or even "yes, Odum showed us a bullet but it wasn't the one we found"?
-
Before responding, I would encourage Martin and others to read Tom Gram's excellent research on CE 2011:
https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/#note18.
Tom makes the key point that the WC (i.e., Rankin) had told the FBI that for WC purposes an acceptable chain of custody required ONLY THE FIRST PERSON in the chain - meaning Tomlinson for CE 399 - to identify the item. Because Tomlinson and Wright (and Johnsen and Rowley!) could not positively identify CE 399, the FBI had to work up the chain to Todd. This explains the references in CE 2011. The author of CE 2011 was saying to Rankin, "Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley cannot give us what the WC wants." CE 2011 is talking about an absence of "positive identification."
I never said that Odum testifying had anything directly to do with the chain of custody. His testimony would only serve to verify or discredit the information some unidentified FBI agent provided to the WC in CE 2011. If Odum didn't show CE 399 to Tomlinson and Wright the information in CE 2011 is proven false.
No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
Why are you misrepresenting this?
I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.
One thing is for sure Odum and Wright looking at the bullet in a transparant plastic bag doesn't match with what Specter told Humes during his testimony;
(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show,in a plastic case in a cotton background.
OK, and this is significant because ...? The chain of custody does not require the item to be in the same packaging all the time. With CE 399, there was no issue of fingerprints or anything like that. The testimony of Humes was on March 16, 1964, when CE 399 was apparently still being tested. It was sent to Dallas and shown to Tomlinson and Wright some three months later. I'm not following why it being in a transparent plastic bag in June would be of any significance whatsoever. As Tom Gram's piece makes clear, for some items of evidence it was agreed that showing a photograph for identification would be sufficient, but CE 399 was one of several items that were physically sent.
We know that Tomlinson said in his deposition that, a few days after the assassination, SAC Shanklin showed a bullet to him and Wright, in Wright's office (could it be that Odum was present as well and vaguely remembered that?) and that this was the only time he was shown a bullet. We also know that Tomlinson, in 1966, told Marcus the same thing. Now, did Tomlinson simply forget the meeting with Odum, in June 1964,or did that meeting never take place?
In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin? You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.
I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)
And yet, after questioning the chain of custody, the WC accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof for that same chain of custody. Go figure!
For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.
You keep assuming that Tomlinson and Wright would say "I have no reason to say it isn't the bullet we found", but what if they said "Odum never showed us any bullet and the one now in evidence as CE 399 isn't the same as the one we found" or even "yes, Odum showed us a bullet but it wasn't the one we found"?
I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.
-
Before responding, I would encourage Martin and others to read Tom Gram's excellent research on CE 2011:
https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/#note18.
Tom makes the key point that the WC (i.e., Rankin) had told the FBI that for WC purposes an acceptable chain of custody required ONLY THE FIRST PERSON in the chain - meaning Tomlinson for CE 399 - to identify the item. Because Tomlinson and Wright (and Johnsen and Rowley!) could not positively identify CE 399, the FBI had to work up the chain to Todd. This explains the references in CE 2011. The author of CE 2011 was saying to Rankin, "Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley cannot give us what the WC wants." CE 2011 is talking about an absence of "positive identification."
No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.
OK, and this is significant because ...? The chain of custody does not require the item to be in the same packaging all the time. With CE 399, there was no issue of fingerprints or anything like that. The testimony of Humes was on March 16, 1964, when CE 399 was apparently still being tested. It was sent to Dallas and shown to Tomlinson and Wright some three months later. I'm not following why it being in a transparent plastic bag in June would be of any significance whatsoever. As Tom Gram's piece makes clear, for some items of evidence it was agreed that showing a photograph for identification would be sufficient, but CE 399 was one of several items that were physically sent.
In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin? You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.
I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)
For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.
I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.
No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
You seem to be all in on making any kind of excuse to keep CE 2011 alive. It's not only the reference to Odum that's the problem. Tomlinson said in his deposition that the only time he was shown a bullet was by SAC Shanklin a few days after the assassination. In 1966, he repeated the same thing to Marcus. So, unless Tomlinson forgot about having been shown CE 399 by anybody, yet still remembered that Shanklin showed him a bullet six months earlier (which seems unlikely to me), you need to explain where this unknown FBI agent, who wrote CE 2011, got his information from. And you can't!
Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
I agree, that it would be silly to expect that anybody remembers a routine meeting in 1987. However this wasn't a routine meeting. Here we are talking about somebody actually holding one of the bullets that allegedly killed a President of the United States and showing it to key witnesses. That's a special event which remains by you like all major events in somebody's life. I, for example, remember vividly watching the funeral of JFK on television and can even describe what the television and the livingroom looked like at that time. I was only a minor but it made an impression on me. My point is that people remember things, perhaps not perfectly or completely, that make an impression.
In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin?
You seem to be misreading what I wrote, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The deposition I was talking about was the one Specter took from Tomlinson at Parkland in March 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.
He later told Marcus that it was SAC Shanklin who showed him the bullet in Wright's office.
You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.
No, I'm just going by what Tomlinson actually told Specter and Marcus and not by the speculation of David von Pein, who can only attempt to reconcile the two statements by Tomlinson by speculating, without evidence, that he somehow conflated the two meetings. David is simply provinding us another "it was a honest mistake" arguments, but there are so many of those that at some point you need to wonder if they were mistakes at all.
I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)
Ok, let me counter with another guess. Shanklin did in fact show the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright in early December 1963, and it was in fact the same bullet that Tomlinson had found. When the request came from the WC to establish a chain of custody and the actual bullet (the one we now know as CE 399) was sent to Dallas, Shanklin understood that he had a problem. We already know from the Hosty incident (Shankling telling Hosty to destroy a letter from Oswald) that Shanklin had a questionable approach to how to handle evidence. So, Shanklin, who knew that CE 399 was not the bullet he had previously shown to Tomlinson and Wright, just decided to do nothing and simply write in an airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet. Just think about it for a moment. SAC Dallas sends an airtel to Washington and Odum knew nothing about it. They simply used his name in CE 2011, which Odum also didn't know, and misrepresented the truth. Odum didn't find out until he was contacted about it by Alguilar and Thompson. Now tell me, why is that not a plausible scenario?
For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.
So, the only available proof is the positive indentification by Todd and Frazier? Really?
I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.
So, we agree. It all depends on Tomlinson (and Wright). So, why not have both men give an affidavit to confirm or deny that the bullet is now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found at Parkland. The obvious answer for me is that they (the WC and/or FBI) knew it wasn't the same bullet and the last thing they needed was an offical document confirming it.
-
you need to explain where this unknown FBI agent, who wrote CE 2011, got his information from. And you can't!
CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.
-
No, it is not proven false. The statements in CE 2011 that Odum was the one who showed the bullets to Tomlinson and Wright would be proven incorrect, that and nothing more. We don't know who the author of CE 2011 was, or where he or she got the information. The reference to Odum, if incorrect, could be and surely was an innocent mistake. If you're going to invent Odum, invent a positive identification as well - right? Someone else could have shown CE 399 to T and W. No big deal. We have no reason to think there is any issue at all except for what an 82-year-old Odum told Thompson and Aguilar 38 years after the event, and he then had a different recollection almost immediately. Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
You seem to be all in on making any kind of excuse to keep CE 2011 alive. It's not only the reference to Odum that's the problem. Tomlinson said in his deposition that the only time he was shown a bullet was by SAC Shanklin a few days after the assassination. In 1966, he repeated the same thing to Marcus. So, unless Tomlinson forgot about having been shown CE 399 by anybody, yet still remembered that Shanklin showed him a bullet six months earlier (which seems unlikely to me), you need to explain where this unknown FBI agent, who wrote CE 2011, got his information from. And you can't!
Try recalling some routine office meeting you had in 1987. It seems to me this is truly much ado about less than nothing.
I agree, that it would be silly to expect that anybody remembers a routine meeting in 1987. However this wasn't a routine meeting. Here we are talking about somebody actually holding one of the bullets that allegedly killed a President of the United States and showing it to key witnesses. That's a special event which remains by you like all major events in somebody's life. I, for example, remember vividly watching the funeral of JFK on television and can even describe what the television and the livingroom looked like at that time. I was only a minor but it made an impression on me. My point is that people remember things, perhaps not perfectly or completely, that make an impression.
In what "deposition" a "few days after the assassination" did Tomlinson say he'd been shown a bullet by Shanklin?
You seem to be misreading what I wrote, or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. The deposition I was talking about was the one Specter took from Tomlinson at Parkland in March 1964.
Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.
He later told Marcus that it was SAC Shanklin who showed him the bullet in Wright's office.
You seem to distinguish between this deposition and the 1966 interview of Tomlinson by conspiracy author Marcus as though they were two separate things. As far as I know - feel free to correct me - there is nothing but the nine-page transcript of the Marcus interview. The controversy over all this, with predictable hysteria on both sides, is captured at DVP's site, https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript, and an old Google Groups thread, https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/pwhE-8C4W3g.
No, I'm just going by what Tomlinson actually told Specter and Marcus and not by the speculation of David von Pein, who can only attempt to reconcile the two statements by Tomlinson by speculating, without evidence, that he somehow conflated the two meetings. David is simply us another "it was a honest mistake" arguments, but there are so many of those that at some point you need to wonder if they were mistakes at all.
I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole. My guess is that by 1966 Tomlinson was conflating some meeting shortly after the assassination that did not involve being shown any bullet with the June 1964 meeting with Odum in which he had been shown CE 399. The found bullet was given to Johnsen (SS), who gave it to Rowley (SS) in Washington, who gave it to Todd (FBI) in Washington - in fact, I believe it was in Washington by the evening of the assassination - so what sense would it make for Shanklin to be showing it to Tomlinson in Dallas a week or so after the JFKA? Tom Gram likewise does not believe Shanklin ever showed a bullet to Tomlinson. (Tomlinson did tell Marcus the bullet he was shown "appeared to be the same" as the one he had found.)
Ok, let me counter with another guess. Shanklin did in fact show the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright in early December 1963, and it was in fact the same bullet that Tomlinson had found. When the request came from the WC to establish a chain of custody and the actual bullet (the one we now know as CE 399) was sent to Dallas, Shanklin understood that he had a problem. We already know from the Hosty incident (Shankling telling Hosty to destroy a letter from Oswald) that Shanklin had a questionable approach to how to handle evidence. So, Shanklin, who knew that CE 399 was not the bullet he had previously shown to Tomlinson and Wright, just decided to do nothing and simply write in an airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet. Just think about it for a moment. SAC Dallas sends an airtel to Washington and Odum knew nothing about it. They simply used his name in CE 2011, which Odum also didn't know, and misrepresented the truth. Odum didn't find out until he was contacted about it by Alguilar and Thompson. Now tell me, why is that not a plausible scenario?
For all the evidentiary items, Rankin had said that an identification by the initial person in the chain would be sufficient. I don't believe the WC "accepted CE 2011 as the only available proof." CE 2011 was the explanation for why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley wouldn't suffice for a positive identification. I assume what was said in CE 2011, with the addition of Todd's and Frazier's positive identification, was deemed sufficient by Rankin, the WC and apparently the HSCA as well.
So, the only available proof is the positive indentification by Todd and Frazier? Really?
I don't assume that at all. My point all along has been that what might seem to those who don't understand the c-of-c identification requirement like a less-than-positive identification on the part of Tomlinson and Wright would surely suffice for legal purposes. Odum is really irrelevant. If Tomlinson and Wright had said under oath at a deposition, hearing or trial "That absolutely is not the bullet we found and gave to Johnsen," that would have been the end of CE 399. If Wright had said that but been bracketed on either side by Tomlinson and Johnsen saying it was the same bullet, Wright's testimony likely would not have been fatal.
So, we agree. It all depends on Tomlinson (and Wright). So, why not have both men give an affidavit to confirm or deny that the bullet is now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found at Parkland. The obvious answer for me is that they (the WC and/or FBI) knew it wasn't the same bullet and the last thing they needed was an offical document confirming it.
Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to get Oswald off on a technicality, the evidence is what it is, deal with it!
No one planted CE-399 on a stretcher on a different floor and just hoped it would be found.
No one knew to plant a whole bullet that so closely matched the wounds at a point in time when no surgery findings were finalized.
The initial witnesses said CE-399 resembled the bullet.
And after 60+ years NO one has come forward to say even a shred of the Mountain of Evidence was fraudulent, as I said the evidence is what it is. Deal with it!
And as for your comment that a witness must remember some singular event that we find to be important in hindsight, is not necessarily all that important to the eyewitness now or even at the time. They investigated a ton of stuff and conducted many interviews and do we know what was happening in their private lives, were they dealing with personal grief, depression, arranging a wedding, or contemplating a divorce? Or perhaps they were just doing their job and didn't give a toss!
And here's some relevant examples of people's "infallible" memories from the one of the most important events they ever witnessed, that they will forever remember till the day they die!
William Newman on the same day said that JFK stood up when he was shot? Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the Limo stopped. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses and even Doctors said JFK's head exit wound was on the back of his head. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the rifle on the 6th floor was a 7.65 Mauser. Wrong!
ETC, ETC, ETC.....
BTW, no offence or anything but I'm surprised that you are around seventy years of age because by that time I'd expect someone to be more grown up, less hostile, more logical, have a better understanding of deductive reasoning, more willing to accept that others have a varying point of view, less angry, less prone to hurl insults and handle reasonable objections by being more clever or witty?
JohnM
-
Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to get Oswald off on a technicality, the evidence is what it is, deal with it!
No one planted CE-399 on a stretcher on a different floor and just hoped it would be found.
No one knew to plant a whole bullet that so closely matched the wounds at a point in time when no surgery findings were finalized.
The initial witnesses said CE-399 resembled the bullet.
And after 60+ years NO one has come forward to say even a shred of the Mountain of Evidence was fraudulent, as I said the evidence is what it is. Deal with it!
And as for your comment that a witness must remember some singular event that we find to be important in hindsight, is not necessarily all that important to the eyewitness now or even at the time. They investigated a ton of stuff and conducted many interviews and do we know what was happening in their private lives, were they dealing with personal grief, depression, arranging a wedding, or contemplating a divorce? Or perhaps they were just doing their job and didn't give a toss!
And here's some relevant examples of people's "infallible" memories from the one of the most important events they ever witnessed, that they will forever remember till the day they die!
William Newman on the same day said that JFK stood up when he was shot? Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the Limo stopped. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses and even Doctors said JFK's head exit wound was on the back of his head. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the rifle on the 6th floor was a 7.65 Mauser. Wrong!
ETC, ETC, ETC.....
BTW, no offence or anything but I'm surprised that you are around seventy years of age because by that time I'd expect someone to be more grown up, less hostile, more logical, have a better understanding of deductive reasoning, more willing to accept that others have a varying point of view, less angry, less prone to hurl insults and handle reasonable objections by being more clever or witty?
JohnM
Thank you for sharing your insignificant opinions, "mature attitude" ( ;)) and usual insults. Thumb1:
Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to misrepresent what my position regarding the evidence and the case is?
Btw, what in the world are you mean with "getting Oswald off on a technicality". The guy has been dead for decades, there never was or will be a trial, and nothing anybody says or does on this forum will change anything, so why are you so concerned about getting him off on a technicality? Perhaps you need to take a step back and get back to reality.
-
CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.
It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.
The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."
-
A final thought, because I think it's easy to get so caught up in the trees that we lose sight of the forest:
1. When Tomlinson and Wright were shown the bullet in June of 1964, it had been in the FBI's possession for nearly SEVEN MONTHS. All the testing was complete. The FBI knew it was from Oswald's rifle.
2. Oswald had been dead seven months. There was never going to be a criminal trial. Chain-of-custody technicalities were irrelevant except to the extent the WC wanted to be satisfied.
3. The WC burdened the FBI with many requests, including a half-assed chain-of-custody request that many items of evidence at least be identified by the first person in the chain. For many items, this was done with a mere photograph.
4. When Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, he was merely on a routine mission to satisfy the WC. This was no big deal. The FBI had even abandoned the requirement for 302s because the requests were so burdensome.
5. The responses of Tomlinson and Wright would not have caused Odum or anyone else to think "Oh, my God, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!" They would simply have thought, "Well, we'll have to report what they said and go up the chain until someone provides a positive identification." If the FBI had thought there was a major problem, the documents would have simply said "Due to the passage of time, Tomlinson and Wright were unable to provide a positive identification but said the bullet looked like the one they found. Let us know if you need more."
That would have been the FBI's perspective. Yes, it's not the perspective of CTers who think the WC should have been a criminal trial of Oswald or that the FBI should still have been preparing for a criminal trial in June of 1964.
-
It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.
The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."
SAC, DALLAS (100-10461)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59608#relPageId=39
Credit to Tom Gram. I read his 'CE2011 and the Missing 302 Reports' a couple of months ago. Thanks for reminding me of it.
https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/
I have a lot of respect for Gary Murr, even though his conspiracy position is wrong in my view. Some years ago, I had posted a document here and elsewhere that threw a wrench into the gears of a pet theory of Bob Harris. Murr had found the document in the National Archives in the late 90s and posted it on the ED forum. I found it there some years after he had posted it. Harris questioned its authenticity. When I informed him that Murr had found it, he went and confronted him on the ED forum. He actually questioned the CT bona fides of Gary Murr.
Haven't seen anything of Bob Harris for years. He may have departed this earthly existence.
-
Oh, OK, that pretty well settles it. I guess the efforts of Todd with Jonsen and Rowley were provided to Shanklin. In fact, CE 2011 contains other references to activities beyond Dallas. It seems odd that Shanklin would have been given this assignment, but I guess he was.
Note that Odum was given the assignment of obtaining identification information for much of the bullet, fragment and shell evidence - which makes it that much more unlikely that he would have been inserted into the Tomlinson-Wright portion for some nefarious purpose or that he would have had some vivid recollection of showing CE 399 to them 38 years later.
-
Read this remarkable exchange. Not only does it mesh well with my imaginary testimony, but I think it gives a good idea as to how the June 1964 conversation about CE 399 might have gone and why CE 2011 said he couldn’t identify it as the bullet he found.
So then why do you believe that CE399 is the same bullet? Faith?
-
I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.
Wow, you should be on Dancing with the Stars. You didn't even miss a beat.
This whole question of would it be admitted in an imaginary hypothetical trial is an irrelevant red herring. Anybody can imagine whatever outcome they like. The real issue is, can you show with any confidence whatsoever that CE-399 is the same bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland? The Lance approach is to just have faith that it is, unless it can be shown that it is not.
-
CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.
Evidence, please.