A time to receive and give (CE399)

[John Iacoletti]

So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!

So he needs “definitive proof” that CE399 was substituted, but you don’t need definitive proof that CE 399 was found on Connally’s stretcher, or that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally.

How convenient.

[Andrew Mason]

So he needs “definitive proof” that CE399 was substituted, but you don’t need definitive proof that CE 399 was found on Connally’s stretcher, or that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally.

How convenient.

It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

[Andrew Mason]

It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

To accept JRT one just has to believe that they were just doing their job. To believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

[Martin Weidmann]

It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

This is simply not true. Johnsen and Rowley failed to identify the bullet and neither man as well as Todd could possibly have known which rifle fired that bullet.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case.

Not really, but it wouldn't have been surprising if it did if the entire case was a fabrication to begin with.

TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.

IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

I don't think that anybody disputes this. The real question that should be asked is when was it fired by C2766?

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

And yet, we still have Wright on record as saying the bullet he was given by Tomlinson was pointed, which CE399 clearly isn't. We have SA Odum denying that he ever showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright which means the FBI lied to the WC in CE2011. And we don't have a shred of evidence to confirm that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital, as there is no chain of custody for it.

I started my proposed scenario by saying that there had to have been people in high places (who could control the investigation and the evidence) involved for the conspiracy to work. If you are not willing to even accept the possibility that some Secret Service agents were involved you will never be able to look at this case objectively.

But let's take a closer look at this case;

There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oswald brought the MC rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, but there are two witnesses who described the bag Oswald carried in such a way that it was clearly to small to conceal a broken down rifle.
There is no evidence that Oswald was actually on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.
There is no evidence that Oswald came down the stairs within 75 seconds after  the last shot and managed to do so unnoticed by anybody, despite the fact that several women on the 4th floor were close to the stairs at that time.
There is no evidence that confirms that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor had actually been fired that day
There is no chain of custody for the bullet CE399 that confirms it was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland hospital.
Even Dr. Humes, when asked during his testimony, stated he did not believe CE399 could have gone through Kennedy and Connally and come out is the condition it is in.
The rifle was used to fired 100 test bullets and not a single one came even close the being in the same condition CE399 is in.
There is no evidence to confirm that the bullet fragments given to Frazier at the Secret Service garage actually came from the Presidential limo. Frazier was simply told they did.
There is serious doubt about the so-called Walker bullet now in evidence as CE573 being the bullet that was actually recovered from General Walker's home.

Some case!

The bottom line is obvious; either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy. Those are the two options. When you rule out the possibility of a conspiracy simply because you can't imagine how that could have worked or who was behind it, you are left with only one option, which is that regardless of what the evidence (or lack thereof) tells you Oswald needs to be a lone assassin. The possibility of a conspiracy was never seriously investigated simply because it did not fit with Hoover's and perhaps LBJ's agenda. That's a hell of a way to conduct an investigation....

[Andrew Mason]

is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

This is simply not true. Johnsen and Rowley failed to identify the bullet and neither man as well as Todd could possibly have known which rifle fired that bullet.

....And yet, we still have Wright on record as saying the bullet he was given by Tomlinson was pointed, which CE399 clearly isn't. We have SA Odum denying that he ever showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright which means the FBI lied to the WC in CE2011. And we don't have a shred of evidence to confirm that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital, as there is no chain of custody for it.

They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody.  Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession.  So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it.  If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland.  So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.

But let's take a closer look at this case;

There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63

There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oswald brought the MC rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, but there are two witnesses who described the bag Oswald carried in such a way that it was clearly to small to conceal a broken down rifle.

Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63.  But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage.  When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.

There is no evidence that Oswald was actually on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.

There is no evidence that Oswald came down the stairs within 75 seconds after  the last shot and managed to do so unnoticed by anybody, despite the fact that several women on the 4th floor were close to the stairs at that time.
There is no evidence that confirms that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor had actually been fired that day
There is no chain of custody for the bullet CE399 that confirms it was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland hospital.
Even Dr. Humes, when asked during his testimony, stated he did not believe CE399 could have gone through Kennedy and Connally and come out is the condition it is in.
The rifle was used to fired 100 test bullets and not a single one came even close the being in the same condition CE399 is in.
There is no evidence to confirm that the bullet fragments given to Frazier at the Secret Service garage actually came from the Presidential limo. Frazier was simply told they did.
There is serious doubt about the so-called Walker bullet now in evidence as CE573 being the bullet that was actually recovered from General Walker's home.

You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence.

The bottom line is obvious; either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy.

I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter.  I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.

[Martin Weidmann]

They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody.  Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession.  So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it.  If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland.  So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.

The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley gave it to Todd.

Is it just a coincidence that it was the Secret Service who gave both the Parkland bullet and the fragments allegedly found in the Presidential limo to the FBI after, in both cases, not following the correct evidentiary procedure? It also was the Secret Service who, ignored the law and took the body of the President and the Presidential limo to Washington before anybody in Dallas could examine either.

Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63.  But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage.  When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.

There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. All there is, are assumptions based on hot air. The whole "Oswald took the rifle to the TSBD" is a flawed theory based on the one hand on the presumed presence of a rifle Ruth Paine's garage and on the other hand on the alleged presence of a bag in the sniper's nest which is believed he used to carry the rifle in. The only two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a bag described an entirely different bag and when Frazier was shown the SN bag on Friday evening he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen. So, not only does the theory make a giant leap to reach a "conclusion" but it also ignores actual evidence that undermines that conclusion.

Of course it matters where the rifle was on 11/21/63, because if it wasn't in Ruth Paine's garage than Oswald couldn't have made the trip to Irving to get it and, as he stayed at the Paine residence from the moment of his arrival until his departure the next day, Oswald wouldn't have been able to get the rifle from elsewhere.

The story about the rifle in the blanket comes from one source only; Marina, who is not the most reliable witness to say the least. And even she didn't get beyond saying that, about a week after leaving New Orleans, she got curious about what was in the blanket. So, in late september she pulled back part of it and saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. Even if one assumes that she did indeed see a rifle in that blanket, there is no evidence that it was the rifle that was later found at the TSBD, there is no evidence who the rifle belonged to and there is nothing, except wishful thinking, to conclude that this same rifle was still in that blanket some two months later, when Oswald is supposed to have picked it up.

There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.

Enlighten me, what is this circumstantial evidence you are talking about? I mean factual evidence from which something can indeed be inferred and which can actually be used in a credible way to connect the dots and not just one assumption piled on another!

The Warren Commission didn't even bother to present factual or circumstantial evidence to show that Oswald was on the 6th floor. They just assumed it to be the case and presented it as such in their report. I would argue that there is more circumstantial evidence that places Oswald on the 1st and 2nd floor at the time of the shooting than there ever was for him being on the 6th floor.

You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence.

No, I don't think that every fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself, but I do think that the individual facts which are used to connect the dots a narrative in a circumstantial case should at least be provable factual. Building a circumstantial case based on mere assumptions is like building a house of cards without a foundation.

I have given you a small part of a much bigger list of all sorts of things for which there is not a shred of evidence. You can not prove a fact by a "totality of evidence" that simply doesn't exits.

I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter.  I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!

[Andrew Mason]

The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley give it to Todd.

Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.

There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.

His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!

You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.

[Martin Weidmann]

Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.

What are you really saying? That Johnsen and/or Rowley couldn't possibly be involved in a high level conspiracy because they are law enforcement? Really? Are you actually this naive?

I don't assume that all people are lying, although some do in just about every case, but I am also not foolish enough to believe that witness testimony is always reliable. As a lawyer you seem to be willing to ignore that the chain of custody's sole purpose is to protect the authenticity of the evidence against possible manipulation by law enforcement.

If you are willing to accept evidence simply because a cop said so, then we are indeed living in different universes. I can't help but notice that you are willing to overlook the problem caused by the way Johnsen and Rowley handled the bullet. Why is that?

His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.

For starters, it is in no way certain that it was Oswald's rifle that was found at the TSBD. The only evidence that links Oswald tentatively  to any rifle are easy to manipulate photocopies of a Klein's order form, a money order and an envelope, allegedly in his handwriting, taken from a microfilm which since has mysteriously been lost, just as the original documents. As the order document is in name of A. Hidell, it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated to fill out the documents. In any case, we only have the word of an FBI handwriting expert that it is Oswald's handwriting on the forms in the first place. The most troubling part, as far as I am concerned, is that the rifle ordered was a 36" and the rifle found at the TSBD was a 40". Nothing seems to match up and most of the "evidence" is extremely vague to say the least.

As for the "unmeasured package", that's not really true, is it now? Frazier described it as being held by Oswald in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry the package next to his leg and it didn't reach the ground. Frazier showed FBI agents to where on the backseat the package reached from the door and they measured it at 27". Although the package itself was not physically measured, these descriptions make it beyond clear that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal a rifle.

All this is circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial evidence, but you seem willing to ignore it all.

You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.

No, I am not convinced of a conspiracy. Unlike you, who seems to be convinced Oswald did it alone, I don't know what really happened. Unlike you, I am willing to consider both possibilities and I am more than happy to be convinced either way by actual evidence. What I do not accept are flawed assumptions to create a narrative that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

As for me pointing to any evidence of a conspiracy, we first have to determine which conspiracy we are talking about. On the one hand there is the one which planned and executed the assassination and on the other hand there is the cover up after the fact. For the first, it will probably be impossible after all this time to find any evidence but for the second one I've already provided you with several examples.

If there is one thing that I am convinced of by now, it is that after Oswald's death the evidence was shaped in such a way that it wrapped tightly around him as the lone gunman, regardless of his guilt or innocence.