A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses.

This statement is incorrect.
You may conclude from your example that you didn't have Bentley keys in your pocketses ( ) at the time you turned them out.
The Bentley keys may have been removed before you checked your pocketses, so you can't say definitively that you did not have Bentley keys in your pocketses.
What tests have been performed to detect the presence or absence Bentley key in your pocketses prior to you turning them out? We are missing key information (do you see what I did there? "Key" information. Do you get it? "Key" as in...oh, forget it..."

Even in this most basic of all examples there is not complete information.
The simplest criminal case is manifestly more complex than this, so the idea of having "complete information" is a non-starter.

Go back and read again and read the original premise: "I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses"

I stated it in the immediate now ("I have") for a reason. It doesn't leave time between formulating the theory and testing it to make room for unnoticed extrapocketal key excursion without resorting to magical thinking. 

[Martin Weidmann]

Go back and read again and read the original premise: "I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses"

I stated it in the immediate now ("I have") for a reason. It doesn't leave time between formulating the theory and testing it to make room for unnoticed extrapocketal key excursion without resorting to magical thinking.

Arguments for the sake of arguments....

Nobody is interested and still he tries to keep his pathetic argument going. Such a desperate need to "win" that he doesn't understand he has already lost.

I'm pretty sure he's going to argue about this next.... 

[Mitch Todd]

Arguments for the sake of arguments....

Nobody is interested and still he tries to keep his pathetic argument going. Such a desperate need to "win" that he doesn't understand he has already lost.

I'm pretty sure he's going to argue about this next.... 

I guess I shouldn't disappoint you.

You're claiming that I'm somehow trying to create a diversion by pointing out that some old saw you repeated was incorrect. And you think that you're somehow going to fix this by taking the thread further afield by making it about me. I'm not sure how you think that's going to work out, but good luck with it, I guess.

As for "nobody is interested," Alan, Dan, and.....you were interested enough to respond to my arguments, so there must be some interest in what I said. Your last reply is, what, the third time you've chimed in on this particular eddy in the thread? You certainly seem interested! So are you this "nobody" that you mention?

And, finally, here again we see the usual Weidman exit strategy when his arguments invariably fall apart: preemptively declare victory, then use the word "pathetic" liberally. I guess it's easier for you to do that than actually think.

[Dan O'meara]

Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.

What a stupendously piss-poor response to my post.
You totally ignore the vast bulk of it to make these two watery "points". It's a compliment in a way.

Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

I don't know if they did ever describe seeing blood or tissue on the bullet they found. I can't find any detailed description of the bullet by Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet. Isn't that strange?
The main reason I can't find a detailed description of the bullet Tomlinson found is because when he is asked to make a deposition about the bullet he found, a deposition in which he is supposed to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery, he is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!
He is not asked to describe it, he is not asked what happened to it, and he is not asked to identify it.
He is not asked a single question about it.

But let's say the bullet he found was totally clean - what difference does that make as to whether that bullet was CE399 or not?
What is the point of the "point" you are making.

It must be remembered that Frazier examined at a microscopic level and he described the bullet as "clean".

Firstly, Frazier examined this bullet at a microscopic level:

"...after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification; were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photo graph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and in between size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon."

When asked whether he had to clean the bullet for this microscopic examination, Frazier is adamant:

Mr. Eisenberg: Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.

On a microscopic level, CE399 was "clean". On a microscopic level there was no blood or tissue on CE399.
It's a pity no-one ever got the chance to examine the bullet Tomlinson discovered that day.

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.

Thanks for letting us all know what you don't believe.

[Martin Weidmann]

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews?

That's exactly the problem. They don't exist. Odum said that if he had talked to Tomlinson and Wright he would have written a FD-302 report. The non-existence of these reports is a further indication that Odum never showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

And there is more. Tomlinson is on record saying that he was only shown the bullet once, about a week after the assassination, by SAC Shanklin at Parkland Hospital. He confirmed this on 07/25/66 in an interview with Marcus, the transcript of which is in the HSCA collection at the National Archives. Noteworthy is also that Tomlinson said in the same interview he had been told by the FBI to keep his mouth shut, which by itself is remarkable.

One more final comment about the chain of custody matter. So far it has been argued that SA Todd put his initial in the bullet he received from Secret Service chief Rowley. The impression was that Todd marked the bullet as soon as he received it, but I just came across an FBI report that says that Todd received a bullet from Rowley in a closed envelope with two notes attached. One was written by Johnsen and the other by Rowley. Todd opened the envelope, in the presence of Frazier, at the FBI lab and only then marked the bullet with his initials.

[Dan O'meara]

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.
Who's had an adverse reaction?
I urge any reader to go through the comprehensive handling of the evidence and the arguments relating to the evidence, as far as CE399 is concerned, that I lay out in Reply#246.
Then look at Jerry's response to that post in Reply#247
Then, honestly answer this question - is my description of Jerry's response as being "stupendously piss-poor" an adverse reaction or a completely accurate assessment.
I felt I was actually being a little kind to Jerry when describing his efforts - and this is the thanks I get!

Jerry likes to think his toothless mumblings are some kind of "threat" to the arguments I have presented, but I would urge any reader to go through posts #246 and #247 and ask, who is the one feeling threatened by the arguments. Who is the one who can't deal with the issues being raised in this thread?

Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Another sign that someone feels threatened by the arguments is when they start to twist the facts in order to create doubt.
Odum is certain he never saw CE399, never handled it and never showed it to Johnsen or Rowley. He then makes the point that, if he is somehow mistaken about it, then all they had to do was check the records and find the "302" that would have been raised by the interviews. After various archives have been scoured, no sign of the 302 can be found, supporting Odum's claims.

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

Yet another sign of feeling threatened is the creation of strawman arguments.
Nowhere has the "absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them" ever been mentioned. Jerry has created this fictitious point in order create a point he can win.
An FMJ bullet is designed not to deform when passing through a body, it has a smooth and hard surface that is not conducive to having blood or tissue sticking to it. There is also the cavitation effect that takes place when a bullet passes through a body that might interfere with blood and tissue sticking to the surface. Lastly, there is the "wipe" effect - as the bullet passes through the material of the clothes worn by JFK and JBC the material wipes matter from the surface from the bullet.
This is the case for an FMJ bullet that passes through JFK and Connally.
However, this is not the full story with CE399. According to the official version of events CE399 ends up lodged in Connally's thigh from which it somehow works itself out. Think about that - CE399 is supposed to be lodged in a bloody, open wound from which it slowly slips out. How is it possible not to have blood or tissue on it in this scenario? How is it possible for the bullet to slip out clean?

There is also another aspect to this part of the official story that I have never heard anyone mention. It is a consideration that makes it seem incredibly unlikely that a bullet slipping out of Connally's leg could be found on his stretcher.
The key point is that this bullet would have to pass through Connally's trouser leg before entering his thigh. Obviously, it creates a hole in his trouser leg as it passes through.
It is surely the case that as the bullet works it way out of Connaly's leg it would simply fall inside his trouser leg.
In order to make it onto the stretcher the bullet would have to somehow work it's way out of the hole in his trouser leg as well.
What are the chances that the hole in his trouser leg lined up perfectly with the bullet in his leg as he lay on the stretcher. It's not like Connally was wearing cycle shorts. He was wearing loose fitting suit trousers. The chances that the hole in his trousers somehow lined up perfectly with the bullet as it worked his way out of his leg seem astronomically small.
The bullet would fall inside Connally's trouser leg and, as he was lying down, would stay pretty much where it was.
How could the bullet have found it's way on to the stretcher?

[Martin Weidmann]

More obsessive harking. You're becoming Arnold Rowland.

Remember, folks, the innocent question that provoked all this: "Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?"

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks. Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.

You forget you were going on about it.

    "Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to
     have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the
     way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human
     tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent
     decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with."

My, what drama and sarcasm.

So, you no longer think blood and tissue was picked up as the bullet "traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way". OK.

You just mentioned "wipe". Blood might not have had time to dry in order to stick to the surface of the bullet. Presumably, during the ride to Parkland, the bullet was lodged in an area where there was little air. Connally's clothing was removed early-on. Could be a subject for experimentation, but you critics don't seem interested in that approach.

You're inventing silly roadblocks. Maybe the bullet didn't pass all the way through the trousers. Or the bullet hole in the clothing remained over the missile in-shoot for awhile. Have you seen the angle of knee bend required to sit in one of those jump-seats, that makes the upper part of the pants tight near the knees? And not much room to straighten the legs after he collapsed onto Nellie.



Here's a picture of Connally wearing dress pants. The right leg is down, showing the clothing was loose when upright. The left leg is partially up showing the clothing tight against the upper surface of the thigh near the knee. And the amount of leg bend in the car was much greater.

If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?

Was Connally left unattended for a few minutes while a "conspirator" dug the bullet out of his thigh? Were the doctors and nurses who treated Connally in on the "conspiracy" when they took X-rays and said there was no bullet in his thigh?

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.

Where does it say that Odum was "cajoled" by anybody? Or did you just make that up out of thin air?

Rather than ignoring it, why don't you try to explain the absense of the FD 302's Odum said he would have produced (as was custom at the FBI) if he had spoken to Tomlinson and Wright?

And while you are at it, explain to us please why Tomlinson is on record, twice, saying that he was only shown a bullet once, about a week after the assassination, by SAC Shanklin at Parkland Hospital.
We know for certain this happened as it is also mentioned in a Secret Service report.

So, Tomlinson says only SAC Shanklin showed him a bullet, in december 1963, SA Odum denies he ever showed Tomlinson and Wright a bullet in june 1964 and there are no FD 302 reports that should have been on file if Odum had talked to both men.

[John Iacoletti]

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.

“Cajoled” LOL. This is another one for the Lame LN excuses file. And you prefer hearsay from an anonymously written “report”….why?

Because it’s what you want to hear.

Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.

Imagine the Warren Commission “cajoling” witnesses with pre-interviews to see what they are going to say before taking their testimonies on the record.

If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?

You’re missing the point. Just because a bullet did this doesn’t make CE399 that bullet.