A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Tim Nickerson]

Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened. 

What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?

Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.

Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.

Bardwell Odum ultimately deferred to the FBI documentation. He essentially told Thompson that if FBI documents say that he showed CE-399 to Wright and Tomlinson, then he did indeed. He also recalled being in Wright's office sometime after the assasination.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bardwell Odum ultimately deferred to the FBI documentation. He essentially told Thompson that if FBI documents say that he showed CE-399 to Wright and Tomlinson, then he did indeed. He also recalled being in Wright's office sometime after the assasination.

Then why is his name not mentioned in the chain of custody for CE399?

[Tim Nickerson]

Then why is his name not mentioned in the chain of custody for CE399?

Why would it be? The bullet didn't really need a chain of custody anyway. Also, it had already been examined by the FBI and admitted into evidence during WC testimony.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why would it be? The bullet didn't really need a chain of custody anyway. Also, it had already been examined by the FBI and admitted into evidence during WC testimony.

Then why did Specter introduce the bullet into evidence (during Humes' testimony) subject to later authentication?

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally.

And why did the WC ask the FBI for authentication by way of the chain of custody? You know, the reason for which Odum was allegedly given the bullet to begin with?

Are you actually arguing that Odum's name didn't have to be in the chain of custody of CE399 when the sole purpose for him allegedly having it in the first place is to establish a conclusive chain of custody? Really?

[John Iacoletti]

If hearsay in an anonymously written letter with an FBI letterhead at the top says so, then it must be true.

LOL

[Tim Nickerson]

Then why did Specter introduce the bullet into evidence (during Humes' testimony) subject to later authentication?

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally.

I don't know why.

And why did the WC ask the FBI for authentication by way of the chain of custody? You know, the reason for which Odum was allegedly given the bullet to begin with?

Is that what it was for?  Authentication by way of the chain of custody? How do you know?

Are you actually arguing that Odum's name didn't have to be in the chain of custody of CE399 when the sole purpose for him allegedly having it in the first place is to establish a conclusive chain of custody? Really?

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know why.

Is that what it was for?  Authentication by way of the chain of custody? How do you know?

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.

How can you argue that, when you don't know why Specter introduced the bullet subject to later proof and you don't know why the WC asked the FBI for authentication of the evidence?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, perhaps?