RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's ridiculous to compare that to this story in which a SS agent obtains a critical piece of evidence and then abandons it on a stretcher and never says a word for 60 years.  The SS had a lot going on that day.  Pedantic nitpicking by a contrarian that they didn't comport themselves as they might in a calmer situation when the president and just been assassinated and they had to be concerned with further attempts on LBJ is laughable.

Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag? Which he then, I assume, would have put in his pocket anyway? That's not remotely comparable to what Landis said he did. Sixty years later.

It is remarkable, though what happened. Tomlinson finds a bullet, gives it to Wright who then tries to give it to an FBI agent - who refuses by saying he's not involved in the investigation (?!) - and another SS agent who also rejects it. Finally, Johnsen takes it after Wright finds him. So the conspirators who planted this bullet didn't have an agent around who would take possession of it? They would plant it on a stretcher and that's the end of it? It's kind of amazing that it wasn't lost in all of this.

[Jon Banks]

Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag? Which he then puts in his pocket anyway? That's not remotely comparable to what Landis said he did. Sixty years later.

It is remarkable, though what happened. Tomlinson finds a bullet, gives it to Wright who then tries to give it to an FBI agent - who refuses by saying he's not involved in the investigation (?!) - and another SS agent who also rejects it. Finally, Johnsen takes it after Wright finds him. So the conspirators who planted this bullet didn't have an agent around who would take possession of it? They would plant it on a stretcher and that's the end of it? It's kind of amazing that it wasn't lost in all of this.

Landis' account, if true, would debunk speculation about conspirators planting the Parkland stretcher bullet but it would also blow a hole in the theory that CE399 was the bullet that struck both Kennedy and Connolly.

Aside from that, we're still left with the unresolved problem that Tomlinson and Wright couldn't ID CE399 as the bullet that they found.

And the chain of custody problems with CE399.

A fine mess indeed...

[John Iacoletti]

Johnsen (the SS agent) took the bullet from Wright, the Parkland personnel director who got the bullet from Tomlinson, and placed it in his pocket. Why would he think it's evidence that requires being put into an evidence bag?

Because neither Tomlinson, Wright, or Johnsen (or Rowley) could identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled. And Wright specifically said it was not. This is why evidence handling procedures beyond passing it around and carrying it around in pockets exist.

[Richard Smith]

I am not comparing anything. Instead I am merely pointing out just how hypocritical your argument is.

You argued against the Landis story by claiming that there was "no conceivable reason" that a SS agent would act that way.
I merely pointed out that there was also "no conceivable reason" for a SS agent to deal with a crucial piece of evidence in such a negligent manner, yet it happened nevertheless.

In other words, your entire "no conceivale reason" argument is BS.

That's EXACTLY what you did.  I can understand your attempt to run from that idiotic comparison.  You attempted to compare the Landis story to the actual events to suggest that they were equally improbable.  It's laughable.  Abandoning critical evidence (i.e. the bullet used to assassinate the president) on a stretcher and walking away from it is vastly different than failing to put it in an "evidence bag" but retaining the evidence.   How do you even know that such "evidence bags" were readily available to them?  Or that they were aware (assuming that you are even correct) that was the protocol under the extraordinary circumstances.  The SS task is to protect the president and VP.  They were not in charge of a criminal investigation.  They had their hands full under extremely chaotic circumstances not knowing if there were further threats and getting LBJ safely out of the area.  If they had put it an evidence bag on live TV and that had been notarized by a group of nuns who witnessed the event, you would still be here claiming there was an issue (fabrication) but then refuse to confirm that you are implying a conspiracy.   Rabbit hole.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's EXACTLY what you did.  I can understand your attempt to run from that idiotic comparison.  You attempted to compare the Landis story to the actual events to suggest that they were equally improbable.  It's laughable.  Abandoning critical evidence (i.e. the bullet used to assassinate the president) on a stretcher and walking away from it is vastly different than failing to put it in an "evidence bag" but retaining the evidence.   How do you even know that such "evidence bags" were readily available to them?  Or that they were aware (assuming that you are even correct) that was the protocol under the extraordinary circumstances.  The SS task is to protect the president and VP.  They were not in charge of a criminal investigation.  They had their hands full under extremely chaotic circumstances not knowing if there were further threats and getting LBJ safely out of the area.  If they had put it an evidence bag on live TV and that had been notarized by a group of nuns who witnessed the event, you would still be here claiming there was an issue (fabrication) but then refuse to confirm that you are implying a conspiracy.   Rabbit hole.

Another pointless rant.

Sorry, I can't fix stupid

You attempted to compare the Landis story to the actual events to suggest that they were equally improbable.  It's laughable.

So, now there are different degrees of improbable? Hilarious.... Something is either probable or it isn't, fool!

Abandoning critical evidence (i.e. the bullet used to assassinate the president) on a stretcher and walking away from it is vastly different than failing to put it in an "evidence bag" but retaining the evidence.

Retaining the evidence? Your sense of humor is priceless! You don't "retain the evidence" by casually putting it in your pocket.

How do you even know that such "evidence bags" were readily available to them? 

First of all, because all hospitals have them and secondly, and more importantly, one of such bags was in fact used for bullet fragments taken out of Connally's leg.

Or that they were aware (assuming that you are even correct) that was the protocol under the extraordinary circumstances. 

Oh boy, you are really desperate for excuses to justify the agent's incompetence, aren't you?

They were not in charge of a criminal investigation

In charge, or not, they were part of the investigation. They had a man sitting in at Oswald's interrogation. They had Marina Oswald in protective custody, they allowed the limo, parked in their garage, to be illegally searched and they "handled" and passed on evidence.

If they had put it an evidence bag on live TV and that had been notarized by a group of nuns who witnessed the event, you would still be here claiming there was an issue (fabrication) but then refuse to confirm that you are implying a conspiracy. 

I've said this before, several times; you should stop trying to tell me how I would or would not react to a hypothetical situation. First of all, you're not very good at it and, secondly, you are talking out of the lowest hole of your body.

[Royell Storing]

“Yeah, we have the WC initially working on a 2 Shots Fired scenario,”  

Good point Royell. Maybe you can elaborate on the WC "working" on a two shot scenario.

Unless you are talking about something in the Ball- Balin report, I was unaware the WC did any actual work on the fact there was only two shots fired, the WC did note it in their conclusion and stated the problem with the witnesses having been influenced by the media.

The one thing that has never changed in Paul’s memory, is Paul Landis still maintained there were only two shots. It was two shots in 1963 and two shots today. The second shot being the headshot. How about explaining JBC’s wound with this in mind. Paul found what bullet? It looks like SBT is the only answer that is possible. Are you thinking JFK somehow shot Gov Connally?

    The WC was working on a 2 shot scenario until the news that James Teague had been scratched in his cheek area as the result of a bullet fragment or debris from a bullet strike/richochet. Teague was standing close to the Triple Underpass somewhat between Main and Commerce St. Once this info drifted down to the WC, it was back to the drawing board.
     I believe that reading the Original Report that Landis filed would explain his long term silence regarding his alleged bullet retrieval. In that Original Report, Landis details from his running board position on the Queen Mary, "The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was bent over while running and I started to point towards him, but he didn't have anything in his hands and by this time we were going under the overpass at a very high rate of speed. I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping along the curb approximately adjacent to where I saw the Negro running". With there being not a single image or assassination eyewitness to corroborate this detailed Landis citing of a colorfully dressed running man, I believe he became the butt of many, many running jokes among his SS colleagues. Hence, his bullet retrieval silence. I do believe if Landis did find a bullet, he fully understood then and going forward the significance of his find. Getting back to his Original Statement, the part I find interesting is his detailing seeing, "a motorcycle policeman ......". Landis would seem to be describing Motorcycle Officer Haygood, but the Queen Mary with Landis aboard was well on its' way to Parkland Hospital by the time that Haygood wrestled with his motorcycle at the Elm St curb. With there being next day newspaper reports that were soon documented by eyewitness testimony of a motorcycle going UP the knoll, the Landis description of a motorcycle cop at the curb is also worthy of being looked at closely.           

[Charles Collins]

    The WC was working on a 2 shot scenario until the news that James Teague had been scratched in his cheek area as the result of a bullet fragment or debris from a bullet strike/richochet. Teague was standing close to the Triple Underpass somewhat between Main and Commerce St. Once this info drifted down to the WC, it was back to the drawing board.
     I believe that reading the Original Report that Landis filed would explain his long term silence regarding his alleged bullet retrieval. In that Original Report, Landis details from his running board position on the Queen Mary, "The only person I recall seeing clearly was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from my left to right, up the slope, across a grassy section, along a sidewalk, towards some steps and what appeared to be a low stone wall. He was bent over while running and I started to point towards him, but he didn't have anything in his hands and by this time we were going under the overpass at a very high rate of speed. I was looking back and saw a motorcycle policeman stopping along the curb approximately adjacent to where I saw the Negro running". With there being not a single image or assassination eyewitness to corroborate this detailed Landis citing of a colorfully dressed running man, I believe he became the butt of many, many running jokes among his SS colleagues. Hence, his bullet retrieval silence. I do believe if Landis did find a bullet, he fully understood then and going forward the significance of his find. Getting back to his Original Statement, the part I find interesting is his detailing seeing, "a motorcycle policeman ......". Landis would seem to be describing Motorcycle Officer Haygood, but the Queen Mary with Landis aboard was well on its' way to Parkland Hospital by the time that Haygood wrestled with his motorcycle at the Elm St curb. With there being next day newspaper reports that were soon documented by eyewitness testimony of a motorcycle going UP the knoll, the Landis description of a motorcycle cop at the curb is also worthy of being looked at closely.         

The WC was working on a 2 shot scenario until the news that James Teague had been scratched in his cheek area as the result of a bullet fragment or debris from a bullet strike/richochet. Teague was standing close to the Triple Underpass somewhat between Main and Commerce St. Once this info drifted down to the WC, it was back to the drawing board.


From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, pp. 120-122:


  The Genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory

 One of the most significant developments in the commission’s work started to take shape in late February. Although working conscientiously on their analytical memoranda in order to meet the deadline, the commission’s staff—like most lawyers—greatly preferred to confer and debate the issues. One of the important problems we faced was determining which of the bullets hit whom and when. The Zapruder film gave us a key to solving this problem. Both the FBI and the Secret Service had separately (and repeatedly) examined the film. A group of our lawyers –Ball, Belin, Eisenberg, Redlich, and Specter—did the same, often joined by FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt, a photography expert who provided valuable assistance to the commission.
  The first day that he reported to the commission in late January, Liebeler recalls joining “a group of staff members [who] watched the Zapruder film over and over again as well as examining individual frames. It was my first meeting with Norman Redlich, who was generally in charge of the viewing. I asked him once I had caught the drift of the meeting whether he thought more than one person had been shooting at the motorcade. His reply: ‘That’s what we’re trying to find out.’”60
  At this stage of the investigation, the lawyers questioned the conclusion reached by both the FBI and the Secret Service regarding the three shots believed to have been fired from the depository. Although witnesses at the scene recalled hearing between two and six shots, the largest number heard three shots, and three cartridges had been discovered on the sixth floor of the depository, so three shots became our working hypothesis.
  Initially most of us thought that the first shot hit the president, the second hit Connally, and the third shot killed the president. Connally firmly believed that he had been hit by the second shot, after he heard the first shot, and that he was not hit by the same shot that first hit Kennedy. However, remnants of only two bullets were found in the presidential vehicle. Close examination of the Zapruder film gave us one way to help determine roughly when Kennedy was first hit and when Connally was hit. If the interval between the first and the second shots covered a span of less than 2.25 seconds, the time estimated to be necessary for the assassin to fire two shots, it might suggest that a second rifle was involved.
  Belin worked hard in these early days to prove that a second gunman had participated in the assassination. He requested the Secret Service to ask the three physicians who attended to Connally’s three wounds (back, hand, and leg) to reconstruct the position of the governor “as it must have been to receive the wounds he received.” Belin received a set of drawings portraying the reconstructed position of Connally from five different viewpoints. Belin then gave these drawings to the FBI asking the bureau to compare these drawings with the Zapruder film and advise when, according to the Zapruder film, Connally could not have been hit. The FBI advised that “Governor Connally was not in the position reconstructed by his doctors at any time after frame 240.” The commission’s lawyers working on the problem agreed with this determination.61
  As additional information became available, this small group analyzed, evaluated, and rejected theories. But there was one basic question that now seems very simple: Where did the bullet go after it exited the president’s neck? There was no evidence on the inside of the presidential car that reflected the damage that a bullet would have caused had it followed the trajectory and had the assumed velocity of the bullet that exited the president’s neck. So at some point in these collegial sessions someone, probably Specter, suggested out loud what all in the group were thinking—that the first bullet that hit the president also created Connally’s wounds.
  This possibility of a single bullet hitting both men, which contradicted Connally’s statements (and later testimony before the commission), was also of startling simplicity. It became the much-maligned single-bullet theory. Although we were all intrigued by this new explanation, we immediately recognized its potential and controversial significance. Before this theory could be accepted by the staff and presented to the commission, it needed to be challenged and tested in a variety of ways. That, in turn, led to the reenactment of the assassination that the commission conducted three months later.

[Michael Capasse]

End of April '64 the Report would still say 3 shots - 3 hits - James Tague caused that to change.