Another disappearing bullet

[Tim Nickerson]

I never claimed it was a public statement. It has already been noted that Warren commissions lack of either Tomlinson, or Wright, being to testify to authenticity in front of them is not just a neutral position There is the 64 FBI memo claiming ?appears to be the same one? However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau?s own once-secret records, don?t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance

Matt, Contrary to what you believe, the "Bureau?s own once-secret records" and CE-2011 do not conflict with one another. They say essentially the same thing. That being that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could positively identify the bullet in question.

Mr. Odum told Aguilar, ?I didn?t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn?t have any bullet ? I don?t think I ever saw it even.?  [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.

Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI?s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a ?302? report covering something that important

When interviewed by Aguilar and Thompson, Odum was well in his 80s and over four decades had passed since his time investigating the assassination. I suggest to you that his memory was questionable at best. Anyway, it's of no real importance. If the memo had reported positive identifications of the bullet from Tomlinson and Wright then it might be worth the attention that it has received from CTs.

In regard to the two Secret Service agents who were the other two individuals in the chain of custody

A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI?s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, ?ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF ? ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE

Neither Johnsen nor Rowley had scratched their marks on the bullet when they had possession of it. That's why they were unable to positively identify it. If Johnsen and Rowley were needed to establish a chain of custody, then their respective letters would suffice. Johnsen's letter was attached to the envelope that contained the bullet that Elmer Todd handed over to Robert Frazier. Both Todd and Frazier placed their marks on the bullet. That mark placed by Todd enabled him to positively identify CE-399 as being the bullet that he received from Rowley. Frazier also positively identified the bullet while testifying under oath before the Warren Commission.

 

Hearsay is generally a term reserved for a courtroom I see no reason to call FBI reports little more than hearsay as well, but in this case there is evidence for wholesale fabrication on the part of the FBI as opposed to the research of Thompson It seems pretty likely that Wright was aware of the story by Josiah Thompson and one would assume would have protested if he had been misquoted

Investigative reports written by official law enforcement agents can hardly be equated with a book written years later by an author with a conspiratorial mindset.

I am all for people being under oath, recorded or any manner of verifying statements But when there is a lack of any evidence to support a claim, simple interviews do have significance

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it does.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

As you can see, in the case of CE-399, there really isn't a lack of evidence though, is there?

[Tim Nickerson]

         If You are going to Reject the Tink Thompson interviews which support his landmark "Six Seconds In Dallas", You must also be Rejecting the multitude of Interviews that Richard B. Trask did for his Trumpeted "Pictures Of The Pain". "Pictures Of The Pain" previously having been regarded as the Bible of JFK Assassination Research Material.

I think that all of those interviews given years later are worth consideration. Even Tink Thompson's. However, one should be wary of attempting to build a case with them.

[Royell Storing]

I think that all of those interviews given years later are worth consideration. Even Tink Thompson's. However, one should be wary of attempting to build a case with them.

     Thanks for clearing this up. You may Now proceed with your self proclaimed Cherry Picking research endeavors.

[Martin Weidmann]

Matt, Contrary to what you believe, the "Bureau?s own once-secret records" and CE-2011 do not conflict with one another. They say essentially the same thing. That being that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could positively identify the bullet in question.

When interviewed by Aguilar and Thompson, Odum was well in his 80s and over four decades had passed since his time investigating the assassination. I suggest to you that his memory was questionable at best. Anyway, it's of no real importance. If the memo had reported positive identifications of the bullet from Tomlinson and Wright then it might be worth the attention that it has received from CTs.

Neither Johnsen nor Rowley had scratched their marks on the bullet when they had possession of it. That's why they were unable to positively identify it. If Johnsen and Rowley were needed to establish a chain of custody, then their respective letters would suffice. Johnsen's letter was attached to the envelope that contained the bullet that Elmer Todd handed over to Robert Frazier. Both Todd and Frazier placed their marks on the bullet. That mark placed by Todd enabled him to positively identify CE-399 as being the bullet that he received from Rowley. Frazier also positively identified the bullet while testifying under oath before the Warren Commission.

 
Investigative reports written by official law enforcement agents can hardly be equated with a book written years later by an author with a conspiratorial mindset.









Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.
Mr. EISENBERG - Does that have your mark on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it does.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

As you can see, in the case of CE-399, there really isn't a lack of evidence though, is there?

As you can see, in the case of CE-399, there really isn't a lack of evidence though, is there?

Oh yes, there isn't a lack of evidence. It just isn't the evidence you need to support your case.

What this evidence really shows is that Secret Service Agent Johnson received a bullet at Parkland Hospital from Wright, who said he had received it from Tomlinson. Johnson subsequently took a bullet to Washington where he gave it to his chief, Rowley, who then placed a bullet in an envelope and had Johnson write a little note about it. None of these four people involved could positively identify the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 as the bullet they had handled on 22/11/63.

Rowley then turned over the envelope, containing a bullet, to FBI agent Elmer Todd at either 6.50 PM or 8.50 PM (depending on which report you prefer), who apparently marked the bullet and gave it to Frazier.

Todd being the first one in the chain of custody who identified the bullet justifies the conclusion that the bullet now known as CE 399 started it's evidentiary life in Washington. There is not a shred of evidence that it is the same bullet as the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland Hospital.

[Matt Grantham]

 Tim I assume you give some priority to using verbatim in these cases we are discussing? Since we cannot be certain of the exact words that are said in reply to a specific question it is of course difficult to establish what verbatim actually was Aren't you concerned about the FBI prerogative of seemingly allowing themselves the option of paraphrasing, especially when they are given the exalted position of an institution of record? "Appears to be the same one' is different than simply saying they cannot positively identify it

[Tim Nickerson]

As you can see, in the case of CE-399, there really isn't a lack of evidence though, is there?

Oh yes, there isn't a lack of evidence. It just isn't the evidence you need to support your case.

What this evidence really shows is that Secret Service Agent Johnson received a bullet at Parkland Hospital from Wright, who said he had received it from Tomlinson. Johnson subsequently took a bullet to Washington where he gave it to his chief, Rowley, who then placed a bullet in an envelope and had Johnson write a little note about it. None of these four people involved could positively identify the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 as the bullet they had handled on 22/11/63.

The evidence is more than sufficient to support my case. It's doubtful that a chain of custody would be required to get the bullet admitted as evidence but if it were then Johnsen would be the first link in the chain. The letter that he attached to the envelope satisfies his link in the chain. Rowley's letter satisfies his link. Every link in the chain would not be required to positively identify the bullet. Good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.

Rowley then turned over the envelope, containing a bullet, to FBI agent Elmer Todd at either 6.50 PM or 8.50 PM (depending on which report you prefer), who apparently marked the bullet and gave it to Frazier.

Actually, neither. 8:50 PM was the time that Todd received the bullet from Rowley.



Frazier would have received it from Todd a bit later. He scribbled a time of 7:30 PM but he could have done so a day or two after the fact. 7:30 was likely not accurate. It was not the only inaccurate time that Frazier marked down for evidence received by him.

[Tim Nickerson]

Tim I assume you give some priority to using verbatim in these cases we are discussing? Since we cannot be certain of the exact words that are said in reply to a specific question it is of course difficult to establish what verbatim actually was Aren't you concerned about the FBI prerogative of seemingly allowing themselves the option of paraphrasing, especially when they are given the exalted position of an institution of record? "Appears to be the same one' is different than simply saying they cannot positively identify it

Matt, let's look at what's contained in them verbatum.

From 6/20/64 Airtel to Director, FBI from SAC, Dallas:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29&tab=page

"For information WFO, neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON, who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, nor O.P.WRIGHT, Personnel officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Agent RICHARD E. JOHNSON, Secret Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet."

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From CE-2011:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11653#relPageId=3&tab=page

"Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to O.P. Wright."
..............
"He(O.P. Wright) advised he could not positively identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found on November 22, 1963."


As you can see, they say essentially the same thing. That being that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could positively identify the bullet in question.

[Martin Weidmann]

The evidence is more than sufficient to support my case. It's doubtful that a chain of custody would be required to get the bullet admitted as evidence but if it were then Johnsen would be the first link in the chain. The letter that he attached to the envelope satisfies his link in the chain. Rowley's letter satisfies his link. Every link in the chain would not be required to positively identify the bullet. Good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.


Actually, neither. 8:50 PM was the time that Todd received the bullet from Rowley.



Frazier would have received it from Todd a bit later. He scribbled a time of 7:30 PM but he could have done so a day or two after the fact. 7:30 was likely not accurate. It was not the only inaccurate time that Frazier marked down for evidence received by him.

The evidence is more than sufficient to support my case. It's doubtful that a chain of custody would be required to get the bullet admitted as evidence 

And what exactly do you think that means? Is getting admitted as evidence the same as being conclusive proof of something? I doubt it.

A solid chain of custody is a safeguard against evidence tampering. There is no other reason for that requirement. A chain of custody might not be required to get a piece of evidence admitted but it sure as hell is vital for the presentation of that evidence to the jury.

but if it were then Johnsen would be the first link in the chain. The letter that he attached to the envelope satisfies his link in the chain.

Depends on the circumstances.... if Johnson just wrote the note and Rowley attached it to the envelope, the note means nothing at all.

The letter that he attached to the envelope satisfies his link in the chain. Rowley's letter satisfies his link. 

No it doesn't.

Every link in the chain would not be required to positively identify the bullet. Good luck trying to convince a judge otherwise.


Why in the world would I want to convince a Judge otherwise? As a defense lawyer I would lodge a token objection and then destroy the evidence at trial... It's a far better strategy!