Here is/was the evidence to support my rhetorical NO!!!!!! Tomlinson himself said it wasn't the same bullet he found when asked about it. The real question to ask is which investigator (Johnsen?, a veteran first responder?) failed to initial the evidence or collaborate the bullet put into the evidence locker and why not! He should have been fired because he knows better! The first investigator needed to be asked if he initialed some bullet or if it he mishandled it by not signing it and now denies that CE399 was the same bullet? No one questions!!
If he said he initialed it, the bullet was planted - end of story. Obviously, the seeds of doubt need to remain so that the planted evidence can be used to furnish the SBT!
You never looked at my REPLY #2 to closely and want to form a circular argument and just plain ignored it. I have clearly stated that no one signed in authority or initialed the evidence and no one wants to admit that the bullet in the evidence locker is the one they saw or hand carried! "We have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399 ". Pretty simple. No one wants to say that the bullet at the evidence locker came from PH! Throw that bullet out. It could have came from a cotton box where it was gathered from!
Those people that gather the evidence surely know that you just can't "ADD" evidence at will to evidence locker. This is not the first time these shenanigans have taken place in the court system. Unfortunately prosecutors have sometimes used police to help them plant evidence when they both have already formed an opinion that someone is guilty and they just need a little bit more to make it stick. That is what happens when you have a "KANGAROO" court.
Tomlinson himself said it wasn't the same bullet he found when asked about it. When did Tomlinson say this and to whom?
I think you are confusing Tomlinson with Wright. The latter told Josiah Thompson in 1966 that the bullet he received from Tomlinson had a pointed tip and later showed Thompson a similar bullet of photo of which Tompson published in his book "Six seconds in Dallas". Wright also rejected CE399 (he was shown a photograph) as the bullet he had seen.
The real question to ask is which investigator (Johnsen?, a veteran first responder?) failed to initial the evidence or collaborate the bullet put into the evidence locker and why not! That's a good question, especially as Parkland Hospital had special evidence envelopes available (one was used for bullet fragments taken from Connally during his operation).
You never looked at my REPLY #2 to closely and want to form a circular argument and just plain ignored it. I'm not sure what you are on about as there is no circular argument on my part anywhere. I did in fact read your reply and noted that your arguments (or rather those of the person who wrote the article) were known to me. There was nothing there that I was not already aware of. What it didn't do is answer the question I asked, which is why I didn't reply to it as I wanted to stay on topic.
I have clearly stated that no one signed in authority or initialed the evidence and no one wants to admit that the bullet in the evidence locker is the one they saw or hand carried! "We have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399 ". Pretty simple. No one wants to say that the bullet at the evidence locker came from PH! Throw that bullet out. It could have came from a cotton box where it was gathered from!
I agree, but what dealing with LNs it's not so simple. Once you discuss the chain of custody they will go the "at court it would have been admitted" route and then you end up with a completely different discussion about the evidentiary value of the chain of custody, which is where I didn't and don't want to go. My position is a simple one; the WC and the LNs claim the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was found at Parkland Hospital. I merely want them to show me that CE399 ever was at Parkland. That's what this thread is about.
