Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Liam Kelly]

Oh dear,
Tim in this particular example 'first hand' means that the conveyor of the information
ie Thompson himself, was in some way witness to the substance of the info.
Thompson asserts this info was supplied by Wright to himself .
That... is first hand, whether you like or not, and I am at a loss as to where 'third hand' comes from.

Secondly, I have no idea if Thompson is  a man  who lies or tells the truth,
but, Thompson made this incident quite public, I have never heard of his account being challenged
or denied and I have no reason at all to suspect he made it up.

If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge
that alerts me to the possibilty.
I have know such knowledge in this case ... about Thomson or Wright.


If you have evidence to the contrary I'm absolutely all 'ears' or if you like ... all eyes.

[Tim Nickerson]

Oh dear,
Tim in this particular example 'first hand' means that the conveyor of the information
ie Thompson himself, was in some way witness to the substance of the info.
Thompson asserts this info was supplied by Wright to himself .
That... is first hand, whether you like or not, and I am at a loss as to where 'third hand' comes from.

Secondly, I have no idea if Thompson is  a man  who lies or tells the truth,
but, Thompson made this incident quite public, I have never heard of his account being challenged
or denied and I have no reason at all to suspect he made it up.

If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge
that alerts me to the possibilty.
I have know such knowledge in this case ... about Thomson or Wright.


If you have evidence to the contrary I'm absolutely all 'ears' or if you like ... all eyes.

Actually Thompson is a fairly respected researcher and I'm not comfortable in suggesting that he would knowingly tell something that he believed to be untrue. I have wrongly lumped him in together with John Hunt. It is Hunt who has called Elmer Todd a liar. Not just Todd, but Robert Frazier as well. Wright may have very well recalled that the bullet was pointed. If that is the case then he recalled wrong. Like Wright, Tomlinson was interviewed three or four years later and he said that someone with the FBI showed him a bullet that appeared to be the one that he had found. That's not to say that he positively identified it. It just looked the same.

Thompson and Gary Aguilar made a big deal out of two differently worded reports on what Wright and Tomlinson said when shown CE-399 by an FBI agent. One report said that they both said that it appeared to be the same one they handled but that they could not positively identify it. The other report just said that neither of them could identify it. Thompson and Aguilar presented it as that the two reports conflicted with one another and that the first one was really a fabrication.

CE-399 was also shown by an FBI Agent to the two Secret Service Agents who had handled it. Neither of them could positively identify it because they hadn't marked it. The FBI agent who showed the bullet to them and wrote the report on the showings was able to identify his own mark that he had placed on the bullet after receiving it from Secret Service Agent James Rowley. That FBI Agent's name was Elmer Todd.

[Andrew Mason]

If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other  reliable knowledge
that alerts me to the possibilty.

Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson.  What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?

[Martin Weidmann]

Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson.  What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?

A little bit less deceptive please, counselor...?..

Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson, who could not positively identify the bullet itself.  What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?

There, I fixed it for you.

And to answer your question; nobody was lying. Tomlinson gave a bullet to Wright, who in turn gave it to Johnson, who in turn gave it to Rowley, who in turn gave it Todd, but none of the first four men could identify the bullet now in evidence as CE399 as the one they had passed on.

[Martin Weidmann]

Actually Thompson is a fairly respected researcher and I'm not comfortable in suggesting that he would knowingly tell something that he believed to be untrue. I have wrongly lumped him in together with John Hunt. It is Hunt who has called Elmer Todd a liar. Not just Todd, but Robert Frazier as well. Wright may have very well recalled that the bullet was pointed. If that is the case then he recalled wrong. Like Wright, Tomlinson was interviewed three or four years later and he said that someone with the FBI showed him a bullet that appeared to be the one that he had found. That's not to say that he positively identified it. It just looked the same.

Thompson and Gary Aguilar made a big deal out of two differently worded reports on what Wright and Tomlinson said when shown CE-399 by an FBI agent. One report said that they both said that it appeared to be the same one they handled but that they could not positively identify it. The other report just said that neither of them could identify it. Thompson and Aguilar presented it as that the two reports conflicted with one another and that the first one was really a fabrication.

CE-399 was also shown by an FBI Agent to the two Secret Service Agents who had handled it. Neither of them could positively identify it because they hadn't marked it. The FBI agent who showed the bullet to them and wrote the report on the showings was able to identify his own mark that he had placed on the bullet after receiving it from Secret Service Agent James Rowley. That FBI Agent's name was Elmer Todd.

Tomlinson was interviewed three or four years later and he said that someone with the FBI showed him a bullet that appeared to be the one that he had found.

Not just someone with the FBI.... it was SAC Gordon Shanklin and it happened about a week after the murder.

One report said that they both said that it appeared to be the same one they handled but that they could not positively identify it. The other report just said that neither of them could identify it. Thompson and Aguilar presented it as that the two reports conflicted with one another and that the first one was really a fabrication.

The first "report" you are talking about was in fact a memo prepared for the WC, written by an unidentified FBI agent, that was included in CE 2011. It says that both Tomlinson and Wright said that the bullet appeared to be the same but they could not positively identify it, but - unlike for all the other claims made in CE 2011 - there is absolutely nothing to back up this claim. In fact, it claims that, in April 1964, FBI Odum had shown CE399 to both men, but Odum denied that and there is no corresponding FD 302 from Odum for it. Also, Tomlinson is on record as saying he had only been shown a bullet for identification once, and that was by SAC Shanklin in late November 1963.

The second "report" was in fact an airtel from SAC Shanklin to FBI headquarters which confirms that neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet. There was no mention of either man having ever said "that the bullet appeared to be the same". 

[Martin Weidmann]

In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):

    "When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
     stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
     the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
     shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
     particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
     and then announced:

        Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
        [Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
        you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
        that gun right now!

And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.



The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.

She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.

Since when is somebody who has no recollection of something "the better witness"?

[Andrew Mason]

A little bit less deceptive please, counselor...?..

Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson, who could not positively identify the bullet itself.  What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?

There, I fixed it for you.

And to answer your question; nobody was lying. Tomlinson gave a bullet to Wright, who in turn gave it to Johnson, who in turn gave it to Rowley, who in turn gave it Todd, but none of the first four men could identify the bullet now in evidence as CE399 as the one they had passed on.

It is not as if Rowley said there were other bullets that he had given to Todd that were given to him by Johnson.  So by Todd verifying that CE399 was the one that Rowley gave to him, Todd is verifying that it is the same bullet that Johnson had given to Rowley - unless Rowley was lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet. 

And, by similar reasoning, that verifies that CE399 was the bullet given to Johnson by OP Wright - unless Johnson is lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet. And that verifies that CE399 was the bullet given to OP Wright by Tomlinson unless Wright is lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet. And that verifies that CE399 was the bullet discovered by Tomlinson, unless Tomlinson is lying and had deliberately fabricated the story of CE399 being found at Parkland.  So the only way CE399 was not the bullet found by Tomlinson is if someone was lying AND had substituted CE399 for another bullet.

So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?