JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 26, 2019, 02:53:37 PM ---
Not just someone with the FBI.... it was SAC Gordon Shanklin and it happened about a week after the murder.
--- End quote ---
Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?
--- Quote ---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".
--- End quote ---
You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Jerry Organ on January 26, 2019, 02:30:15 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Well, Thompson was writing a case for Oswald's defense. He didn't have much to work with. Being selective with the evidence was all he could do.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 26, 2019, 02:56:47 PM ---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"?
--- End quote ---
Bardwell Odum had no recollection of handling CE-399 four decades prior. How should we categorize him? "The better witness" or not?
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 27, 2019, 02:19:42 AM ---It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now? This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.
If you are going to step into a discussion read the previous posts. Otherwise you waste our time.
--- End quote ---
It seems it was you who wasn't paying attention, so don't blame that on me.
Furthermore, I have destroyed your entire argument. You can not simply assume that Tomlinson found the bullet now in evidence as CE399 simply because you don't have reasonable knowledge about who it is that could have been lying. There is a circumstantial case to make that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 isn't the one that Tomlinson found, but you probably don't want to know about it.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on January 27, 2019, 03:03:58 AM ---Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?
You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
--- End quote ---
Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?
I have no idea. Perhaps it went the same way as the note to Hosty...
You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
So it's your position that what it says in CE2011 is the same as it says in SAC Shanklin's airtel?
Btw who recorded that "the bullet appeared to be the same" from Tomlinson and Wright's mouth and where is the documentation for it? Or is it your position that the (unidentified) FBI agent who wrote the memo somehow got that information telepathically?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version