JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 28, 2019, 09:04:57 PM ---I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully?
Before we get into that why don't you first answer my question? If it was enough to take Todd's word for it to assume that Tomlinson found CE399, why did the WC request an investigation into the chain of custody and why did the FBI take the trouble (if CE 2011 is to be believed) to show bullet CE399 to all men?
--- End quote ---
All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
--- Quote ---He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed.
So, just another witness that was mistaken? Easy solution to a problem, right? You may not assume deceit, but you have no problem to assume witness error!
--- End quote ---
Honest witness error is much more likely.
--- Quote ---If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399.
Correct, but how could it ever be established that the bullet they passed on was not CE399 if - according to your logic - they didn't have to recognize it?
--- End quote ---
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).
Liam Kelly:
The bullet was sent to Dalls for id by Tomlinson and Wright.
They were unable to ID the bullet and neither could Rowley or Johnsen.
All of these men were involved in the chain of possession.
Much later,an unsigned FBI memo was found that said that an agent took the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson who said it resembled the one they found
and this agent was Barwell Odum.
Garry Aguilar contacted Odum for confirmation and he said that he had never seen CE399.
The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.
Todd swore that he initialed the bullet ? but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.
The FBI maintains that the bullet ? known as ?Q1? ? was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.
However, this does not jibe with Johnsen?s note stating that he gave the ?attached expended bullet? to his boss Chief James Rowley at 7:30 p.m.
Todd has a written receipt from Rowley dated 8:50 p.m., which again doesn?t jibe with the FBI lab?s claim that Todd delivered it to Frazier by 7:30 p.m.!
And with OP Wright stating that CE399 is not the bullet they found, as far as I can see the
identification and provenance of the bullet has not been established and looks confusing at best.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 29, 2019, 06:08:20 AM ---All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
Honest witness error is much more likely.
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).
--- End quote ---
All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
You sound like a broken record stuck in the same groove. If the confirmation of passing on the bullet was enough, there wouldn't have been a need for the WC to ask the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399. But that's what happened, and only after the FBI wrote the questionable memo included in CE2011 did the WC let the matter rest, probably because they had no other alternative.
Honest witness error is much more likely.
Says you. And more likely than what? Wright used to be in law enforcement and had been around guns and bullets all his life, yet you automatically assume he was wrong. Too bad nobody could tell Wright that to his face on the stand!
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).
I understood that simple (selfserving) point from the beginning, but it's just your opinion and in my opinion you are wrong. Why? Because it completely defeats the purpose of a chain of custody, which, as I am sure you know, is (1) to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime and (2) to limit the risk of evidence tampering or contamination.
In your version of it, the chain of custody only confirms that a piece of evidence was passed on by serveral people. It does not confirm what was passed on! If it is enough that only the last person in the chain confirms what the item is, there wouldn't be any need for initials of all those in the chain as you simply rely only on the word of the last man in the chain.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Martin Weidmann on January 29, 2019, 10:26:58 AM ---
In your version of it, the chain of custody only confirms that a piece of evidence was passed on by serveral people. It does not confirm what was passed on! If it is enough that only the last person in the chain confirms what the item is, there wouldn't be any need for initials of all those in the chain as you simply rely only on the word of the last man in the chain.
--- End quote ---
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.
Martin Weidmann:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 29, 2019, 04:18:02 PM ---
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.
--- End quote ---
Again, the same old, same old?. Still no plausible explanation for why the WC requested the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399, or how your opinion relates to the purpose of a chain of custody. But I understand, as giving that explanation would destroy your own argument.
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth
But the problem is that you can not simply assume that everybody told the truth when at least one person in the chain of custody (Wright, who was not called to testify of give a deposition by the WC) is on record saying, in 1966, that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the one he saw.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version