Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Bill Chapman]

How do you know this?

[John Tonkovich]

Why are you including fragments found in the limo? They never came from CE 399. The fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399. The total mass of the six fragments deposited in Connally comes no where near to exceeding the mass missing from CE 399.

You can't know the the total mass of what's in Connally. Because some of what you allege to be CE399 is still in Connaly's leg, and he's buried in a coffin Texas.

CE399 never came near Connally.

[Martin Weidmann]

You can't know the the total mass of what's in Connally. Because some of what you allege to be CE399 is still in Connaly's leg, and he's buried in a coffin Texas.

CE399 never came near Connally.

I am pretty much convinced by now that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was never in Parkland Hospital.

[Tim Nickerson]

However, although I am not at home and don't have access to all my files, I did check a hard drive with some material on it and came across a newspaper clip from the days of the HSCA. It does not say the name of the paper or an exact date, but mentions that HSCA investigators had finished talking to Audrey Bell. In the article it says that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body. He turned them over to the FBI. My initial thought was that he must have been the other plain clothes officer with Nolan, but the article says that Harbison was given the three fragments on 11/25/63. Three days after Bell gave her fragments to Nolan. I wonder what happened to Harbison's fragments and why he - according to the article - was never called to testify.....

I would suggest to you that the newspaper article got it wrong.

It does not say in the ARRB report that she was shown a photocopy nor that she could only make out the large fragment. And she did in fact say that the fragments were too small!

The ARRB report says: "When shown CE 842 (page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII), she said that the fragment(s) photographed in the container were too small, and were too few in number, to represent what she handled on 11/22/63."

She was shown an image of the fragments, not the actual fragments. The image of the fragments on the top of page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII is not of very good quality. Bell makes a reference to photocopy. The ARRB report on the interview was done by Doug Horne. He misrepresented what Audrey Bell said in the interview. Or at least the intent of her statement. She looked at it and only saw one fragment and was adamant that there had been at least three. After looking at it a bit she said that it was hard to tell what those other things in the image were. Gunn then told her that they were in fact part of the photographic image. He notes that it was unclear as to what they were. Which makes it obvious that she was not shown a good quality image. They were the other three fragments. Bell did not state outright that the fragment(s) were too small.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html

[Tim Nickerson]

You can't know the the total mass of what's in Connally. Because some of what you allege to be CE399 is still in Connaly's leg, and he's buried in a coffin Texas.

We know the approximate mass of what's still in Connally because Dr Gregory told us the approximate size of the fragment seen in the X-ray of the thigh. Half a mm by 2 mm. Dr Shires said that it looked smaller than that.

[Martin Weidmann]

I would suggest to you that the newspaper article got it wrong.

In what way?

She was shown an image of the fragments, not the actual fragments. The image of the fragments on the top of page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII is not of very good quality. Bell makes a reference to photocopy. The ARRB report on the interview was done by Doug Horne. He misrepresented what Audrey Bell said in the interview. Or at least the intent of her statement. She looked at it and only saw one fragment and was adamant that there had been at least three. After looking at it a bit she said that it was hard to tell what those other things in the image were. Gunn then told her that they were in fact part of the photographic image. He notes that it was unclear as to what they were. Which makes it obvious that she was not shown a good quality image. They were the other three fragments. Bell did not state outright that the fragment(s) were too small.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html

Interesting link. I'm going to need to some time to listen to the recordings. I'll get back to you once I have done that.

[Tim Nickerson]

In what way

In saying that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body.

Interesting link. I'm going to need to some time to listen to the recordings. I'll get back to you once I have done that.

At the beginning of tape #2 is where you'll hear the discussion of CE 842.

[Martin Weidmann]

In saying that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body.

At the beginning of tape #2 is where you'll hear the discussion of CE 842.

In saying that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body.

Do you know the article and have you read it?

It starts with: "A Texas highway patrolman who guarded then Gov John Connally's room at Parkland Hospital has told the Dallas Morning News he recalls turning over to an FBI agent more than three bullet fragments purportedly removed from Connally the day President John Kennedy was assassinated."

Later in the article it says: "Harbison was interviewed by the News Saturday"

This means they got the information directly from Harbison. Was the officers lying?