A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Andrew Mason]

It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:

According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.

You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.

Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 

• "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
  to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.

And then you come up with this gem:

I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.

Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??

Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!

Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen.

When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.

The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:
...
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??

Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."

But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?

As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.

Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.

If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.

[Dan O'meara]

What he said.....

Andrew is trying to marginalize the chain of custody and completely ignores that Arlen Specter introduced the bullet we now know as CE399 into evidence during Dr. Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it is the bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
Obviously, that proof was never provided!

Not only that, but he also ignores that the WC asked the FBI for authentication of many pieces of evidence, including CE399, which would have been a strange thing to do if the chain of custody wasn't important.

At least Specter was qualifying CE399 as "subject to later proof". During Frazier's testimony, Eisenberg couldn't even be bothered with that nicety:

Mr. Eisenberg: Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

Just in case you didn't know, Mr Frazier, this is the bullet which was found at Parkland (for the record)!!

[Dan O'meara]

Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 

• "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
  to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.

Every single sentence of your post is utter waffle, devoid of any content.
As usual, you have forgotten that these threads are a written record , any readers interested in the arguments presented can read through the last few pages and judge for themselves the strength of these arguments.

[Andrew Mason]

Every single sentence of your post is utter waffle, devoid of any content.

It obviously has content. You just don't find it persuasive.

As usual, you have forgotten that these threads are a written record , any readers interested in the arguments presented can read through the last few pages and judge for themselves the strength of these arguments.

That is exactly what the forum is for!

[Martin Weidmann]

Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 

• "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
  to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.

According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.

You keep relying on CE2011 despite the fact that SA Odum is on record saying that he never showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

CE2011 also doesn't match with SAC Dallas Gorden Shanklin's airtel. CE2011 is a fabrication by the FBI!

[Dan O'meara]

This is not an area of the case I've given that much thought to in the past but my understanding of the evidence as it stands leads me to really suspect that CE399 was introduced into the evidence chain at some point.
As I don't believe Oswald actually took the shots that day I am, by default, a Conspiracy Theorist. For Lone Nutters it's plain sailing, your narrative has been provided for you, your thinking has been done for you and, although there may be small variations in specific details, the outcome is set in stone. As a Cter I am part of a spectrum of thinking that ranges from eminently sensible through to I'm-riding-a-unicorn-to-my-nearest-mothership.
I'm a minimalist, that is to say, things happened as per the official narrative except it wasn't Oswald who took the shots. Even this leads to massive, unprovable assumptions.
But now I find myself being dragged into a much larger conspiracy and I find I have to play Devil's Advocate against myself!
The arguments I've presented in the last few pages are leading me to suspect FBI agent Elmer Todd as the person who introduced CE399 into the chain of custody. This leads to a massive problem as far as a conspiracy is concerned:

If CE399 is introduced into the chain of custody at the FBI lab in Washington on the evening of the 22nd, how is this possible if the rifle this bullet was fired from didn't get to the same FBI lab until the morning of the 23rd?

It seems beyond unlikely that Todd had a slightly distorted bullet on his person that could be matched to the MC. As Andrew has already pointed out, it is the completely random discovery of a bullet at Parkland that has led to the possibility that CE399 could be introduced in the first place.
The idea that Todd had this slightly distorted bullet on him just in case someone found a random bullet at Parkland is a non-starter.

I've no doubt the Unicorn Crew will have an instant solution to this problem.
But I'm not in a position where I can say "Wow, that's such a difficult question to answer I might as well ignore what the evidence is actually saying."
Maybe Wright is wrong or lying when he says the bullet had a pointed tip.
Maybe Thompson misunderstood or lied about what Wright actually said.
Maybe Johnsen didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Rowley didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Tomlinson genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Wright genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Johnsen genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Rowley genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe a bullet passing through two men, smashing bones on the way, doesn't leave a trace on the bullet.
Maybe a bullet can just fall out of a persons body.
Maybe Specter genuinely forgot to ask Tomlinson about the bullet.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...

On one hand, the evidence strongly suggests CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody, on the other, how could anyone have known that it needed to be introduced into the chain of custody.

[Mitch Todd]

This might be a bit of a quibble,

Yes it is.

No, not really.

However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.

Only in theory, because it can never been determined with 100% certainty that complete information is available in a particular case.

Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

[turn out left pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here

[turn out right pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.

I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED