A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Dan O'meara]

Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

If your premise is that all the evidence [contradicting your dead theory] is false then there is nothing to talk about.
#fixed

What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?

[Martin Weidmann]

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together: e.g. a witness says they saw the same thing that was independently reported by two other witnesses.

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together

No. Falsified or manipulated evidence can also fit together. In fact false evidence would normally be shaped in such a way that it would fit together.
By your logic (if it can be called that) you would be able to consider false evidence to be authentic when it clearly isn't.

Authenticity needs to be proven by a credible chain of custody.

[John Iacoletti]

Dan’s argument is sound. Andrew is making the usual circular argument:

Since we know that CE 399 came from “Oswald’s rifle” (“Oswald’s rifle” — LOL), and we know that Oswald shot the president, then CE 399 must have been the bullet that Tomlinson found. Therefore Wright must have had a memory problem.

[Andrew Mason]

Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

[Martin Weidmann]

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.

A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!

Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.

But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.

The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.


Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

More importantly, there is also no evidence that CE399 is authentic. It doesn't have to be proven that it was planted. It's need to be authenticated before it can be considered credible evidence!

The defense would run rings around the prosecutor if he tried to introduce into evidence a bullet that he can not authenticate!

[Andrew Mason]

Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!

It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.

That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.

It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.

It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

[Martin Weidmann]

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.
It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.
That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.
It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.
It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

This is pure desperation. The only "reason" is that you need the bullet to be the same one. Wright used to be a police officer and had knowledge of weapons and bullets. Your assumption that he may be mistaken is only based on your need for CE399 to be the bullet that was found at Parkland.

It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

This is another one of those "it's true because a cop said so" arguments.

That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

Well, it worked with Todd! Rowley being unable to indentify the bullet resulted from his failure to mark it. The same goes for Johnsen. No pitcher ever marks a baseball.

It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

That's what the FBI claimed in CE2011. The problem is that SA Odum, who is supposed to have interviewed all four men and showed them the bullet, denied that he ever did such a thing.

Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

That's not reason. It is jumping to a conclusion not supported by all the possible facts. I agree that, in your scenario, the bullet must have been produced prior to the assassination to enable a switch at some point in the chain of custody. But just because you think this couldn't have happened, doesn't mean it didn't and/or that "A is false". Besides, there is another alternative secenario that's also possible. Tomlinson did find a pointed bullet and it was this bullet Todd marked with his initial and gave to Frazier. When they learned that this bullet did not match the MC rifle, it was switched for the one we now know as CE399. All they needed to do was scratch Todd's initial on that bullet.

None of this is really important because it does not need to be proven that CE399 was planted. The burden of proof and thus authentication is on the side that offers CE399 as evidence and we have already established that there is no authentication for that bullet.