A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964

Where did I say that?

2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition

Where did I say that?

This has pretty much been the whole thrust of your arguments regarding Dolce. This is the most succinct statement of your scenario:

All I can say is that Dolce and his team were hired by the WC to do the tests and when the WC got their report they buried it and Dolce's testimony

You might want to quibble as to how exact my characterization of your position is, but is essentially correct.

What is absolutely true is that Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before anybody testified. Dolce was questioned by Specter on April 21st, 1964. One can only wonder why Specter talked to Dolce on that day, if he was merely a consultant. Also, during that conversation, at least some of the test results must have been known, don't you think? Otherwise they would have had nothing to talk about, right? According to Dolce, it was only after this meeting that Specter decided not to call him to testify and turned to Olivier and Dziemian. Again, one can only wonder why!

This is just a big chunk of presumption glued together by misapprehension.

Dolce said that "I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connally, his wife and his doctors." He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in. In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Table B1 in the Edgewood report shows that the firing tests commenced on April 27, 1964 and continued through May 11. In other words, when Dolce walked into the VA Building, none of the testing had even begun. This strengthens the idea that Dolce was there only to collect information that would be used to determine what sort of tests would be run. And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,

CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!

Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.

he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.

and

Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."

What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.

he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Specter's question encompasses both the case where the bullet passes through both JFK and Connally and the case where the bullet passes through just Connally. The degree of vagueness within the question may well have been by design, but it's still there. And again, there is no contradiction as to what Olivier testifies to and what is in the Edgewood report. Specter gets Dziemian to go a little further, but not much. The best Dr D can do is say that the "probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet," which is one of the two scenarios put forward in the report. Still he doesn't actually commit to that particular scenario. Dziemian's answer thus also does not contradict the Edgewood report's conclusions.

Btw, I don't think the date of March 1965 on the report is of major significance. Although I can not explain why that date is there to begin with, the actual report states that the work was started in April 1964 and ended in October 1964. But more importantly, I found two other Edgewood reports that are similar. One was written by Dr. Light and covered work started in March 1951 and completed in January 1961. The date on that report was September 1965 and December 1965 respectively.  The other report was written by Janice Mendelson and dated August 1966. Her report states that the actual work was done between July 1963 and October 1965.

Again, the report itself notes that the shooting didn't begin until April 27, 1964, six days after Dolce met the Connallys. This fact alone demolishes the idea that Dolce went into the VA Building on the 21st with any conclusions.

[Mitch Todd]

MT: So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?

I didn’t say it does.

That is exactly what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want to admit it or not.

How does his later testimony show that his 11/22 statement was merely an assumption?

I've already said it: "[Shaw] admitted that he 'didn't examine [the thigh wound] that closely, except for its general location.'"

If Shaw didn't examine the wound other than noting its location, then he could not have known whether or not a bullet was still in the thigh.

MT:  In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found.

True — at least the ones that were given to them.

And now, lacking any other evidence, all you can do is insinuate that something suspicious must have happened.

It could have been the bullet that Connally said hit the floor before Gregory’s surgery and subsequently “disappeared”.

Connally actually does say this in his autobiography. However, he also has a lot to say about what happened that day that he could not possibly have seen. And good deal of it is garbled or even wrong. He wrote that the Secret Service agents in the SS followup car immediately jumped out and ran to the front door of the TSBD "even as some in the crowd were still waving to the President"... which absolutely did not happen. He helpfully notes that "Many of my memories are secondhand" and "It is no longer possible to say with certitude how much of the race to Parkland I remember, and how much I have been told by Nellie, or picked up from watching news films or reading official reports." In short, he admits he might not be the most reliable narrator. At that time, he was suffering from severe blood loss, and was about to receive stout doses of anesthesia, neither of which are good for memory.

[John Iacoletti]

That is exactly what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want to admit it or not.

You don’t get to decide what I’m arguing. Just because there wasn’t a bullet in Connally’s leg at the time of his surgery doesn’t mean that there was no bullet in his leg at the time of Shaw’s comment.

If Shaw didn't examine the wound other than noting its location, then he could not have known whether or not a bullet was still in the thigh.

That all depends on what the basis for his statement was. It’s a definitive statement, and you don’t have any more insight about it than anybody else.

[Martin Weidmann]

This has pretty much been the whole thrust of your arguments regarding Dolce. This is the most succinct statement of your scenario:

You might want to quibble as to how exact my characterization of your position is, but is essentially correct.

Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?

This is just a big chunk of presumption glued together by misapprehension.

Dolce said that "I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connally, his wife and his doctors." He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in. In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Table B1 in the Edgewood report shows that the firing tests commenced on April 27, 1964 and continued through May 11. In other words, when Dolce walked into the VA Building, none of the testing had even begun. This strengthens the idea that Dolce was there only to collect information that would be used to determine what sort of tests would be run. And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in

Who said anything about Dolce testifying?

Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Sounds like?

And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?

You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.

he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Specter's question encompasses both the case where the bullet passes through both JFK and Connally and the case where the bullet passes through just Connally. The degree of vagueness within the question may well have been by design, but it's still there. And again, there is no contradiction as to what Olivier testifies to and what is in the Edgewood report. Specter gets Dziemian to go a little further, but not much. The best Dr D can do is say that the "probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet," which is one of the two scenarios put forward in the report. Still he doesn't actually commit to that particular scenario. Dziemian's answer thus also does not contradict the Edgewood report's conclusions.

If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.

In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.

which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.

So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

Again, the report itself notes that the shooting didn't begin until April 27, 1964, six days after Dolce met the Connallys. This fact alone demolishes the idea that Dolce went into the VA Building on the 21st with any conclusions.

So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?

And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?

[Mitch Todd]

You don’t get to decide what I’m arguing.

If only you would decide what you are arguing....

Just because there wasn’t a bullet in Connally’s leg at the time of his surgery doesn’t mean that there was no bullet in his leg at the time of Shaw’s comment.

During the press conference, Shaw's noted that Gregory was still in the ER working on Connally's arm. The surgery was still going on, and Shires had yet to start his part of the operation.

That all depends on what the basis for his statement was. It’s a definitive statement, and you don’t have any more insight about it than anybody else.

Which statement is "definitive"?
 

[John Iacoletti]

If only you would decide what you are arguing....

Which hasn't changed despite your best efforts to change it.

Which statement is "definitive"?

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

[Mitch Todd]

Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?

He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in

Who said anything about Dolce testifying?

You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Sounds like?

Again, Dolce wrote:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

Reviewing X-rays is gathering information.

Reviewing the Zapruder film is gathering information.

Listening to Connally talk about his injuries is gathering information.

And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?

And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?

Again, you did. You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.

It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.

If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.

In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.

which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.

So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

I keep ignoring it because it's an inchoate red herring. You have yet to show how any of this changes the current conversation.  Let's go back to what you've previously written that forms the point of departure for the current entanglement as a refresher:

MW: From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

[...]

MW: Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

[...]

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

[...]

MW: I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington. Nor did Olivier and Dzeimian issue testimony contradicted by the report they wrote. Dolce's beef with the Edgewood report is based solely on Dolce's own interpretation of the wrist tests and only the wrist tests. This whole angle that you've pursued is so full of errors that you might as well just abandon it.

So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?

I always said it was the actual report. I also noted that the report is dated March 1965, and details a set of tests that were performed between April 27, 1964 and May 11 1964. That is, tests that did not begin until several after Dolce's encounter in the VA Building. You have yourself noted that the report is base on work that began in April and concluded in October. Therefore, the earliest the report would have been issued is still a month after the WCR has been published.

And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?

Let's go back to Dolce's letter:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

If Dolce was talking to Connally, then he definitely met with Connally, ipso facto. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?