Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?

[Tim Nickerson]

WHAT THE HECK???

This was a 2003 symposium. Tink says Odum called him "two days after" their visit to his home (and in fact tried to call them before they left Dallas) and pretty much cleared up the mystery. Their seminal article, "The Magic Bullet: More Magical Than We Knew," HAD to have been written more than two days after their visit to Odum, so WHY does it trumpet the "Odum mystery" as though it were highly significant ("Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up.")? The online version of the article has a 2005 editor's note but nothing new about Odum, and the supposed Odum mystery is still a favorite of CTers.

Is this just raw dishonesty? Tink was a professor of philosophy and has an engaging way that makes you want to like and believe him, but this isn't the first time he's taken me aback.

I do give credit to Tink for sharing the content of Odum's phone call, even though he downplayed it and never included it in the article. Tink does come across as a very likeable guy. I don't get the same vibes from his co-author of "Even More Magical Than We Knew". Aguilar seems to have a bit of a nasty streak in him.

[Charles Collins]

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge
Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time,
ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible
at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi (Via letter to DVP); August 2009

More here:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

And still more "CE399 Chain of Custody" talk here:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1135.html#The-SBT-And-Chain-Of-Custody-For-CE399

Thanks DVP, that first link you provided (to the email from Vince Bugliosi) is very interesting. Here is a short exerpt with some underlining by me:

About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.

Based on that, and what follows in the email, I am led to believe that the other evidence would be considered at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. And, that therefore, in this case anyway, the chain of custody is not the only consideration that determines the admissibility of the evidence. And that seems to me to be the way it should be for justice to be served.

[Michael Capasse]

Speculation & opinion doesn't mean very much 30+ years too late.

[Lance Payette]

Thanks DVP, that first link you provided (to the email from Vince Bugliosi) is very interesting. Here is a short exerpt with some underlining by me:

About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.

Based on that, and what follows in the email, I am led to believe that the other evidence would be considered at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing. And, that therefore, in this case anyway, the chain of custody is not the only consideration that determines the admissibility of the evidence. And that seems to me to be the way it should be for justice to be served.

Prepare yourself, CTers: I think Bugliosi was dead wrong! Comically, ludicrously wrong!

Somewhere early in this thread, I saw this quote from Bugliosi on DVP's site and winced:

What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.

Uh, no. The issue with the chain of custody of CE 399 is whether it is the bullet found at Parkland - that any nothing more.

You don't get to argue backwards: "Hey, it was fired from Oswald's rifle and explains the SBT, ergo it must have been found on a stretcher at Parkland."

The fact it was fired from Oswald's rifle and might explain the SBT is precisely why the defense would suggest it was PLANTED.

Perhaps mock trials have mock chains of custody, but in the real world the chain of custody would be confined to what Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier - those who had custody of it - had to say. As I stated, the issue would be a likelihood CE 399 came into the possession of the authorities in the circumstances they say it did and remained in their custody until trial.

You HAVE TO GET IT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Then the prosecution and defense can start making their arguments as to how it fits into the case. Whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle or could explain the SBT could still be hotly debated. Indeed, the defense could still argue it was planted at Parkland for Tomlinson to find.

As I've suggested, this isn't a super-demanding standard. Unless Tomlinson and Wright just flat denied CE 399 was the bullet or anything like it, there wouldn't be a problem.

But you don't get to argue backwards from evidence and speculation having nothing to do with the chain of custody.

[David Von Pein]

Here's an excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the "chain of custody" topic....

[Charles Collins]

Prepare yourself, CTers: I think Bugliosi was dead wrong! Comically, ludicrously wrong!

Somewhere early in this thread, I saw this quote from Bugliosi on DVP's site and winced:

What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.

Uh, no. The issue with the chain of custody of CE 399 is whether it is the bullet found at Parkland - that any nothing more.

You don't get to argue backwards: "Hey, it was fired from Oswald's rifle and explains the SBT, ergo it must have been found on a stretcher at Parkland."

The fact it was fired from Oswald's rifle and might explain the SBT is precisely why the defense would suggest it was PLANTED.

Perhaps mock trials have mock chains of custody, but in the real world the chain of custody would be confined to what Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier - those who had custody of it - had to say. As I stated, the issue would be a likelihood CE 399 came into the possession of the authorities in the circumstances they say it did and remained in their custody until trial.

You HAVE TO GET IT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. Then the prosecution and defense can start making their arguments as to how it fits into the case. Whether it was fired from Oswald's rifle or could explain the SBT could still be hotly debated. Indeed, the defense could still argue it was planted at Parkland for Tomlinson to find.

As I've suggested, this isn't a super-demanding standard. Unless Tomlinson and Wright just flat denied CE 399 was the bullet or anything like it, there wouldn't be a problem.

But you don't get to argue backwards from evidence and speculation having nothing to do with the chain of custody.

Okay, if you believe that Vince Bugliosi is wrong, I won’t argue the point. I will say that apparently it isn’t just me who is misinterpreting what Bugliosi is apparently trying to say.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh, dear, what to do with folks like Martin?

Let's see, I am just like Trump, an "LN clown" who is "afraid" to reply to Martin's posts, and a purveyor of "an avalanche of arrogant word salad posts," "childish insults," "pathetic fictional dialogue" and "self-serving BS posts." Well, perhaps.

I think it would be fair to say I've gotten under Martin's skin, yes?

I actually started this narrowly focused thread in a sincere effort to provide a retired lawyer's perspective on how a chain of custody works, what it means for a witness to identify an item of evidence, and why the CT arguments about CE 399 (strictly in relation to the chain of custody) are flawed. I really didn't picture this thread generating any hysteria.

Martin immediately went off on the tangent that I was completely misguided because the Oswald defense would have not objected to the admission of CE 399 at all. I responded to each of his posts at considerable length. By his second post, I was "pathetic" and the purveyor of "self-serving BS," "the diehard LN cult manuscript," and "assumptions, cherry-picked evidence and a massive subjective bias." Later, I was accused of "massively contradicting myself," of possessing an "arrogant big head" and of posting a "word salad" unworthy of a response.

I warned Martin early in our relationship, when he questioned whether I was a lawyer at all, that he was dealing with a master of snarkiness and that if he chose to play this game he was going find out what master-level snarkiness looks like. He didn't take the hint.

Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed. At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway? Playing with the issues is kind of fun in the same way jigsaw puzzles (or perhaps chess) are fun, and that's about it. It's mental exercise, but it isn't going anywhere. If you're in love with your theory, go for it - but recognize that you're just playing around with ideas and that others, including LNers, are equally in love with their theories. If you become the functional equivalent of a religious fundamentalist about it, all the fun goes poof.

The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke. There are even LNers who don't get the joke. Do you think I'm serious with my Caped Factoid Buster nonsense? With assigning folks like Martin to some imaginary bin of those who are Not Worth My Time? Good Lord. On every forum on which I've ever participated - even golf and motorcycle forums - I've found it amusing to create some over-the-top persona and turn him loose. If he makes you come unglued, that's your problem and frankly a source of mirth for me until it reaches the level of upsetting someone to the extent it seems to have done with Martin. If you can't deal with master-level snarkiness, don't provoke me by playing that game; if you can, bring it - the wittier the better!

That being said, I shall herewith release Martin and his compadres from the imaginary Not Worth My Time bin and, if they say anything worthwhile (unlikely, but it could happen!  ) pledge myself to respond in a restrained and statesmanlike manner worthy of my Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary training.

Or maybe not. 

Well, it didn't take you very long to stop ignoring me.   

Look, people, this is all silliness. Do you not understand that? The verdict of history on the JFKA is never going to change. CTers and LNers live in different realities, simple as that. No minds are ever going to be changed.

And there is the classic LN claim about the "verdict of history" which is typically used when arguments fail to persuade.

At some level, who the hell cares who whacked JFK in 1963 anyway?

At any level, I, for one, do not care if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I have said so many times already. It's an historical event and nothing we can do or say now will alter that. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much point in trying to determine who was behind it or how it was done, if it was a conspiracy. Any evidence there might have been pointing to a conspiracy has disappeared a long time ago and most of the people involved are already dead or will soon be. As far as Oswald is concerned, if he did it alone, so be it. All I am really interested in is finding out if the evidence actually supports the "Oswald was the lone gunman" claim made by the WC.

The problem with Martin and those like him is that they don't get the joke. They become enraged when they aren't taken as seriously as they think they should be taken. NONE OF IT IS SERIOUS, that's the joke.

Hilarious. Just because I have a different opinion than you, you jump to this pathetic conclusion. You sound like a school bully who pushes people around and when he gets confronted about it, he says "hey, it's just a joke. It's not serious"!

So, let's get back to the topic of this thread.

In an earlier post you asked what sense it made to call Odum as a witness, because the chain of custody would be determined by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier. Then you make the argument that nobody knows what Tomlinson "had been saying" and that the FBI documents (CE 2011 and the Airtel) could well be correct. You assume implicitly that what Tomlinson said to Odum would satisfy the identification requirement, but you ignore completely the possibility that Odum never talked with Tomlinson and Wright in the first place. Tomlinson said in his deposition that he was shown a bullet once, in late November 1963, by SAC Shanklin. He said the same thing to Marcus in 1966. You then downplay what Wright told Thompson in 1967 by calling what he said "rather bizarre" and you make the speculative claim that "It sounds as though what he said to Odum is similar to what Tomlinson said". I'm not sure where you get that from, but it sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Obviously, this is all theory, because if Oswald had lived and there was a trial, CE 2011 and the Airtel, would likely not even exist. Tomlinson and Wright would simply be called as a witness by either the prosecution or the defense, depending on what they would say under oath. Having said that, in this hypothetical scenario, Odum would be a crucial witness, because if he did indeed not have CE399 and did not show it to Tomlinson and Wright, it would completely destroy the credibility of CE2011.

As for Tomlinson and Wright, you said in another post;

If Tomlinson and Wright had both testified "No way is that it, the bullet I saw was a distinctly pointy-headed slug with a little yellow happy face on the side that we laughed about at the time" - well, yes, that would kill the chain of custody of CE 399.

If they had both testified "Well, obviously, I can't say that's the exact bullet because I didn't pay that much attention at the time and I don't know the full provenance of this CE 399, but there is nothing about CE 399 that would cause me to say it isn't the bullet" - then, indeed, by the time Johnsen, Rowley, Todd and Frazier had testified the chain of custody would have been satisfactory even if Johnsen and Rowley had testified the same way.

The test for admission is whether, when all is said and done, there is a likelihood the bullet being offered into evidence is the one found by Tomlinson at Parkland. It is not some "Gotcha!" test where evidence is kept out because every witness isn't able to provide an exact identification.

This is exactly the reason why your imaginary testimony by Tomlinson depends on him saying "it looks like the same bullet, but there is no way I can be sure". And once again you speculate that CE 2011 and the Airtel could well be correct.

The reason why I said that I am not convinced that the defense would object to CE 399 being entered into evidence is that fighting the admissibility in the knowledge that excluding evidence because of a weak chain of custody is extremely rare and may give that piece of evidence more credibility than it deserves. It would of course depend on what Tomlinson and Wright would say, but if their testimony benefits the defense they may prefer to destroy CE399 and the prosecution's case at trial, in much the same way as Johnny Cochran used the "gloves don't fit" incident.

The real question that should be asked, but somehow never is, is why do we have to speculate about what Tomlinson and Wright may have said. Why do we only have an FBI document, written by an unidentified officer, and an airtel that makes the "it looks like the same bullet" claim. This is a crucial piece of evidence, so why not have Tomlinson and Wright make an affidavit and eliminate the need for speculation? This alone, IMO, justifies the conclusion that the FBI had an ulterior motive for dealing with this matter in an airtel and an unsigned document (CE 2011).