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

[Martin Weidmann]

Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to get Oswald off on a technicality, the evidence is what it is, deal with it!

No one planted CE-399 on a stretcher on a different floor and just hoped it would be found.
No one knew to plant a whole bullet that so closely matched the wounds at a point in time when no surgery findings were finalized.
The initial witnesses said CE-399 resembled the bullet.
And after 60+ years NO one has come forward to say even a shred of the Mountain of Evidence was fraudulent, as I said the evidence is what it is. Deal with it!

And as for your comment that a witness must remember some singular event that we find to be important in hindsight, is not necessarily all that important to the eyewitness now or even at the time. They investigated a ton of stuff and conducted many interviews and do we know what was happening in their private lives, were they dealing with personal grief, depression, arranging a wedding, or contemplating a divorce? Or perhaps they were just doing their job and didn't give a toss!

And here's some relevant examples of people's "infallible" memories from the one of the most important events they ever witnessed, that they will forever remember till the day they die!

William Newman on the same day said that JFK stood up when he was shot? Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the Limo stopped. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses and even Doctors said JFK's head exit wound was on the back of his head. Wrong!
Eyewitnesses said the rifle on the 6th floor was a 7.65 Mauser. Wrong!
ETC, ETC, ETC.....

BTW, no offence or anything but I'm surprised that you are around seventy years of age because by that time I'd expect someone to be more grown up, less hostile, more logical, have a better understanding of deductive reasoning, more willing to accept that others have a varying point of view, less angry, less prone to hurl insults and handle reasonable objections by being more clever or witty?

JohnM

Thank you for sharing your insignificant opinions, "mature attitude" ( ) and usual insults. 

Aren't you tired of your continually worthless efforts to misrepresent  what my position regarding the evidence and the case is?

Btw, what in the world are you mean with "getting Oswald off on a technicality". The guy has been dead for decades, there never was or will be a trial, and nothing anybody says or does on this forum will change anything, so why are you so concerned about getting him off on a technicality? Perhaps you need to take a step back and get back to reality.

[Lance Payette]

CE-2011 came from the same FBI Agent who sent the the 6/20/64 Airtel. Shanklin.

It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.

The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."

[Lance Payette]

A final thought, because I think it's easy to get so caught up in the trees that we lose sight of the forest:

1. When Tomlinson and Wright were shown the bullet in June of 1964, it had been in the FBI's possession for nearly SEVEN MONTHS. All the testing was complete. The FBI knew it was from Oswald's rifle.

2. Oswald had been dead seven months. There was never going to be a criminal trial. Chain-of-custody technicalities were irrelevant except to the extent the WC wanted to be satisfied.

3. The WC burdened the FBI with many requests, including a half-assed chain-of-custody request that many items of evidence at least be identified by the first person in the chain. For many items, this was done with a mere photograph.

4. When Odum showed the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, he was merely on a routine mission to satisfy the WC. This was no big deal. The FBI had even abandoned the requirement for 302s because the requests were so burdensome.

5. The responses of Tomlinson and Wright would not have caused Odum or anyone else to think "Oh, my God, WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY!" They would simply have thought, "Well, we'll have to report what they said and go up the chain until someone provides a positive identification." If the FBI had thought there was a major problem, the documents would have simply said "Due to the passage of time, Tomlinson and Wright were unable to provide a positive identification but said the bullet looked like the one they found. Let us know if you need more."

That would have been the FBI's perspective. Yes, it's not the perspective of CTers who think the WC should have been a criminal trial of Oswald or that the FBI should still have been preparing for a criminal trial in June of 1964.

[Tim Nickerson]

It does say Dallas, Texas at the top, but it's also on USDOJ letterhead (which I suppose the FBI in Dallas might have used). Since it refers to Todd showing the bullet to Johnsen and Rowley of the SS in Washington, and Todd himself identifying it in Washington, it seemed to me more likely that this was a document assembled in Washington from input from both Dallas and Washington. Perhaps it says Dallas at the top because that's where the bullet was found and initially sent for identification? The first paragraph also reads as though the memo is addressed to the WC (i.e., Rankin's request). Hence my references to possible second- or third-hand hearsay as to what anyone actually said. At a discussion on the Ed Forum long ago, Gary Murr seemed to have some factual basis for saying CE 2011 was probably a document assembled from input from Dallas and Washington.

The key to much of the brouhaha, it seems to me, was that CE 2011 was in response to Rankin's letter that only the first person in the chain needed to identify an item of evidence for WC purposes. I think FBI logically assumed this meant something more definitive than Tomlinson or anyone else saying "Yeah, that could be it." Hence, they documented their efforts at positive identification all the way up to Todd and simply made clear that no one had said "No way is that it. It was a pointy-headed hunting slug."

SAC, DALLAS (100-10461) 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59608#relPageId=39

Credit to Tom Gram. I read his 'CE2011 and the Missing 302 Reports' a couple of months ago. Thanks for reminding me of it.

https://investigatejfk.com/2025/01/14/ce2011-and-the-missing-302-reports/

I have a lot of respect for Gary Murr, even though his conspiracy position is wrong in my view. Some years ago, I had posted a document here and elsewhere that threw a wrench into the gears of a pet theory of Bob Harris. Murr had found the document in the National Archives in the late 90s and posted it on the ED forum. I found it there some years after he had posted it. Harris questioned its authenticity. When I informed him that Murr had found it, he went and confronted him on the ED forum. He actually questioned the CT bona fides of Gary Murr.

Haven't seen anything of Bob Harris for years. He may have departed this earthly existence.

[Lance Payette]

Oh, OK, that pretty well settles it. I guess the efforts of Todd with Jonsen and Rowley were provided to Shanklin. In fact, CE 2011 contains other references to activities beyond Dallas. It seems odd that Shanklin would have been given this assignment, but I guess he was.

Note that Odum was given the assignment of obtaining identification information for much of the bullet, fragment and shell evidence - which makes it that much more unlikely that he would have been inserted into the Tomlinson-Wright portion for some nefarious purpose or that he would have had some vivid recollection of showing CE 399 to them 38 years later.

[John Iacoletti]

Read this remarkable exchange. Not only does it mesh well with my imaginary testimony, but I think it gives a good idea as to how the June 1964 conversation about CE 399 might have gone and why CE 2011 said he couldn’t identify it as the bullet he found.

So then why do you believe that CE399 is the same bullet?  Faith?

[John Iacoletti]

I did overstate the case here in saying that Tink Thompson accepted Odum's change of recollection. I sloppily stopped the video too soon. Tink does suggest Odum mentally "filled in," probably on the basis of CE 2011, what "must have occurred" once he recalled having visited with Wright in Wright's office during the WC investigation. Again, we're talking about an 82-year-old Odum 38 years after the events in question. Tink, for obvious reasons, has him sharp as a tack when he doesn't recall being in Wright's office at all and a dissembling old fool when, a few hours later, he does vaguely recall and then fills in the blanks by thinking he must have been there for the reasons stated in CE 2011 because he can't think of any other reason he would've been there. This seems entirely plausible to me, but I can see why a CT salesman like Tink does what he does with it. Why would 82-year-old Odum, 38 years after the fact, have any reason to do anything other than give his best shot at recalling? If he had an agenda, he never would have met with Thompson and Aguilar in the first place or initially have flatly denied what CE 2011 says.

Wow, you should be on Dancing with the Stars.  You didn't even miss a beat.

This whole question of would it be admitted in an imaginary hypothetical trial is an irrelevant red herring.  Anybody can imagine whatever outcome they like.  The real issue is, can you show with any confidence whatsoever that CE-399 is the same bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland?  The Lance approach is to just have faith that it is, unless it can be shown that it is not.