Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain

[Michael T. Griffith]

I went to the Navy's website to find the original article and this is what it had to say:

"They picked up the bullet off of the floor in the back of the car. Well, I
decided that this is something, you know, the third bullet has never been decided
about ever, apparently. So what I did was I decided there was only person still alive
from the original Warren Commission. I went through the entire Warren
Commission book. I've got the whole report of the Warren Commission as a matter
of fact. I went through the whole thing and there was nothing in it.

Now, at that particular time nobody said anything about this. And I know
what we did. We brought that in, I mean Chief Martinell and Chief Mills went to the
White House, went to the Queen Mary, got the stuff off of the floor in the back seat,
brought it back out to us and we gave that to Commander Humes at the time.

I don't know what happened to it, so I decided that what I would do is I
would write to President Ford, which I did. I wrote to President Ford and asked
him, this was this past summer. I asked him about, you know, did he know anything
about this particular bullet that was given to the autopsy surgeons and he wrote me

back a very nice letter, said, "No, he didn't know anything about it, had not heard
anything about it ever." Well, at that point then I began to look around for other
issues and I found that Senator Arlen Specter had been an Assistant Counsel to the
Warren Commission. "

Young wasn't specific about who the "They" were in the opening sentence but it only makes sense that "They" were the Secret Service. The Navy NCOs were sent to retrieve the bone fragments, not search the limo. The fragments apparently were place in and envelope which was later given to Humes.  Young might have simply assumed the envelope also contained the bullet found on the floor of the limo. Nothing I have read indicates Young actually saw a bullet. As I observed earlier that it would make no sense that the Secret Service would turn over a whole bullet to the Navy NCOs while retaining the fragmented bullet. The only thing that makes sense is that the bullet Young had heard about and the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found were one and the same and that Young simply assumed the bullet was in the envelope. Misunderstandings such as this are the source for so many of the myths surrounding the JFKA.

Humes never said anything about receiving a bullet with the bone fragments and Young never said he saw a bullet so where is the evidence a bullet was received at Bethesda.

People who read the sources you are quoting are going to see how dishonestly you are portraying the evidence and how brazenly you are misrepresenting what Dr. Young said. You continue to just make up stuff, offer lame spins, dishonestly ignore key evidence, and then issue baseless, misleading conclusions about the evidence. Obviously, you still have not bothered to read the links provided in the OP, or the transcript of the 2001 interview, which is linked in two of the links.

Contrary to your falsehood, Dr. Young saw the bullet and even described what it looked like. He talked about this in the 2013 article, in his 2001 interview, and in his book What Price a Rose?. Let's read some of what you dishonestly left out:

Question: So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. . . . I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, "Yes I do" and he said, "You’re exactly right." He said, "We did bring that slug out from the back. . . ." (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)

These statements are only two paragraphs below the paragraphs that you quote. Why did you omit them and then falsely claim that Dr. Young never saw the bullet?

Let's read more of what Dr. Young said that you omitted:

They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Quoting from What Price a Rose?] "The envelope contained three pieces of skull bone, one about three inches in diameter, another two inches in diameter and the third about one to one and a half inches in diameter. It also contained a brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. This also, I noted, on the back of the jacket of Agent Greer, the President's driver. (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 51, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

Now, gee, why did you leave out these key statements as well?  In the interview transcript, they come just two pages before the statements you quote. So you left out key statements that come two pages before and a few paragraphs after the statements you quote. Obviously, you were trying to mislead readers.

You want people to believe your lie that Young never saw the bullet, so you omitted the statements where he made it clear that he saw the bullet.

I notice you dropped all your nonsense about the limo having to be driven to Bethesda. I also notice you failed to acknowledge your gaffe of quoting the highly condensed version of the 2013 edited by Sobocinski, obviously not realizing that it contained excerpts from only three of the 12 pages of the 2013 article.

I also notice that you simply ignored the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to confirm his recollection.

If you had read Milicent Cranor's article on Dr. Young's account, you would know that she debunks your theory that Dr. Young was referring to "the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found." You're talking about the two bullet fragments that the Secret Service found in the front of the limo (near the front driver's seat), whereas Mills and Martinell found a deformed whole bullet in the rear of the limo.

Even your description is dishonest. The Secret Service did not find a "fragmented bullet," but only two fragments, part of a nose and part of a tail, that constituted less than half of a bullet. And, again, those two fragments were found at the opposite end of the limo from where Mills and Martinell found the misshapen bullet.

Moreover, the two fragments found in the front of the limo were never taken to the autopsy. They were handed over to the FBI and never got anywhere near Bethesda Naval Hospital. So, clearly, those two fragments had nothing to do with the deformed whole bullet that Mills and Martinell found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw with his own eyes.

Oh, gee, Humes never admitted that he received a deformed whole bullet along with the skull fragments! Gosh and golly! What a surprise! LOL! Humes also never admitted that he determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that he knew about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 PM at the autopsy, yet we now know that he did (partly thanks to Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist). Humes never admitted that he did two separate brain exams and excluded Finck from the first one, yet we know that he did. Humes never admitted that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, yet Dr. Boswell admitted this to the HSCA and the ARRB. Humes never admitted that he sawed open the top part of the skull, yet two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, revealed that he did. Humes never explained why he said nothing about the brazenly obvious high fragment trail in the autopsy report. And on and on we could go.

Here were have a former Navy O-6, a former Navy chief, and a Navy historian confirming the finding of a misshapen bullet in the limo, along with some skull fragments, and you falsely pretend that Dr. Young's account is just a fanciful story floating around the internet.

This is yet another example of the refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge evidence that refutes their theory, no matter how credible and compelling the evidence is. Even though Young's account was vetted by a Navy historian and was deemed worthy of publication in an official Navy history, and even though Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the bullet and confirmed Young's later phone call to verify his recollection, you guys reject Young's account and offer lame excuses, demonstrably false claims, and misleading omissions to justify your rejection.

[John Corbett]

People who read the sources you are quoting are going to see how dishonestly you are portraying the evidence and how brazenly you are misrepresenting what Dr. Young said. You continue to just make up stuff, offer lame spins, dishonestly ignore key evidence, and then issue baseless, misleading conclusions about the evidence. Obviously, you still have not bothered to read the links provided in the OP, or the transcript of the 2001 interview, which is linked in two of the links.

Contrary to your falsehood, Dr. Young saw the bullet and even described what it looked like. He talked about this in the 2013 article, in his 2001 interview, and in his book What Price a Rose?. Let's read some of what you dishonestly left out:

Question: So, the bullet, again, was a copper jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. . . . I don’t know, maybe it was copper, I couldn’t tell. But it was that color or brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . and so I called Tom Mills and I said, “Tom do you recall this situation?’ He said, "Yes I do" and he said, "You’re exactly right." He said, "We did bring that slug out from the back. . . ." (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 54, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf; see also https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/bending-the-story-on-a-bent-bullet)

These statements are only two paragraphs below the paragraphs that you quote. Why did you omit them and then falsely claim that Dr. Young never saw the bullet?

Let's read more of what Dr. Young said that you omitted:

They went down, both Chiefs Mills and Martinell went down to the White House and then this I'm going to continue. [Quoting from What Price a Rose?] "The envelope contained three pieces of skull bone, one about three inches in diameter, another two inches in diameter and the third about one to one and a half inches in diameter. It also contained a brass slug about half a centimeter in diameter and distorted. These were found on the floor of the blood-spattered convertible. The convertible was splattered with considerable brain tissue. This also, I noted, on the back of the jacket of Agent Greer, the President's driver. (Transcript of 2001 interview, p. 51, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

Now, gee, why did you leave out these key statements as well?  In the interview transcript, they come just two pages before the statements you quote. So you left out key statements that come two pages before and a few paragraphs after the statements you quote. Obviously, you were trying to mislead readers.

You want people to believe your lie that Young never saw the bullet, so you omitted the statements where he made it clear that he saw the bullet.

I notice you dropped all your nonsense about the limo having to be driven to Bethesda. I also notice you failed to acknowledge your gaffe of quoting the highly condensed version of the 2013 edited by Sobocinski, obviously not realizing that it contained excerpts from only three of the 12 pages of the 2013 article.

I also notice that you simply ignored the fact that Chief Mills confirmed to Navy historian Jan Herman that he and Chief Martinell found a bullet in the limo and that Dr. Young later called him to confirm his recollection.

If you had read Milicent Cranor's article on Dr. Young's account, you would know that she debunks your theory that Dr. Young was referring to "the fragmented bullet the Secret Service found." You're talking about the two bullet fragments that the Secret Service found in the front of the limo (near the front driver's seat), whereas Mills and Martinell found a deformed whole bullet in the rear of the limo.

Even your description is dishonest. The Secret Service did not find a "fragmented bullet," but only two fragments, part of a nose and part of a tail, that constituted less than half of a bullet. And, again, those two fragments were found at the opposite end of the limo from where Mills and Martinell found the misshapen bullet.

Moreover, the two fragments found in the front of the limo were never taken to the autopsy. They were handed over to the FBI and never got anywhere near Bethesda Naval Hospital. So, clearly, those two fragments had nothing to do with the deformed whole bullet that Mills and Martinell found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw with his own eyes.

Oh, gee, Humes never admitted that he received a deformed whole bullet along with the skull fragments! Gosh and golly! What a surprise! LOL! Humes also never admitted that he determined for an absolute fact during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, yet we now know that he did. Humes never admitted that he knew about the throat wound by no later than 10:30 PM at the autopsy, yet we now know that he did (partly thanks to Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist). Humes never admitted that he did two separate brain exams and excluded Finck from the first one, yet we know that he did. Humes never admitted that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment, yet Dr. Boswell admitted this to the HSCA and the ARRB. Humes never admitted that he sawed open the top part of the skull, yet two autopsy witnesses, including one of the morticians, revealed that he did. Humes never explained why he said nothing about the brazenly obvious high fragment trail in the autopsy report. And on and on we could go.

Here were have a former Navy O-6, a former Navy chief, and a Navy historian confirming the finding of a misshapen bullet in the limo, along with some skull fragments, and you falsely pretend that Dr. Young's account is just a fanciful story floating around the internet.

This is yet another example of the refusal of WC apologists to acknowledge evidence that refutes their theory, no matter how credible and compelling the evidence is. Even though Young's account was vetted by a Navy historian and was deemed worthy of publication in an official Navy history, and even though Chief Mills confirmed the finding of the bullet and confirmed Young's later phone call to verify his recollection, you guys reject Young's account and offer lame excuses, demonstrably false claims, and misleading omissions to justify your rejection.

Young's story has "false memory" written all over it.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/false-memories-5225965

The interview where he gave his account took place 38 years after the assassination. Lots of time for false memories to take hold, especially if he began with the assumption that a bullet was in the envelope the NCOs picked up. The bent bullet he describes sounds very much like CE399. It's easy to see how he could have conflated a picture he saw of CE399 with a bullet he assumed had been in the envelope given to Humes. Humes made no mention of receiving a bullet or a fragment during the autopsy. Ford knew nothing about this. There is no corroboration for Young's story. Martinell had died. The only source for Mills remembering seeing a bullet is Young himself. That's hardly corroboration. Can you quote one person, other than Young himself, who said Humes was given a recovered bullet in addition to the skull fragments?

You didn't even attempt to explain why if the Secret Service had recovered a whole bullet in addition to the fragmented bullet, that they would turn over the whole bullet and keep the fragmented bullet. It makes no sense. Nothing about this story makes sense.

[Michael T. Griffith]

As I've mentioned, one of the things that makes Dr. Young's account so compelling, aside from the fact that it was confirmed by Chief Mills, is that Young devoutly believed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) version of the shooting. Young was so trusting and naive about the WC that he called Arlen Specter to try to get answers about the deformed limo bullet!

Let us read Dr. Young's complete answer from the interview transcript when he was asked if the limo bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, instead of the slightly edited answer that appears in Milicent Cranor's article:

Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

Notice that Dr. Young said the bullet "didn't look like" a copper-jacketed bullet, so he obviously saw the bullet.

Notice that Dr. Young also said that he "couldn't tell" if "maybe" the bullet had a copper jacket, that it was "that color of brass," and that it was was "slightly bent on the end." These statements are further clear proof that he saw the bullet. 

A note of clarification about the interview transcript: There were actually six interviews. They occurred on December 4, 7, and 17, 2001, and on January 7, 14, and 23, 2002. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 were the 2001 interviews. Interviews 4, 5, and 6 were the 2002 interviews. The interview transcript, produced by the U.S. Navy Medical Department Oral History Program, combines all six interviews into one 114-page transcript, although it identifies each interview by number.

Interview 3 was the interview in which Dr. Young made the above-quoted statements "it didn't look like it"; "maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell"; "it was slightly bent"; "it was not a straight bullet"; and "it had hit something."

The Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article was based on the 2001 interviews. It did not include the above-quoted paragraph, although it did include the statements that a deformed bullet was found in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called Chief Mills to verify his recollection before sending Specter information on the bullet (“Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” pp. 8, 10-11, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf).

The Office of Medical History's 2013 article is 12 pages long, but the three 2001 interviews occupy 55 pages in the Oral History Program's 114-page transcript. So the Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article is a markedly condensed version of what Dr. Young said in his three 2001 interviews, and the 11/21/2013 Navy Medicine article that Corbett blunderingly cited is a highly condensed version of the 12-page article.

It is worth noting that during the interviews, Dr. Young defended the WC's version of the shooting. For example:

Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .

And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)

Dr. Young also criticized the conspiracy claim that JFK's body arrived in a body bag:

Doctor Humes, in his article that he wrote for JAMA back in '92 states clearly when the body was brought into the hospital it was not in a body bag, but it was draped in apparently a sheet or something. He said there was no body bag at all.

No problem then. I have no difficulty with that description whatsoever. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 44)

I note these facts to show that Dr. Young was not some "conspiracy theorist" who was trying to take advantage of his status as an eyewitness at the autopsy to spin a tale to discredit the lone-gunman scenario.

The fact that Dr. Young was no naively trusting of the WC as to expect Arlen Specter to give him straight answers about the deformed limo bullet, not to mention that he defended the WC's version of the shooting and attacked a well-known conspiracy claim, shows that he is the textbook example of a hostile witness. This makes his account all the more credible and devastating.

[John Corbett]

As I've mentioned, one of the things that makes Dr. Young's account so compelling, aside from the fact that it was confirmed by Chief Mills,

Correction. Young claimed it was corroborated by Mills. There is no record of what Mills actually said.

is that Young devoutly believed in the Warren Commission's (WC's) version of the shooting. Young was so trusting and naive about the WC that he called Arlen Specter to try to get answers about the deformed limo bullet!

And Specter, like Ford, had no idea what he was talking about.

Let us read Dr. Young's complete answer from the interview transcript when he was asked if the limo bullet was a copper-jacketed bullet, instead of the slightly edited answer that appears in Milicent Cranor's article:

Question: So the bullet, again, was a copper-jacketed bullet like a military bullet?

Answer: No, it was a brass jacket. That's what I've described it as, a brass-jacketed bullet. It didn't look like it. I don't know, maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell. But it was that color of brass and it was slightly bent on the end. It was not a straight bullet. In other words, it had hit something and it bent. . . . ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 54, emphasis added, https://whowhatwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Capt_James_Young_Interview.pdf)

A perfect description of CE399.

Notice that Dr. Young said the bullet "didn't look like" a copper-jacketed bullet, so he obviously saw the bullet.

Notice that Dr. Young also said that he "couldn't tell" if "maybe" the bullet had a copper jacket, that it was "that color of brass," and that it was was "slightly bent on the end." These statements are further clear proof that he saw the bullet. 

How is that proof. A 72 year old man's recollection of an event 38 years prior is hardly compelling proof.

A note of clarification about the interview transcript: There were actually six interviews. They occurred on December 4, 7, and 17, 2001, and on January 7, 14, and 23, 2002. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 were the 2001 interviews. Interviews 4, 5, and 6 were the 2002 interviews. The interview transcript, produced by the U.S. Navy Medical Department Oral History Program, combines all six interviews into one 114-page transcript, although it identifies each interview by number.

Interview 3 was the interview in which Dr. Young made the above-quoted statements "it didn't look like it"; "maybe it's copper, I couldn't tell"; "it was slightly bent"; "it was not a straight bullet"; and "it had hit something."

Which CE399 had done.

The Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article was based on the 2001 interviews. It did not include the above-quoted paragraph, although it did include the statements that a deformed bullet was found in the back of the limo and that Dr. Young called Chief Mills to verify his recollection before sending Specter information on the bullet (“Navy Medicine and President Kennedy’s Autopsy: Recollections from a former White House Physician,” pp. 8, 10-11, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navy_Medicine_and_President_Kennedy%E2%80%99s_Autopsy-_Recollections_from_a_former_White_House_Physician_(IA_NMAndTheKennedyAssassination).pdf).

Again, the recollection is Young's version of what Mills said. No record of what Mills actually said.

The Office of Medical History's 2013 article is 12 pages long, but the three 2001 interviews occupy 55 pages in the Oral History Program's 114-page transcript. So the Office of Medical History's 12-page 2013 article is a markedly condensed version of what Dr. Young said in his three 2001 interviews, and the 11/21/2013 Navy Medicine article that Corbett blunderingly cited is a highly condensed version of the 12-page article.

Why is citing that source a blunder? I found a source and I quoted it verbatim.

It is worth noting that during the interviews, Dr. Young defended the WC's version of the shooting. For example:

Well, it's an interesting commentary and there's no question, well there's no question in my mind but the President was shot from behind. . . .

And, of course, the thing that I've said in here about Bill Greer, who was driving the Queen Mary was that [he] had brain tissue and blood spattered over his right posterior shoulder. Which, in my estimation could only have made that bullet come from behind, not from the grassy knoll, not from the side, not from the air or whatever. It had to come from behind and spray forward onto his right shoulder. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, pp. 54-55)

Dr. Young also criticized the conspiracy claim that JFK's body arrived in a body bag:

Doctor Humes, in his article that he wrote for JAMA back in '92 states clearly when the body was brought into the hospital it was not in a body bag, but it was draped in apparently a sheet or something. He said there was no body bag at all.

No problem then. I have no difficulty with that description whatsoever. ("Oral History with CAPT (ret) James Morningstar Young, MC, USN," Interview 3, p. 44)

I note these facts to show that Dr. Young was not some "conspiracy theorist" who was trying to take advantage of his status as an eyewitness at the autopsy to spin a tale to discredit the lone-gunman scenario.

The fact that Dr. Young was no naively trusting of the WC as to expect Arlen Specter to give him straight answers about the deformed limo bullet, not to mention that he defended the WC's version of the shooting and attacked a well-known conspiracy claim, shows that he is the textbook example of a hostile witness. This makes his account all the more credible and devastating.

Dr. Young's version of what happened demonstrates perfectly what I have consistently said about witnesses in general. They tend to get some things right and some things wrong. It's not an all or nothing proposition. There is no record of anybody, other than Young, saying a bullet that was recovered from the limo was delivered to Bethesda during the autopsy. Nothing to corroborate Young's memory of an event that had happened 38 years earlier. Humes, Boswell, and Finck never mentioned such a bullet. There is no record of Mills saying that. Only Young claiming Mills had said that.

I found this excerpt from Boswell's ARRB testimony:

Q. Do you recall there being any requests being made by you or anyone else to other people who were there regarding shell fragments, bullets, anything else that would have been useful to see during the course of the autopsy?

A. I know there was discussion because there were some security people in the morgue and on the telephone--the telephone was on the wall right at the head of the morgue table where we were working. And I remember them telling us that a bullet had been found, that bone fragments had been found, and I believe that they were being transported to Washington separately. And the bone fragments eventually came into the morgue that night. The bullet may. I'm not sure about that.

Q. Do you remember seeing any bullets during the course of the autopsy?

Page 29

A. Fragments. In the autopsy we found very minute fragments, mostly on the X-rays.

This confirms my suspicion that the medical team at Bethesda had been told that a bullet and bone fragments had been found in the limo and they were being sent to Bethesda. This could well have planted the seed in Young's mind that they were receiving both a bullet and bone fragments. When asked directly if he had seen a bullet, he said he had only seen fragments of bullets.

[John Corbett]

As a follow up to my previous post regarding Boswell's ARRB testimony, I found this interesting passage from Finck's ARRB testimony:

[16] Q: Would it be fair to say that medical/legal
[17] autopsies are performed in order to determine
[18] evidence that would be legally important?
[19] A: Yes. For example, if you perform an
[20] autopsy and you find a bullet, you turn that bullet
[21] over to the police for examination.

So if a medical examiner is supposed to turn over any bullets they find to the police, what sense would it have made for the Secret Service to turn a bullet over to the medical examiners? Shouldn't that have been turned over to the law enforcement agency investigating the crime which at the time was still the DPD.

I'd still like to hear a rational explanation for why the Secret Service would only turn over the whole bullet they found but not the fragmented bullet they found. Why turn over one and not the other? This leads me to believe the bullet they found that they told the Bethesda team about in the phone call was the fragmented bullet.