11.22 FBI Memo About an Secret Service Agent Finding a Bullet in the Limo

[Michael T. Griffith]

It isn't deceptive to people with common sense. I guess that leaves you out.

No whole bullet was found in the limo. Only bullet fragments. It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out that fragmented bullet was the one that struck JFK in the head. The two largest fragments had sufficient size and markings to be positively matched to the rifle found in the TSBD. Of course that means nothing to you, but again, people with common sense can figure out how significant that is.

This is just the kind of moronic word game internet trolls are fond of playing. Anybody who isn't anal can understand that fragmented bullet and bullet fragments mean the same thing. Again, that leaves you out. I used the term fragmented bullet to describe the fragments found in the limo and you chose the term misshapen bullet. The term I used is far more accurate. It refers to a bullet that was not in one piece. Your terminology implies what was found in the limo was still in one piece. It most certainly was not and you know it. Just more of your silly word games.

This just shows what a dishonest juvenile you are. No, your misuse of the term "fragmented bullet" is not "far more accurate" than my fact-based term "misshapen bullet."   

The only "silly word game" here is your misleading use of the term "fragmented bullet." Two fragments that make up less than half the mass of a bullet are not a "fragmented bullet." But you can't even muster up the maturity and honesty to admit this self-evident fact. 

The only time it would be valid to use the term "fragmented bullet" would be in a case when a bullet fragmented and when all of the bullet's fragments were recovered. The two limo fragments do not even come close to meeting this requirement.

I see you are also still peddling the dubious talking point that the limo fragments were "positively matched to the rifle found in the TSBD [uh-huh, through the disputed method of ballistic matching]." Yeah, never mind that NAA testing found that those fragments could have come from other bullets besides the ones Oswald used; never mind that no chain of evidence was cooked up for those fragments until several weeks later; never mind that ballistic matching has come under increasing attack from the scientific community; never mind that ballistic matching has been found to be unreliable in a number of cases; and never mind that those fragments are more severely bent than any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test.

Yeah, just never mind those facts, right?

The only reading of the FBI memo that makes any sense is to read it as a reference to the misshapen bullet that Chiefs Mills and Martinell found and handed over to Dr. Young at the autopsy. No FBI or SS agent ever claimed to have found a bullet in JFK's limo while it was being transported on the Lockheed C-130 military cargo plane from Dallas to DC or when the limo was in the White House garage, and no subsequent FBI or SS memo identified the two limo fragments as the "bullet" mentioned in the 11/22/1963 FBI memo.

[John Corbett]

This just shows what a dishonest juvenile you are. No, your misuse of the term "fragmented bullet" is not "far more accurate" than my fact-based term "misshapen bullet." 

Explain why.

The only "silly word game" here is your misleading use of the term "fragmented bullet." Two fragments that make up less than half the mass of a bullet are not a "fragmented bullet." But you can't even muster up the maturity and honesty to admit this self-evident fact.

The only thing self-evident is that your are playing games with semantics. CE399 lost a few tiny fragments of lead from its core yet is still called a bullet. How much material has to be missing from a bullet before it stops being a bullet?

The only time it would be valid to use the term "fragmented bullet" would be in a case when a bullet fragmented and when all of the bullet's fragments were recovered. The two limo fragments do not even come close to meeting this requirement.

So you have appointed yourself the semantics arbiter.

I see you are also still peddling the dubious talking point that the limo fragments were "positively matched to the rifle found in the TSBD [uh-huh, through the disputed method of ballistic matching]." Yeah, never mind that NAA testing found that those fragments could have come from other bullets besides the ones Oswald used; never mind that no chain of evidence was cooked up for those fragments until several weeks later; never mind that ballistic matching has come under increasing attack from the scientific community; never mind that ballistic matching has been found to be unreliable in a number of cases; and never mind that those fragments are more severely bent than any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test.

What the hell does NAA testing have to do with matching a bullet to a rifle? They are two entirely different processes. Ballistics matching has long been accepted as valid evidence by our courts and VSA has not, yet you treat the latter as if it is empirical evidence and dismiss the former which has long been accepted by our criminal courts. Of course you do. You're a silly JFKA CT. It's what you do.

Here are several articles explaining the lack of validity of VSA:

https://liedetectortest.com/alert/voice-stress-analysis-vsa-why-it-is-not-a-lie-detector
https://scienceinsights.org/what-a-voice-stress-analysis-test-actually-measures/
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/221502.pdf

Even proponents of VSA recognize questions must be structured correctly for the test to have validity:

https://www.cji.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Using_Technology_to_Separate_Truth_from_Lies.pdf

"The questions asked during a CVSA exam can not be formulated haphazardly.  The need for appropriately structured questions was noted by John Larson in the early 1900s, and its importance is still recognized (National Research Council, 2003, p. 296).  In the NITV operating manual, at the beginning of the chapter entitled “Question Formulation & Test Formats”, they have a warning that states “If the question formulation criteria outlined in this chapter are not followed, errors in analysis of charts will [emphasis added] be made” "

The questions Oswald responded to were not at all structured and therefore of no use for VSA purposes.

I do want to correct a misstatement I made earlier. I said the Justice Department had rejected VSA testing. It was actually a report by the National Institute of Justice. My bad.

Yeah, just never mind those facts, right?

You don't seem to know the difference between factoids and facts.

The only reading of the FBI memo that makes any sense is to read it as a reference to the misshapen bullet that Chiefs Mills and Martinell found and handed over to Dr. Young at the autopsy. No FBI or SS agent ever claimed to have found a bullet in JFK's limo while it was being transported on the Lockheed C-130 military cargo plane from Dallas to DC or when the limo was in the White House garage, and no subsequent FBI or SS memo identified the two limo fragments as the "bullet" mentioned in the 11/22/1963 FBI memo.

Neither Mills nor Martinell said they turned a bullet over to Dr. Young. None of the prosectors reported receiving a bullet during the autopsy. Apparently, that was a misunderstanding on the part of Young or a false memory developed over several decades. It would make no sense at all for such evidence to be turned over to the medical team. A bullet or bullet fragment should have been turned over to the FBI crime lab for analysis and that is what was done with the bullet fragments found in the limo. Only bone fragments were sent to Bethesda and that is how it should have been.

[Royell Storing]

The FBI did not even enter the case until Saturday when LBJ ordered them to take over the investigation from the DPD. The order was of questionable legality given the assassination at the time was a state crime, not federal. It was obvious from the presser where Chief Curry announced the decision he was not at all happy about it.

   WRONG !