Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thank you Mr. Von Pein!
58 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Mar 12, 2013, 2:02:14 PM3/12/13
to
As I�m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and
James Rowley, who examined the bullet that was found on a stretcher in
the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the
same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like
David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have
been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law
enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same bullet.
Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed
to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering
themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the
most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important
evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere
to be found on it.
Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von
Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a
copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his
request for information regarding this issue. From David�s website:
David,
Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple
of weeks.
1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later
identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley
observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the
Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that
there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick
[Johnsen] handed it over to them.
Hope that this helps.
Regards
Jerry
(unquote)
Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from
Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed
the reason why Johnsen could not verify the FBI�s replacement for the
Tomlinson bullet. He couldn�t have been any clearer.
�The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.�
Poor David must have been devastated. He frantically, sent off another
email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the
consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine
responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:
Dave,
Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away
and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must
have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself]...
(unquote)
So, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must
have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope
is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes
a moot question, due to the simple fact that Johnsen�s initials are
nowhere to be found on the envelope which contained the original bullet.
John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig1.jpg
David�s last, desperate attempt at damage control was to suggest that
Hunt overlooked the initials which must have been on the other side of
the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he
didn�t bother to turn it over, is just ridiculous.
The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that
Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John
Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself,
confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up
by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD
the next morning.
The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in
this article:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
mainframetech
Mar 12, 2013, 9:05:12 PM3/12/13
to
On Mar 12, 2:02 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and
> Tomlinson bullet. He couldn t have been any clearer.
the 2 SS agents wouldn't identify the CE399 bullet shown to them, but also
2 civilians as well, one of which was Wright who said that he couldn't
identify the bullet shown that came from the FBI because it was "round
nosed' and not "pointy nosed" like the original bullet he had handled and
seen. The very clarity of that description says much to the probable
replacement of the original bullet while in FBI custody, which is SOP,
since there were so many other things the FBI got into that pushed the
wacky WC theories.
Aside from the humor from the above, there is also the fact that the
CE399 bullet was found on the wrong stretcher by Tomlinson, restated by
him later in a NOVA special: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
You can follow Tomlinson's statements from his WC testimony by using
this paper he drew up near the top of the page:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Chris
> As I m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and
> James Rowley, who examined the bullet that was found on a stretcher in
> the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the
> same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like
> David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have
> been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law
> enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same bullet.
>
> Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed
> to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering
> themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the
> most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important
> evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere
> to be found on it.
>
> Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von
> Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a
> copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his
> request for information regarding this issue. From David s website:
> the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the
> same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like
> David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have
> been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law
> enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same bullet.
>
> Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed
> to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering
> themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the
> most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important
> evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere
> to be found on it.
>
> Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von
> Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a
> copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his
>
> David,
>
> Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple
> of weeks.
>
> 1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later
> identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley
> observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the
> Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that
> there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick
> [Johnsen] handed it over to them.
>
> Hope that this helps.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
> (unquote)
>
> Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from
> Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed
> the reason why Johnsen could not verify the FBI s replacement for the
> David,
>
> Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple
> of weeks.
>
> 1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later
> identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley
> observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the
> Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that
> there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick
> [Johnsen] handed it over to them.
>
> Hope that this helps.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
> (unquote)
>
> Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from
> Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed
> Tomlinson bullet. He couldn t have been any clearer.
>
> The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.
>
> The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.
>
> Poor David must have been devastated. He frantically, sent off another
> email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the
> consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine
> responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:
>
> Dave,
>
> Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away
> and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must
> have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself]...
>
> (unquote)
>
> So, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must
> have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope
> is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes
> a moot question, due to the simple fact that Johnsen s initials are
> email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the
> consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine
> responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:
>
> Dave,
>
> Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away
> and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must
> have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself]...
>
> (unquote)
>
> So, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must
> have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope
> is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes
> nowhere to be found on the envelope which contained the original bullet.
> John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig1.jpg
>
> David s last, desperate attempt at damage control was to suggest that
> John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig1.jpg
>
> Hunt overlooked the initials which must have been on the other side of
> the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he
> didn t bother to turn it over, is just ridiculous.
> the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he
>
> The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that
> Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John
> Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself,
> confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up
> by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD
> the next morning.
>
> The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in
> this article:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
Ol' DVP's version of things is a bit lacking in detail, like not only
> The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that
> Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John
> Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself,
> confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up
> by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD
> the next morning.
>
> The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in
> this article:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
the 2 SS agents wouldn't identify the CE399 bullet shown to them, but also
2 civilians as well, one of which was Wright who said that he couldn't
identify the bullet shown that came from the FBI because it was "round
nosed' and not "pointy nosed" like the original bullet he had handled and
seen. The very clarity of that description says much to the probable
replacement of the original bullet while in FBI custody, which is SOP,
since there were so many other things the FBI got into that pushed the
wacky WC theories.
Aside from the humor from the above, there is also the fact that the
CE399 bullet was found on the wrong stretcher by Tomlinson, restated by
him later in a NOVA special: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
You can follow Tomlinson's statements from his WC testimony by using
this paper he drew up near the top of the page:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Chris
burgundy
Mar 12, 2013, 9:05:56 PM3/12/13
to
On Mar 12, 1:02 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As I m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and
> Tomlinson bullet. He couldn t have been any clearer.
which... "disappeared"... I see a trend here.
Burgundy
> As I m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and
> James Rowley, who examined the bullet that was found on a stretcher in
> the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the
> same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like
> David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have
> been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law
> enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same bullet.
>
> Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed
> to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering
> themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the
> most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important
> evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere
> to be found on it.
>
> Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von
> Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a
> copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his
> request for information regarding this issue. From David s website:
> the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the
> same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like
> David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have
> been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law
> enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same bullet.
>
> Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed
> to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering
> themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the
> most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important
> evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere
> to be found on it.
>
> Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von
> Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a
> copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his
>
> David,
>
> Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple
> of weeks.
>
> 1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later
> identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley
> observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the
> Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that
> there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick
> [Johnsen] handed it over to them.
>
> Hope that this helps.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
> (unquote)
>
> Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from
> Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed
> the reason why Johnsen could not verify the FBI s replacement for the
> David,
>
> Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple
> of weeks.
>
> 1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later
> identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley
> observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the
> Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that
> there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick
> [Johnsen] handed it over to them.
>
> Hope that this helps.
>
> Regards
>
> Jerry
>
> (unquote)
>
> Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from
> Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed
> Tomlinson bullet. He couldn t have been any clearer.
>
> The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.
>
> The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.
>
> Poor David must have been devastated. He frantically, sent off another
> email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the
> consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine
> responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:
>
> Dave,
>
> Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away
> and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must
> have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself]...
>
> (unquote)
>
> So, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must
> have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope
> is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes
> a moot question, due to the simple fact that Johnsen s initials are
> email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the
> consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine
> responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:
>
> Dave,
>
> Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away
> and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must
> have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself]...
>
> (unquote)
>
> So, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must
> have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope
> is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes
> nowhere to be found on the envelope which contained the original bullet.
> John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig1.jpg
>
> David s last, desperate attempt at damage control was to suggest that
> John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig1.jpg
>
> Hunt overlooked the initials which must have been on the other side of
> the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he
> didn t bother to turn it over, is just ridiculous.
> the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he
>
> The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that
> Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John
> Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself,
> confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up
> by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD
> the next morning.
>
> The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in
> this article:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Robert Harris
And then there's Officer Poe initialing bullets at the Tippit shooting
> The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that
> Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John
> Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself,
> confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up
> by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD
> the next morning.
>
> The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in
> this article:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Robert Harris
which... "disappeared"... I see a trend here.
Burgundy
David Von Pein
Mar 13, 2013, 3:57:52 PM3/13/13
to
~sigh~
If you want to see the whole story about this matter, including the
common-sense inferences I draw from it, instead of just Bob Harris'
conspiratorial take on it, go here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html
David Von Pein
Mar 13, 2013, 4:00:25 PM3/13/13
to
BTW,
Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
I said it's likely that Johnsen utilized a typewritten NOTE to serve as
his "initials", and he then stapled that note to the envelope which
contained CE399. It's ROWLEY'S initials that are missing from everything.
Not Johnsen's. Because we've got Johnsen's note.
But we really don't even need Rowley's initials on the envelope at
all--because Todd told us--on that same envelope--that he got that
envelope (and bullet) from ROWLEY. The chain, IMO, is pretty much
complete. Read the link below for more.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html
Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
I said it's likely that Johnsen utilized a typewritten NOTE to serve as
his "initials", and he then stapled that note to the envelope which
contained CE399. It's ROWLEY'S initials that are missing from everything.
Not Johnsen's. Because we've got Johnsen's note.
But we really don't even need Rowley's initials on the envelope at
all--because Todd told us--on that same envelope--that he got that
envelope (and bullet) from ROWLEY. The chain, IMO, is pretty much
complete. Read the link below for more.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html
Bud
Mar 13, 2013, 4:04:13 PM3/13/13
to
Is it a viable idea that the case could appear as it does today with
so many people "in on it"?
mainframetech
Mar 13, 2013, 9:11:38 PM3/13/13
to
As soon as you hear the phrase "it's likely that" you know that someone
is hoping you'll believe what follows, even though it has no basis in
fact.
CE399 was replaced while in FBI custody to a test bullet from Oswald's
MC rifle. 4 different witnesses that handled the bullet earlier on all
declined to identify it later, one saying that it wasn't even shaped like
the original bullet from the wrong stretcher.
Chris
Walt
Mar 13, 2013, 9:12:54 PM3/13/13
to
On Mar 13, 3:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> BTW,
>
> Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
> Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
> I said it's likely that Johnsen utilized a typewritten NOTE to serve as
> his "initials", and he then stapled that note to the envelope which
> contained CE399. It's ROWLEY'S initials that are missing from everything.
> Not Johnsen's. Because we've got Johnsen's note.
>
> But we really don't even need Rowley's initials on the envelope at
> all--because Todd told us--on that same envelope--that he got that
> envelope (and bullet) from ROWLEY. The chain, IMO, is pretty much
> complete. Read the link below for more.
>
Huh??...... Perhaps you think that you could have your car pulled from
> BTW,
>
> Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
> Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
> I said it's likely that Johnsen utilized a typewritten NOTE to serve as
> his "initials", and he then stapled that note to the envelope which
> contained CE399. It's ROWLEY'S initials that are missing from everything.
> Not Johnsen's. Because we've got Johnsen's note.
>
> But we really don't even need Rowley's initials on the envelope at
> all--because Todd told us--on that same envelope--that he got that
> envelope (and bullet) from ROWLEY. The chain, IMO, is pretty much
> complete. Read the link below for more.
>
a snow bank with a chain that is "pretty much Complete"....
hilarious!!.....
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399...
Walt
Mar 13, 2013, 9:13:25 PM3/13/13
to
to get away with murder is because NOBODY was willing to go to Oswald's
defense.... so basically everybody was against Lee. But over the decades
the truth has gradually emerged, and now it's only those with an agenda
who continue to argue that Lee was guilty. I believe the latest poll
shows that only about 15% is now out to get Oswald...... IOW... 85% of
the people are NOT out to get oswald.
Robert Harris
Mar 13, 2013, 9:16:10 PM3/13/13
to
his umm.. errors and point out how silly some of his arguments are.
Robet Harris
Robert Harris
Mar 13, 2013, 11:08:41 PM3/13/13
to
David Von Pein wrote:
> BTW,
>
> Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
> Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
Yes, you seem to have changed your story, but you went from bad to
> BTW,
>
> Harris is wrong about what he says about my beliefs regarding Richard
> Johnsen's initials and the envelope. After evaluating all of the evidence,
worse, David.
> I said it's likely that Johnsen utilized a typewritten NOTE to serve as
> his "initials",
1. Blaine said (based on Clint Hill, who spoke with Johnsen before he
died) that Johnsen marked the "bullet".
2. David then sent Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself) an email telling
him of the terrible consequences of Johnsen marking the bullet, so
Blaine promptly changed his story, claiming that Johnsen must have
marked the envelope.
3. David realizes that that's no good either because John Hunt
photographed the envelope and Johnsen's initials were not on it.
4. In his final fallback position, David claimed that Johnsen didn't
really mean that he marked the actual evidence - what he really meant
was that he typed up a memo.
Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
required him to do.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Mar 14, 2013, 12:18:26 AM3/14/13
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
required him to do.
Earth to Bob!!!
"Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
which contains the bullet". It's the SAME THING. Or would you now like
to call Jim Leavelle a liar after reading the way Leavelle said he
marked "hundreds" of pieces of evidence:
"[J.M.] Poe did not mark them [the Tippit bullet shells]. There
was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked
with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to
the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept
there until trial. I have run hundreds through that way with no
trouble and have never been contested on it." -- James R. Leavelle
Let me guess, Bob --- You still want to complain because Johnsen only
attached a NOTE to the envelope, instead of MARKING the envelope
itself. Right?
With all that "fake" evidence all over the place, it should make Bob
wonder why the crooks just didn't mark the envelope with Johnsen's &
Rowley's initials after the fact?
Moreover, why didn't Hoover's bad boys just scratch "REJ" and "JJR"
into the bullet itself? Who's gonna know, right?
And since you think Hoover lied through his teeth in CE2011 re Todd's
initials being on the bullet, then why wouldn't Hoover dive even
further into the evidence-tampering pool by forging the names of
Johnsen and Rowley too? He sure wasn't shy about blatantly altering
evidence and his official records, right? So what are two more sets of
phony initials?
Walt
Mar 14, 2013, 11:55:35 AM3/14/13
to
On Mar 13, 11:18 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
> required him to do.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Earth to Bob!!!
>
> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
> which contains the bullet". It's the SAME THING.
Silly...... Marking an envelope is NOT "the same thing" as inscribing
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
> required him to do.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Earth to Bob!!!
>
> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
> which contains the bullet". It's the SAME THING.
a mark on a bullet, knife, gun, baseball bat, or ax
You are awarded an "F" for this silly effort of being
deceptive ........
Anthony Marsh
Mar 14, 2013, 11:56:02 AM3/14/13
to
to mark some evidence, because he's never read them. I'd like to see him
complain about Sibert not putting his initials on the bullet fragments
removed from the brain.
Lanny
Mar 14, 2013, 6:48:24 PM3/14/13
to
have referred people to your own website or YouTube videos and deleted
their comments from your forum about "how silly some of your arguments
are" because the disparaging context of "silliness" violates Rule #2 on
your forum not to insult anyone?
David Von Pein
Mar 14, 2013, 6:49:36 PM3/14/13
to
TONY MARSH SAID:
I'd like to see him complain about Sibert not putting his initials on
the bullet fragments removed from the brain.
Exactly, Tony.
I mentioned that very same type of thing to a conspiracy theorist
named David Josephs last year, right here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html#Marking-Evidence
Robert Harris
Mar 15, 2013, 11:39:46 AM3/15/13
to
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Mar 15, 2013, 12:30:17 PM3/15/13
to
David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
> required him to do.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Earth to Bob!!!
>
> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
> which contains the bullet".
No sir, it does not.
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
> required him to do.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Earth to Bob!!!
>
> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
> which contains the bullet".
> It's the SAME THING. Or would you now like
> to call Jim Leavelle a liar after reading the way Leavelle said he
> marked "hundreds" of pieces of evidence:
>
> "[J.M.] Poe did not mark them
"Poe did not mark them"?
I interpret that to mean that somebody named Poe, did NOT mark the
evidence. He only wrote things on the evidence bag. Is that your take on
it also?
Now ask yourself this. What would Leavelle have said if Poe actually
scratched his initials on the bullets. Don't you think he would have said,
"Poe did mark them."?
Now, I full agree with you that law enforcement frequently does not mark
the actual evidence, especially these days when that could remove DNA
that might be important to the investigation.
But when they write something on the bag or type a memo, they do NOT say
that they "marked" the bullet, as Johnsen told Hill.
Jim Leavelle used exactly the same kind of language that I use and
Johnsen used. You don't say someone "marked" the evidence when they
actually typed up a memo. Instead, you say something like,
"Poe did NOT mark them."
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Mar 15, 2013, 3:47:55 PM3/15/13
to
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 16, 2013, 12:12:02 AM3/16/13
to
On 3/15/2013 12:30 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
>> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
>> required him to do.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Earth to Bob!!!
>>
>> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
>> which contains the bullet".
>
> No sir, it does not.
>
Yes, sir, it does. You know nothing about marking evidence. You have
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>> Obviously, if he had done that he would not have told Hill that he
>> marked the actual evidence, as standard law enforcement procedures
>> required him to do.
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Earth to Bob!!!
>>
>> "Marking evidence" could also mean "attaching a note to the envelope
>> which contains the bullet".
>
> No sir, it does not.
>
never talked to anyone from a crime scene team. You have never read any
manual about evidence.
I quote from Law Enforcement Investigations, FM 19-20 of 29 April 1977:
Page 155: Marking Bullets
A fired bullet submitted as an exhibit may
be either jacketed as is military ammunition
or lead which is common with commercially
manufactured ammunition. Markings may
be placed on the base of the bullet if sufficient
area exists and such markings will not
obliterate the manufacturer's marking or
other markings which may be in this location.
If the base cannot be marked, the bullet(s)
should be placed in a suitably marked
container.
A bullet is never marked in such a
manner that the rifling imprints will be
defaced. Deformed bullets and jacket frag-
ments will also be placed in a marked con-
tainer.
>> It's the SAME THING. Or would you now like
>> to call Jim Leavelle a liar after reading the way Leavelle said he
>> marked "hundreds" of pieces of evidence:
>>
>> "[J.M.] Poe did not mark them
>
> Umm... tell me something David. How do you interpret the statement,
>
> "Poe did not mark them"?
>
> I interpret that to mean that somebody named Poe, did NOT mark the
> evidence. He only wrote things on the evidence bag. Is that your take on
> it also?
>
> Now ask yourself this. What would Leavelle have said if Poe actually
> scratched his initials on the bullets. Don't you think he would have said,
>
How would Poe be in any contact with the bullets removed from Tippit? Or
do you mean he found the bullet which missed? He collected the
cartridges. Do you know how he is supposed to mark the empty cartridges
according to the manual? Of course not.
> "Poe did mark them."?
>
> Now, I full agree with you that law enforcement frequently does not mark
> the actual evidence, especially these days when that could remove DNA
> that might be important to the investigation.
>
> But when they write something on the bag or type a memo, they do NOT say
> that they "marked" the bullet, as Johnsen told Hill.
>
Very tricky to mark the evidence while it is still in the victim.
> Jim Leavelle used exactly the same kind of language that I use and
> Johnsen used. You don't say someone "marked" the evidence when they
> actually typed up a memo. Instead, you say something like,
>
> "Poe did NOT mark them."
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
Robert Harris
Mar 19, 2013, 3:25:11 PM3/19/13
to
Is it remotely possible that you don't realize the differentiation
between the statements:
"Markings may be placed on the base of the bullet.."
and
"..the bullet(s) should be place in a suitably marked container."
In once sentence he talks about marking the actual bullet. In the other,
he refers to a MARKED CONTAINER.
Mr. Marsh, the container is not the same as the bullet. Like Leavelle,
Johnsen and pretty much every other law enforcement person on the
planet, he differentiates between marking the bullet and marking
something else.
Johnsen marked the "bullet". If he had typed up a memo, he would have
said so.
Robert Harris
Walt
Mar 19, 2013, 5:05:43 PM3/19/13
to
cartrige. Many ignorant folks merely call the ammunition for a
gun...."Bullets" So naturally you have screwballs who will post
something that they believe supports their silly idea. In this
instruction
Page 155: Marking Bullets
A fired bullet submitted as an exhibit may be either jacketed as is
military ammunition or lead which is common with commercially
manufactured ammunition. Markings may be placed on the base of the
bullet if sufficient area exists and such markings will not obliterate
the manufacturer's marking or other markings which may be in this
location. If the base cannot be marked, the bullet(s) should be placed
in a suitably marked container.
A bullet is never marked in such a manner that the rifling imprints
will be defaced. Deformed bullets and jacket frag-
It's clear that the instruction relates how to mark "A FIRED
BULLET"... the projectile portion of a cartridge.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 20, 2013, 11:15:32 AM3/20/13
to
piece of evidence you can put it in a container and mark the container.
He discusses how to mark the cartridges in a different paragraph.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 20, 2013, 11:15:56 AM3/20/13
to
bullet, but if that is not possible, then put them in a container and
mark the container.
> Mr. Marsh, the container is not the same as the bullet. Like Leavelle,
> Johnsen and pretty much every other law enforcement person on the
> planet, he differentiates between marking the bullet and marking
> something else.
>
the evidence.
0 new messages