Chain of Custody (aka dog training:-)

[Robert Harris]

Recently, in our discussion about the fact that Secret Service agents
Johnson and Rowley refused to verify that CE399 was the same bullet that
Daryl Tomlinson recovered from a stretcher at Parkland, "Bigdog" has
argued that the reason was that they just didn't bother to mark the
evidence.

I replied that there is no justification or documentation supporting his
theory and that the agents were required to mark either the evidence or
its container, in order to maintain a chain of custody that would hold up
in court.

Bigdog replied, "Pure nonsense. An example of an amateur playing lawyer."
and he then demanded that I document my claim.

When I replied that all FBI agents who handled CE399, initialed it
(Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham and Robert Frazier) he argued that
the Secret Service must have different rules:-)

Anyway, in response to John's request for documentation and to prove that
I am not "playing lawyer", let's look at what the experts say,

This is from Wikipedia, under the heading "Chain of Custody"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody

"An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at
a murder scene:
1. Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container,
then gives it to forensics technician Bill.
2. Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects
fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife
and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.
3. Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting
everyone who has accessed the original evidence (the knife, and original
copies of the lifted fingerprints).

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is
collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented
and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that
evidence. It is best to keep the number of transfers as low as possible.

In the courtroom, if the defendant questions the chain of custody of the
evidence it can be proven that the knife in the evidence room is the same
knife found at the crime scene. However, if there are discrepancies and it
cannot be proven who had the knife at a particular point in time, then the
chain of custody is broken and the defendant can ask to have the resulting
evidence declared inadmissible."

(unquote)

It's important to understand that the FBI never tried to claim that
Johnson and Rowley failed to initial the evidence or its container. In
fact, they never mentioned the reason why the two agents refused to verify
CE399.

This is from the "World of Forensic Science" blog, located at:

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/evidence-chain-custody

"Evidence found at the scene of a crime must eventually be presented and
questioned in the courtroom. For the evidence to be of use in a trial, it
must make the journey from crime scene to court in a validated and secure
manner so that all involved can be assured that it has not been
contaminated and that the evidence is relevant to the crime investigation.

In order to insure validity, investigators must follow a routine commonly
known as the chain of custody when it comes to collecting and handling
evidence.

The first person to collect an item of evidence, be it a bloodstain or a
bullet, will sign their initials and date either on the item itself or on
its packaging. Clearly, marking an item ensures there is no ambiguity, as
packaging could be separated from the evidence itself."


And this is from the legal blog at:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5130/Chain-Custody.html

"Proving chain of custody is necessary to 'lay a foundation' for the
evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution,
or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible
evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially
the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and
that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain
of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of
illegal narcotics, police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A
gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police
scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to
police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B,
C, and D constitute a "chain of custody" for the drugs, and the
prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to
establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless
the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save
time."

Can you imagine the testimonies of agents Johnson and Rowley in an Oswald
trial - stating that since they never bothered to mark the stretcher
bullet or its container, they had no idea whether it was the right bullet
or not??

Of course, that is not what happened. Johnson and Rowley followed the same
rules of evidence that ALL law enforcement officers were required to
follow, from the lowest beat cop to the highest levels of federal law
enforcement.

The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.




Robert Harris

[John Blubaugh]

Big Dog doesn't care about chain of custody. He has made up his mind
that LHO was guilty and he doesn't care what short cuts were taken,
what evidence was discarded and even what tales and evidence was made
up. He also doesn't care about protecting the evidence so that non-
government labs could examine it. In short, he believes the WC hook,
line and stinker..... He will make any kind of claim to defend it. He
will call people like you make believe lawyers for asking questions.
If Big Dog had been in charge in the 1400s, Columbus would never have
been given credit for discovering the new world. Big Dog would have
just claimed it didn't exist.


JB

[jas]

On Oct 23, 11:40 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>
> Robert Harris

(Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
post in its entirety, scroll up.)

Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination? We are all painfully
aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.

No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
sinister conspiratorial conclusions.

You are correct about how important chain of evidence is in evidence
gathering, but contrary to CT beliefs, sometimes -- I repeat, sometimes --
this simply does not happen in the real world. Crime scene people, cops,
and lab techs are people and people make mistakes. Further, in the final
analysis in the JFK case it's a moot point anyway because CE 399 was
forensically matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other
weapons. Therefore the judge would more than likely throw out any attempts
by a potential Oswald defense team to rule CE 399 inadmissible. As McAdams
alludes to in his book many times, hard evidence trumps everything else,
no matter how hard one tries to disprove it.

Get over it. Move on.

[bigdog]

On Oct 23, 2:40 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Recently, in our discussion about the fact that Secret Service agents
> Johnson and Rowley refused to verify that CE399 was the same bullet that
> Daryl Tomlinson recovered from a stretcher at Parkland, "Bigdog" has
> argued that the reason was that they just didn't bother to mark the
> evidence.
>
> I replied that there is no justification or documentation supporting his
> theory and that the agents were required to mark either the evidence or
> its container, in order to maintain a chain of custody that would hold up
> in court.
>

I'm not the one arguing a theory, Bob. You are. You are the one who claims
to know what the FBI rules of evidence handling were and what the SS rules
of evidence handling were. I have simply and consistently asked you to
support your claims that one or both agencies required their agents to
mark evidence in such a way and also pointed out the fallacy of assuming
that the FBI's rules automatically applied to the SS. I have pretended to
know what the rules for either agency are so I have no responsibility to
substantiate any claims. On the other hand, Your theory that CE399 was
substituted for the bullet that Tomlinson found at Parkland is based on
two assumptions, one that every agent who handled the bullet was required
to initial it, and two that every agent followed that requirement. Despite
being challenged to do so numerous times, you have steadfastly refused to
cite the basis for these assumptions. Until you can do so, your theory is
a house of cards.

> Bigdog replied, "Pure nonsense. An example of an amateur playing lawyer."
> and he then demanded that I document my claim.
>

Gee, that was unreasonable. What was I thinking?

> When I replied that all FBI agents who handled CE399, initialed it
> (Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham and Robert Frazier) he argued that
> the Secret Service must have different rules:-)
>

I made no such argument. I simply pointed out the fallacy in your
assumption that the two agencies operated under the same rules. I don't
pretend to know whether they did or did not have the same rules. You do
pretend to know but you can't back up your claims about what they rules
were. Why is that?

> Anyway, in response to John's request for documentation and to prove that
> I am not "playing lawyer", let's look at what the experts say,
>
> This is from Wikipedia, under the heading "Chain of Custody"
>

Wikipedia??? Oh, there's a source of expert testimony!!! <snicker> How
many law schools do you think have their students reference Wikipedia
as a source for case law?

The passage you sighted from Wikipedia makes no mention of a requirement
that evidence be initialized. That is something you have assumed. It is
only necessary that the piece of evidence can be accounted for from the
time of discovery until it was presented in court. That is accomplished by
each person being able to testify that the piece of evidence was in their
possession from the time they received it until it was passed on to the
next person in the chain. If person A found a bullet and handed it to
person B, and person B handed it to person C, and person C presents it to
the court. As long as persons A,B, and C can account for the bullet the
entire time it was in their possession, the chain is not broken. It is not
necessary for either person A or B to be able to say with certainty that
the bullet in evidence is the one they gave to person B as long as person
B can say the bullet they received from person A is the same one they gave
to person C, and person C testifies that the bullet in evidence is the one
they received from person B. It might be helpful had A or B initialed the
bullet, but the rules of evidence you cited make no mention of such a
requirement.

> This is from the "World of Forensic Science" blog, located at:
>

Another website that I'm sure is on the must-read list of every law
student in the country.

> http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/evidence-chain-custody
>
> "Evidence found at the scene of a crime must eventually be presented and
> questioned in the courtroom. For the evidence to be of use in a trial, it
> must make the journey from crime scene to court in a validated and secure
> manner so that all involved can be assured that it has not been
> contaminated and that the evidence is relevant to the crime investigation.
>
> In order to insure validity, investigators must follow a routine commonly
> known as the chain of custody when it comes to collecting and handling
> evidence.
>
> The first person to collect an item of evidence, be it a bloodstain or a
> bullet, will sign their initials and date either on the item itself or on
> its packaging. Clearly, marking an item ensures there is no ambiguity, as
> packaging could be separated from the evidence itself."
>

The above quote identifies current requirements. It does not establish
that the same rules were in effect in 1963. The Warren Court handed down
numerous landmark decisions in the 1960s which placed greater restrictions
on the admissibility of evidence. Whether one agrees with the rulings or
not, the fact remains law enforcement personnel are under much tighter
rules than they were five decades ago.

> And this is from the legal blog at:http://law.jrank.org/pages/5130/Chain-Custody.html
>

I guess you went to this website because you didn't have a password to get
into the Harvard Law School website. I noticed this website had numerous
ads for online careers in the legal field. Maybe you should take one of
these online courses.

> "Proving chain of custody is necessary to 'lay a foundation' for the
> evidence in question, by showing the absence of alteration, substitution,
> or change of condition. Specifically, foundation testimony for tangible
> evidence requires that exhibits be identified as being in substantially
> the same condition as they were at the time the evidence was seized, and
> that the exhibit has remained in that condition through an unbroken chain
> of custody. For example, suppose that in a prosecution for possession of
> illegal narcotics, police sergeant A recovers drugs from the defendant; A
> gives police officer B the drugs; B then gives the drugs to police
> scientist C, who conducts an analysis of the drugs; C gives the drugs to
> police detective D, who brings the drugs to court. The testimony of A, B,
> C, and D constitute a "chain of custody" for the drugs, and the
> prosecution would need to offer testimony by each person in the chain to
> establish both the condition and identification of the evidence, unless
> the defendant stipulated as to the chain of custody in order to save
> time."
>

Damn, that sounds an awful lot like the example I gave earlier. Maybe I
should have read your entire post before starting to respond. I could have
saved myself a lot of writing. Notice again that in this example, there is
no mention of a requirement to initialize the evidence, only that each
person be able to testify the fact they handled the evidence, from whom
they received it, to whom they gave it to, and that it was not altered
while in their possession. The chain of custody is established without
initialing of the evidence.

> Can you imagine the testimonies of agents Johnson and Rowley in an Oswald
> trial - stating that since they never bothered to mark the stretcher
> bullet or its container, they had no idea whether it was the right bullet
> or not??
>

The would not have to under the example you provided. They would only have
to testify that they turned the bullet over to the next person in the
chain and that each person in the chain be able to do the same. If that
could be done, the chain would have been established.

> Of course, that is not what happened. Johnson and Rowley followed the same
> rules of evidence that ALL law enforcement officers were required to
> follow, from the lowest beat cop to the highest levels of federal law
> enforcement.
>

Even if we grant you that the websites you cited are reliable, they
address only the rules of evidence which are in effect now, not the rules
that were in effect in 1963. The Warren Court established much stricter
rules of evidence than had been in effect previously.

> The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>

No, Bob, that is not the only logical explaination. It is not even a
logical assumption. It is simply the assumption that you have chosen
to gravitate to.

[bigdog]

No, bigdog understands chain of custody.

> He has made up his mind
> that LHO was guilty

Of course I have. It is dirt simple.

> and he doesn't care what short cuts were taken,
> what evidence was discarded and even what tales and evidence was made
> up.

How can I care about things that don't exist.

> He also doesn't care about protecting the evidence so that non-
> government labs could examine it. In short, he believes the WC hook,
> line and stinker.....

Since they presented the one and only truth, why wouldn't I.

> He will make any kind of claim to defend it. He
> will call people like you make believe lawyers for asking questions.

No, I call people that when they pretend to have legal expertise that
they clearly don't.

> If Big Dog had been in charge in the 1400s, Columbus would never have
> been given credit for discovering the new world. Big Dog would have
> just claimed it didn't exist.
>

No, bigdog would have pointed out that the Vikings beat him to it and the
Native Americans were there long before that.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<9b707402-6e2d-4c60...@fk25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
John Blubaugh <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 23, 2:40?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Recently, in our discussion about the fact that Secret Service agents
> > Johnson and Rowley refused to verify that CE399 was the same bullet that
> > Daryl Tomlinson recovered from a stretcher at Parkland, "Bigdog" has
> > argued that the reason was that they just didn't bother to mark the
> > evidence.
> >
> > I replied that there is no justification or documentation supporting his
> > theory and that the agents were required to mark either the evidence or
> > its container, in order to maintain a chain of custody that would hold up
> > in court.
> >
> > Bigdog replied, "Pure nonsense. An example of an amateur playing lawyer."
> > and he then demanded that I document my claim.
> >
> > When I replied that all FBI agents who handled CE399, initialed it
> > (Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham and Robert Frazier) he argued that
> > the Secret Service must have different rules:-)
> >
> > Anyway, in response to John's request for documentation and to prove that
> > I am not "playing lawyer", let's look at what the experts say,
> >
> > This is from Wikipedia, under the heading "Chain of Custody"
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_custody
> >
> > "An example of chain of custody would be the recovery of a bloody knife at
> > a murder scene:

> > ? ?1. Officer Andrew collects the knife and places it into a container,

> > then gives it to forensics technician Bill.

> > ? ?2. Forensics technician Bill takes the knife to the lab and collects

> > fingerprints and other evidence from the knife. Bill then gives the knife
> > and all evidence gathered from the knife to evidence clerk Charlene.

> > ? ?3. Charlene then stores the evidence until it is needed, documenting

I find it very hard to believe that even someone so totally lost in
denial as him, would actually try to deny that all law enforcement is
required to protect the chain of custody.

But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other arguments
which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and Parkland
supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that the
real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.

This is the article that cites those witnesses and the relevant FBI
reports.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

I'm tired of trying to prove to this guy that the world is round. It would
be great if one of the nutters here could take over and try to put up some
kind of a rational argument, but it looks like they've all left town on a
fast horse.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bdff09d6-688d-4904...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 23, 11:40?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> > they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> > nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> > it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> post in its entirety, scroll up.)
>
> Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination?

I don't know. I think some of them are hung up on old school theories
that were written by writers who wanted to exploit to assassination for
a fast buck.

> We are all painfully
> aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>
> No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> sinister conspiratorial conclusions.

I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.

John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
recovered by a nurse.

District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.

Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
officer Nolan.

Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
just been completed.

The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.

There is much more to this of course and it is explained in detail in this
article,

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Hopefully, you will take a crack at explaining this to everyone so that I
can shut up about it and go back to playing my guitar.

Trust me - you cant do any worse that poor John:-)





Robert Harris

[Gary Combs]

moot point anyway because CE 399 was forensically matched to Oswald's
Carcano to the exclusion of all other weap

BULLSHIT even if it were, don't prove who fired the gun. I do believe he
was the scapecoat, but maybe at the time unwittingly, caught on soon,
though.

gc


"jas" wrote in message
news:bdff09d6-688d-4904...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 1:23 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <9b707402-6e2d-4c60-a7b1-f2d29b95c...@fk25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Excuse me, I must be having a senior moment. I don't recall denying

that all law enforcement is required to protect the chain of custody.

For my benefit, can you point out where I said that.

> But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other arguments
> which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
> Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and Parkland
> supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that the
> real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
> given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.
>

I did address those points. This is just an example of witnesses
getting things partially correct and in the case of Wade, someone who
was getting all of his information second hand and got a number of
things wrong. Wade was a witness to nothing. Everything he said was
hearsay.

But as long as we are on the subject of avoiding issues, I noticed
that you failed to respond to my question as to why you chose to
believe Todd over Frazier when Frazier testified that CE399 was the
bullet Todd gave him, that he initialed it, and his initials were on
the bullet while Todd never testified and his initials were not on the
bullet. You assumed Todd was the one telling the truth and that
Frazier was lying. Rather than confront this dilemma, you chose to
start this thread instead. Would you like to take a crack at that now?

> This is the article that cites those witnesses and the relevant FBI
> reports.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> I'm tired of trying to prove to this guy that the world is round. It would
> be great if one of the nutters here could take over and try to put up some
> kind of a rational argument, but it looks like they've all left town on a
> fast horse.
>

I'm not making arguments. I am simply pointing out the fallacy's of
yours, which is becoming almost a full time job.

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 1:24 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bdff09d6-688d-4904-bb70-ef1bd0396...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 11:40?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> > > they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> > > nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> > > it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> > post in its entirety, scroll up.)
>
> > Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> > goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination?
>
> I don't know. I think some of them are hung up on old school theories
> that were written by writers who wanted to exploit to assassination for
> a fast buck.
>

As opposed to you who do it for the love of the game.

> > We are all painfully
> > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>
> > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
>
> I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.
>
> John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> recovered by a nurse.
>

Connally was suffering from a life threatening gunshot wound so his powers
of perception are somewhat suspect. He may have assumed it was a bullet.
Did the nurse claim she picked a bullet up from the floor? But of course,
you never consider all the possibilities. You ALWAYS gravitate to the
conspiratorial one.

> District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
> nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
> Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.
>
> Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
> approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
> containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
> officer Nolan.
>
> Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
> was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
> the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
> just been completed.
>
> The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
> envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
> adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
> was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
> office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.
>

Your theory requires that Stinson was incorrect about the bullet coming
from Connally's thigh but can't even consider that his mistake was that it
was a fragment that came from his wrist. Nolan seems to have had the same
misconception. But of course, when faced with conflicting information, you
automatically assume which things the witnesses were correct about and
which ones they were wrong about and decide the only explaination is the
conspiratorial one.

> There is much more to this of course and it is explained in detail in this
> article,
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>

A fascinating fair tale. Did you write that or have you just been
parroting it? Amazing how the author leaped to the conclusion that the FBI
discovered the bullet didn't match Oswald's rifle so they substituted
CE399 for it. Any idea what that claim is based on? I guess assumptions
are SOP for the CT crowd.

> Hopefully, you will take a crack at explaining this to everyone so that I
> can shut up about it and go back to playing my guitar.
>

None of us would mind if you did that anyway. There are lots of other
people posting nonsense on this forum.

[Anthony Marsh]

You challenged his contention that there are rules of evidence and that
the chain of evidence was not properly documented for some of the
evidence in the JFK case.

>> But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other arguments
>> which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
>> Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and Parkland
>> supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that the
>> real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
>> given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.
>>
> I did address those points. This is just an example of witnesses
> getting things partially correct and in the case of Wade, someone who
> was getting all of his information second hand and got a number of
> things wrong. Wade was a witness to nothing. Everything he said was
> hearsay.
>

Funny but you object when we point out cops passing on hearsay.
And Wade was the man who would be prosecuting the case.

> But as long as we are on the subject of avoiding issues, I noticed
> that you failed to respond to my question as to why you chose to
> believe Todd over Frazier when Frazier testified that CE399 was the
> bullet Todd gave him, that he initialed it, and his initials were on
> the bullet while Todd never testified and his initials were not on the
> bullet. You assumed Todd was the one telling the truth and that
> Frazier was lying. Rather than confront this dilemma, you chose to
> start this thread instead. Would you like to take a crack at that now?
>

Frazier can verify what he did. Frazier can not verify what Todd did. He
has to take him at his word.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2011 1:27 AM, Gary Combs wrote:
> moot point anyway because CE 399 was forensically matched to Oswald's
> Carcano to the exclusion of all other weap
>

Fine. But that does not prove that CE299 was fired during the
assassination. There is even one kook who claims that CE399 was fired days
before and recovered intact then fired from another rifle using a sabot
during the assassination. There are some technical reasons why this would
not work, but some people still doubt its authenticity anyway. But CE399
did not necessarily have to do everything that the WC claims it did. Maybe
it only went through Connally. Maybe it only when through Connally's
chest.

Remember that in the Australian tests their bullet came out looking so
much like CE399 because it did not hit the wrist. So maybe the wrist was
hit by a second bullet. Look back at the Humes SBT and tell me where you
object.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then show me the testimony of the nurse where she says she picked up the
bullet from the floor. Connally only heard SOMETHING hit the floor and
ASSUMED it was a bullet. It was actually his cufflink which was never
recovered.

> District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
> nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
> Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.
>

Did Wade actually SEE the bullet? Or did he just see an envelope with a
fragment in it? Does Wade know the difference between a bullet and a
fragment?

> Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
> approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
> containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
> officer Nolan.
>
> Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
> was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
> the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
> just been completed.
>

Was Dr. Shaw also incorrect when he said that there was still a bullet
in Connally's thigh? Is there STILL a bullet in Connally's thigh? Or is
it just 5 grains of tiny fragments?

> The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
> envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
> adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
> was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
> office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.
>

And where are the fragments from Connally's thigh?
Do you realize that sometimes the doctors decide it is safer to leave
the bullet in the victim?
What about the memo I found which refers to additional fragments from a
different part of the body which we didn't know about?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2011 8:11 PM, jas wrote:
> On Oct 23, 11:40 am, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
>> they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
>> nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
>> it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
> (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> post in its entirety, scroll up.)
>
> Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination? We are all painfully
> aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>

Because they create reasonable doubt.

> No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
>
> You are correct about how important chain of evidence is in evidence
> gathering, but contrary to CT beliefs, sometimes -- I repeat, sometimes --
> this simply does not happen in the real world. Crime scene people, cops,

And in the real world cases are thrown out of court every day because of
problems with handling the evidence. Ever hear of the OJ Simpson case?
Airtight case except for the mistake made in handling the evidence which
created reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors.

Ever hear about the Dreyfus case? Airtight and easy conviction, but
overturned when they learned that the evidence was phony and manufactured
by the government.

> and lab techs are people and people make mistakes. Further, in the final
> analysis in the JFK case it's a moot point anyway because CE 399 was
> forensically matched to Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other
> weapons. Therefore the judge would more than likely throw out any attempts
> by a potential Oswald defense team to rule CE 399 inadmissible. As McAdams
> alludes to in his book many times, hard evidence trumps everything else,
> no matter how hard one tries to disprove it.
>

Especially when it is planted by corrupt cops.

[Anthony Marsh]

I've heard WC defenders claim that the evidence doesn't matter, because
they KNOW that Oswald was guilty because of the way he smirked or by his
giving the Communist salute when arrested.

[jas]

On Oct 23, 10:24 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bdff09d6-688d-4904-bb70-ef1bd0396...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,

>

>  jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 11:40?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> > > they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> > > nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> > > it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> > post in its entirety, scroll up.)
>
> > Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> > goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination?
>
> I don't know. I think some of them are hung up on old school theories
> that were written by writers who wanted to exploit to assassination for
> a fast buck.
>
> > We are all painfully
> > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>
> > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
>
> I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.

Okay, not "goof," cowboy. But one of those areas in the investigation
where CTs as yourself try to find room to stuff your favorite conspiracy
theory.

You want an explanation? Why certainly: Hard evidence, logic, and rational
thinking.

>
> John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> recovered by a nurse.

He was mistaken. You ever been mistaken in your life Harris? No? Maybe
someone you know then?

>
> District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
> nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
> Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.

He said he was foggy about certain things that day, like a lot of people
trying to recall something that happened years ago.

In any event, if he found this bullet on Nov. 22 that was so freaking
important why didn't he give it directly to the FBI, Mr. "Chain of
Evidence" guy?

>
> Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
> approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
> containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
> officer Nolan.
>
> Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
> was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
> the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
> just been completed.
>
> The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
> envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
> adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
> was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
> office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.
>
> There is much more to this of course and it is explained in detail in this
> article,
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Hopefully, you will take a crack at explaining this to everyone so that I
> can shut up about it and go back to playing my guitar.

Go back and play your guitar, please. Maybe instead of uploading your JFK
conspiracy BS to YouTube you could make a music video for us to enjoy.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<1f2bd523-fd94-4f08...@v8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 1:24?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bdff09d6-688d-4904-bb70-ef1bd0396...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 23, 11:40?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> > > > they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> > > > nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> > > > it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
> >
> > > > Robert Harris
> >
> > > (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> > > post in its entirety, scroll up.)
> >
> > > Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> > > goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination?
> >
> > I don't know. I think some of them are hung up on old school theories
> > that were written by writers who wanted to exploit to assassination for
> > a fast buck.
> >
>
> As opposed to you who do it for the love of the game.

I've never made a cent on this stuff and never tried to. What are you
trying to say?

>
> > > We are all painfully
> > > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
> >
> > > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> > > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
> >
> > I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> > explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.
> >
> > John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> > recovered by a nurse.
> >
>
> Connally was suffering from a life threatening gunshot wound so his powers
> of perception are somewhat suspect. He may have assumed it was a bullet.
> Did the nurse claim she picked a bullet up from the floor?

I have no idea. I only know that she told people it came from Connally's
gurney.

> But of course,
> you never consider all the possibilities. You ALWAYS gravitate to the
> conspiratorial one.

I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether she
picked it up from the floor or took it directly off the gurney. It is the
fact that she then showed it to the district attorney and gave it to
officer Nolan that settles the issue.

>
> > District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
> > nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
> > Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.
> >
> > Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
> > approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
> > containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
> > officer Nolan.
> >
> > Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
> > was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
> > the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
> > just been completed.
> >
> > The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
> > envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
> > adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
> > was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
> > office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.
> >
>
> Your theory requires that Stinson was incorrect about the bullet coming
> from Connally's thigh

It "requires" no such thing. In fact, the bullet DID originally come
from Connally's thigh.

You're making no sense at all john.

> but can't even consider that his mistake was that it
> was a fragment that came from his wrist.

Yes, I certainly did consider that. But the problem is, that the nurse
repeatedly stated that it was a single bullet which came from Connally's
gurney and originally, his thigh.

The envelope that Bell filled out was labelled as "fragments" from
Connallly's "right arm". There is no way that almost immediately after
writing that, she would have told those men that it was a single bullet
which came from the Governor's thigh.

Bell could not have been the same nurse who Connally, Wade, Nolan and
Stinson encountered. She was adamant that she gave her envelope to two
plain clothed agents who came into her office, neither of whom were in
uniform as Stinson was.

The clincher here should have been the receipt for the envelope which she
and one of the agents signed. She testified that she did as she always did
and delivered the receipt to supervisor Price's office. That receipt was
another critical piece of evidence supporting the chain of custody for
those fragments, so it had to have been confiscated by the FBI.

But when the ARRB tried to locate it, it had apparently disappeared. I got
the same story from the N.A. when they conducted a search for me.

Surprise, surprise:-)

> Nolan seems to have had the same
> misconception.

The envelope that Nolan delivered, which according to your beliefs, was
clearly labelled as containing "fragments" from Connally's right arm, was
described by the FBI in their report of their interview with Nolan as
containing a single "fragment" from his "thigh".

And the original DPD records showed that envelope as containing only a
single object. It was changed later of course.

Obviously, this was not the same envelope that Bell filled out.

> But of course, when faced with conflicting information, you
> automatically assume which things the witnesses were correct about and
> which ones they were wrong about and decide the only explaination is the
> conspiratorial one.

Unfortunately, all roads lead to Rome, my friend.

It doesn't matter whether that bullet was picked up from the floor or
the gurney, or was recovered in surgery.

What matters is, that it wasn't the bullet that Tomlinson found.

And that matters a lot.






Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 11:18 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1f2bd523-fd94-4f08-bc4b-ec616657c...@v8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 1:24?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bdff09d6-688d-4904-bb70-ef1bd0396...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ?jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 23, 11:40?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The only logical explanation for their refusal to verify CE399 was that
> > > > > they DID mark the bullet, but their initials, like FBI agent Todd's were
> > > > > nowhere to be found on CE399. And the only explanation for that is, that
> > > > > it was not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
>
> > > > > Robert Harris
>
> > > > (Note: all but the last paragraph I snipped for space. To read Harris's
> > > > post in its entirety, scroll up.)
>
> > > > Why do lots of conspiracists continue to harp on and on about anomalies,
> > > > goofs, and discrepancies in the JFK assassination?
>
> > > I don't know. I think some of them are hung up on old school theories
> > > that were written by writers who wanted to exploit to assassination for
> > > a fast buck.
>
> > As opposed to you who do it for the love of the game.
>
> I've never made a cent on this stuff and never tried to. What are you
> trying to say?
>

I thought it was pretty obvious but I'll try to state it even more
simply. Nonsense is nonsense no matter what the motivation is for
those who present it, and everything you are saying on this subject is
nonsense, based on assumptions for which there is no compelling
evidence.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > We are all painfully
> > > > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>
> > > > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same bullet
> > > > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > > > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > > > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
>
> > > I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> > > explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.
>
> > > John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> > > recovered by a nurse.
>
> > Connally was suffering from a life threatening gunshot wound so his powers
> > of perception are somewhat suspect. He may have assumed it was a bullet.
> > Did the nurse claim she picked a bullet up from the floor?
>
> I have no idea. I only know that she told people it came from Connally's
> gurney.
>

If you have no idea, it is just another glaring example of you
assuming facts that are not in evidence. If the nurse didn't say she
picked up a bullet from the guerney or the floor, you have no evidence
that such a bullet existed.

> > But of course,
> > you never consider all the possibilities. You ALWAYS gravitate to the
> > conspiratorial one.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether she
> picked it up from the floor or took it directly off the gurney. It is the
> fact that she then showed it to the district attorney and gave it to
> officer Nolan that settles the issue.
>

No, but it does matter WHAT she picked up whether it was from the
floor or the guerney. I asked you to cite where she said she picked up
a BULLET. Do you have any such statement from her, or do you just
assume she was referring to a bullet. You also need to establish that
the object she picked up off the floor was the object she gave to
Nolan and not the wrist fragments that were removed during surgery.
You need to connect all the dots and you have failed to do so.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > District Attorney Wade arrived just after the surgery and encountered a
> > > nurse who was holding a bullet in her hand and told him it was from
> > > Connally's Gurney. Wade told her to get it to the police.
>
> > > Officer Nolan, the nearest uniformed police officer said a nurse
> > > approached him and Connally aide Bill Stinson, saying she had an envelope
> > > containing a bullet from Connally's gurney. Stinson told her to give it to
> > > officer Nolan.
>
> > > Stinson stated (incorrectly I believe) that a bullet from Connally's leg
> > > was recovered during surgery. Of course, he was not told that she picked
> > > the bullet up from the floor and assumed it was from the surgery that had
> > > just been completed.
>
> > > The FBI claimed that supervisor Audrey Bell actually gave Nolan an
> > > envelope that contained tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But Bell was
> > > adamant that much of the report they filed about their interview of her
> > > was false and that she gave the fragments to plain clothed officers in her
> > > office and that they were definitely not in uniform as Nolan was.
>
> > Your theory requires that Stinson was incorrect about the bullet coming
> > from Connally's thigh
>
> It "requires" no such thing. In fact, the bullet DID originally come
> from Connally's thigh.
>

CE399 did come from Connally's thigh and fell out before surgery. Only
a fragment was recovered during surgery and I should have used the
word fragment instead of bullet refering to it. If Stinson said bullet
in reference to the items removed from Connally's wrist during
surgery, he too misspoke or was misinformed as to what was removed.
The simple fact is no whole bullet was removed from any part of
Connally's body during surgery.

> You're making no sense at all john.
>
> > but can't even consider that his mistake was that it
> > was a fragment that came from his wrist.
>
> Yes, I certainly did consider that. But the problem is, that the nurse
> repeatedly stated that it was a single bullet which came from Connally's
> gurney and originally, his thigh.
>

Again I ask, quote where she said about the object that came from
Connally's guerney.

> The envelope that Bell filled out was labelled as "fragments" from
> Connallly's "right arm". There is no way that almost immediately after
> writing that, she would have told those men that it was a single bullet
> which came from the Governor's thigh.
>

That's why we need her words and not yours.

> Bell could not have been the same nurse who Connally, Wade, Nolan and
> Stinson encountered. She was adamant that she gave her envelope to two
> plain clothed agents who came into her office, neither of whom were in
> uniform as Stinson was.

So we have an anamoly that needs to be resolved. If you want to be
logical about it, you can't just assume that Bell gave fragments to
two plain clothes officers and Stinson and or Nolan receivded a whole
bullet from another nurse. But I think you would prefer to argue for a
conspiracy than to be logical about it.

>
> The clincher here should have been the receipt for the envelope which she
> and one of the agents signed. She testified that she did as she always did
> and delivered the receipt to supervisor Price's office. That receipt was
> another critical piece of evidence supporting the chain of custody for
> those fragments, so it had to have been confiscated by the FBI.
>
> But when the ARRB tried to locate it, it had apparently disappeared. I got
> the same story from the N.A. when they conducted a search for me.
>
> Surprise, surprise:-)
>

So because a piece of evidence has come up missing, you think that
gives you a wild card to fill in the blanks as you see fit.

> > Nolan seems to have had the same
> > misconception.
>
> The envelope that Nolan delivered, which according to your beliefs, was
> clearly labelled as containing "fragments" from Connally's right arm, was
> described by the FBI in their report of their interview with Nolan as
> containing a single "fragment" from his "thigh".
>

Which may well have been what they were told by Nolan who was under
the mistaken impression that the fragments came from the thigh. That's
what happens when information gets passed from one person to another
to another. Somebody misunderstands and then repeats that
misunderstanding to the next person. The fact is the fragments came
from the wrist.

> And the original DPD records showed that envelope as containing only a
> single object. It was changed later of course.
>

So you can't conceive that somebody could have mislabeled it. You
assume everything everybody did that day was correct. That nobody
every made any mistakes. What world do you live in?

> Obviously, this was not the same envelope that Bell filled out.
>

It is only obvious to those who want to assume it was obvious. Those
who think more logically can find other possibilities.

> > But of course, when faced with conflicting information, you
> > automatically assume which things the witnesses were correct about and
> > which ones they were wrong about and decide the only explaination is the
> > conspiratorial one.
>
> Unfortunately, all roads lead to Rome, my friend.
>

No, they all lead to Oswald from the TSBD with the MC. There is no
physical evidence which suggests otherwise.

> It doesn't matter whether that bullet was picked up from the floor or
> the gurney, or was recovered in surgery.
>
> What matters is, that it wasn't the bullet that Tomlinson found.
>
> And that matters a lot.
>

Well I can't argue there. The fragments recovered from surgery were
not the bullet Tomlinson found. But let's play it your way. Let's
pretend that an unnamed nurse found a whole bullet that came from
Connally's guerney and that Tomlinson found a different bullet. That
means two bullets were recovered at Parkland in addition to the
fragmented bullet found in the limo. So under what shooting scenario
would there be two whole bullets recovered outside the bodies of the
two shooting victims? If you even attempt to answer this dilemma, it
should prove to be quite entertaining.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-FED1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

I meant to say officer Nolan. Stinson was wearing scrubs at the time.









Robert Harris

[jas]

On Oct 23, 10:27 pm, "Gary Combs" <glcco...@charter.net> wrote:
> moot point anyway because CE 399 was forensically matched to Oswald's
> Carcano to the exclusion of all other weap
>
> BULLSHIT even if it were, don't prove who fired the gun. I do believe he
> was the scapecoat, but maybe at the time unwittingly, caught on soon,
> though.
>

You CT guys really need to get another reactive catch- phrase. How
about ROAD APPLES or HORSE PUCKY for a change?

Yes, CE 399 was scientifically matched to Oswald's Carcano to the
exclusion of all other weapons, as were all the other bullet fragments
retrieved from the limo, Connally's wrist, and JFK's head.

What part of this do you not understand? Do you do nothing but read
conspiracy books?

[jas]

On Oct 25, 7:43 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well I can't argue there. The fragments recovered from surgery were
> not the bullet Tomlinson found. But let's play it your way. Let's
> pretend that an unnamed nurse found a whole bullet that came from
> Connally's guerney and that Tomlinson found a different bullet. That
> means two bullets were recovered at Parkland in addition to the
> fragmented bullet found in the limo. So under what shooting scenario
> would there be two whole bullets recovered outside the bodies of the
> two shooting victims? If you even attempt to answer this dilemma, it
> should prove to be quite entertaining.

Good retorical question. I'll answer for Harris, make it easy for
him:

Given the evidence we have in the JFK case, there couldn't be any
shooting scenario that could produce 2 nearly intact bullets found at
Parkland. Nil. None. Zipola. The only plausible answer is it's a
fabricated conspiracist theory.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<ab9366e4-1734-4c2a...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Zero content.

Zero evidence.

Zero analysis.

Unsupported, assertions which address no material facts are just a waste
of bandwidth john. Do you really think BS like this impresses anyone?

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > We are all painfully
> > > > > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
> >
> > > > > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same
> > > > > bullet
> > > > > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > > > > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > > > > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
> >
> > > > I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> > > > explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.
> >
> > > > John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> > > > recovered by a nurse.
> >
> > > Connally was suffering from a life threatening gunshot wound so his
> > > powers
> > > of perception are somewhat suspect. He may have assumed it was a bullet.
> > > Did the nurse claim she picked a bullet up from the floor?
> >
> > I have no idea. I only know that she told people it came from Connally's
> > gurney.
> >
> If you have no idea, it is just another glaring example of you
> assuming facts that are not in evidence.

That is total nonsense.

The fact that I do not know whether the nurse told people that she
picked the bullet up from the floor, does not in any conceivable way,
prove that I make false assumptions.

This is just pointless babblage.

> If the nurse didn't say she
> picked up a bullet from the guerney or the floor, you have no evidence
> that such a bullet existed.

That is totally illogical and makes no sense at all.

If she told anyone about picking the bullet up, it probably wasn't very
many. The FBI could not have carried out this scam if they had not
gotten her and at least a couple others to go along with them.

I go into great detail about that in the article. Why don't you read it,
and try to pay attention?

>
> > > But of course,
> > > you never consider all the possibilities. You ALWAYS gravitate to the
> > > conspiratorial one.
> >
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether she
> > picked it up from the floor or took it directly off the gurney. It is the
> > fact that she then showed it to the district attorney and gave it to
> > officer Nolan that settles the issue.
> >
> No, but it does matter WHAT she picked up whether it was from the
> floor or the guerney. I asked you to cite where she said she picked up
> a BULLET.

It's a pretty lame tactic to demand a citation that you know, doesn't
exist, especially since you just acknowledged that it doesn't matter where
the bullet came from.

She showed the bullet to Wade, and described it as a whole bullet from
Connally's "gurney" and "thigh", to three extremely reliable witnesses.

Why would it matter that we cannot cite her stating where the bullet came
from? We know that it came from John Connally, and that's all that really
matters.

> Do you have any such statement from her, or do you just
> assume she was referring to a bullet.

She showed the bullet to Wade and told Wade, Nolan and Stinson that it was
indeed a bullet from Connally's gurney and from his thigh. Even the FBI
admitted that it came from Connally's thigh in their interview of Nolan on
11/23/63.

Of course she was referring to a bullet.

> You also need to establish that
> the object she picked up off the floor was the object she gave to
> Nolan and not the wrist fragments that were removed during surgery.
> You need to connect all the dots and you have failed to do so.

John, you're making no sense at all.

She told three men that it was a single bullet. If that had been Bell, she
would have said the envelope contained fragments from Connally's arm.

Bell was adamant that she did NOT give her envelope to anyone in uniform.
She gave it to plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, after they
came into her office.

The FBI lied about that and they lied when they claimed that she said she
gave Nolan a SINGLE bullet fragment. That's because their problem was that
Nolan's envelope did indeed, contain a single fragment/bullet.

John is there some reason that you can ONLY make assertions that you
couldn't prove to save your life? Let's look at the scorecard so far.

1. All four of the men who originally examined the stretcher bullet
refused to verify that it was CE-399. The FBI would not release the
reasons for their refusals.

2. The man who found the stretcher bullet originally stated that it came
from a different stretcher than the one he brought down from the second
floor.

3. Parkland supervisor and ex-police officer O.P. Wright was adamant
that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the bullet from the
stretcher.

4. The FBI lied to the WC when they said that agent Odum got a
verification from the two civilians.

5. At least one and probably three sets of initials that were written on
the stretcher bullet are nowhere to be found on CE399.

6. The governor of Texas, the Dallas DA, officer Bobby Nolan and Conally
aide Bill Stinson all confirmed that the bullet which wounded Connally was
recovered on the second floor and given to Nolan. Wade stated that the
nurse was holding the bullet in her hand, that came from Connally's
gurney.

7. The FBI lied when they claimed that supervisor Bell said she gave a
single fragment to officer Nolan.


Ok, so instead of making more BS, unsupported assertions, why don't you
show us your evidence and testimony to support CE399 and explain all these
inconvenient witnesses, John? That way we can put yours on one side of the
scale and mine on the other.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Who had a theory that two different intact bullets were found at Parkland?
No one. That is a straw man argument. Boy, you're a real tough guy to
knock that down.

If you want to look for some kook proposing a second intact bullet look no
further than your hero Hoover who told LBJ that a whole bullet fell out of
the President's head at Bethesda. So where is THAT bullet?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2011 8:04 PM, jas wrote:

> On Oct 23, 10:27 pm, "Gary Combs"<glcco...@charter.net> wrote:
>> moot point anyway because CE 399 was forensically matched to Oswald's
>> Carcano to the exclusion of all other weap
>>
>> BULLSHIT even if it were, don't prove who fired the gun. I do believe he
>> was the scapecoat, but maybe at the time unwittingly, caught on soon,
>> though.
>>
>
> You CT guys really need to get another reactive catch- phrase. How
> about ROAD APPLES or HORSE PUCKY for a change?
>

We only choose euphemisms because the automatic censor will reject the
correct words.

> Yes, CE 399 was scientifically matched to Oswald's Carcano to the
> exclusion of all other weapons, as were all the other bullet fragments
> retrieved from the limo, Connally's wrist, and JFK's head.
>

No. They could only link the two large fragments found in the front seat
ballistically to the rifle because they had intact jackets.
You can't prove where the lead core fragments came from.
NAA is dead.

> What part of this do you not understand? Do you do nothing but read
> conspiracy books?
>

Why do you not understand CABL? Is that because you do nothing but read
WC defender books?

>
>

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d979cfef-5517-4f7b...@p14g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:

I answered this question previously. The stretcher bullet had nothing to
do with the assassination. Tomlinson was very specific that the stretcher
from which it fell, was not the one he brought down from the second floor.

Granted, this janitor caved in when he was pressured to change his story
or state that he wasn't sure, but his original, uncorrupted story was that
the bullet came from a different stretcher than the one he brought down.

Parkland treats hundreds of gunshot victims every year. That bullet came
from a different patient who had nothing to do with the assassination.



Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 26, 12:56 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d979cfef-5517-4f7b-97d3-8febb684a...@p14g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>  jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 7:43?am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well I can't argue there. The fragments recovered from surgery were
> > > not the bullet Tomlinson found. But let's play it your way. Let's
> > > pretend that an unnamed nurse found a whole bullet that came from
> > > Connally's guerney and that Tomlinson found a different bullet. That
> > > means two bullets were recovered at Parkland in addition to the
> > > fragmented bullet found in the limo. So under what shooting scenario
> > > would there be two whole bullets recovered outside the bodies of the
> > > two shooting victims? If you even attempt to answer this dilemma, it
> > > should prove to be quite entertaining.
>
> > Good retorical question. I'll answer for Harris, make it easy for
> > him:
>
> > Given the evidence we have in the JFK case, there couldn't be any
> > shooting scenario that could produce 2 nearly intact bullets found at
> > Parkland. Nil. None. Zipola.
>
> I answered this question previously.

Right, Bob. We've seen this movie before. Every time one of you CTs
gets confronted with a question for which you have no answer, you
either claim you've answered it before or tell the questioner to
google for that information themselves. Do you really think that gets
you off the hook?

> The stretcher bullet had nothing to
> do with the assassination. Tomlinson was very specific that the stretcher
> from which it fell, was not the one he brought down from the second floor.
>
> Granted, this janitor caved in when he was pressured to change his story
> or state that he wasn't sure, but his original, uncorrupted story was that
> the bullet came from a different stretcher than the one he brought down.
>

Just how was he pressured. He stated he thought the bullet came from
guerney A. Somebody asked him if it was possible it came from guerney
B and he said it was. Yes sir, Bob, they really twisted his arm,
didn't they.

> Parkland treats hundreds of gunshot victims every year. That bullet came
> from a different patient who had nothing to do with the assassination.
>

Right, Bob. I'm sure you have evidence to support that silly claim.
Just like you do for everything you claim.

[bigdog]

On Oct 25, 10:56 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <ab9366e4-1734-4c2a-8abf-64036197e...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

Then why do you do it?

> Do you really think BS like this impresses anyone?
>

It certainly hasn't impressed me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > We are all painfully
> > > > > > aware of this and have been for almost 50 years.
>
> > > > > > No, the only logical explanation is NOT that it was not the same
> > > > > > bullet
> > > > > > that Tomlinson recovered. Your's is an untrue statement. There can be
> > > > > > other explanations, but of course, again you're leaping to your lofty
> > > > > > sinister conspiratorial conclusions.
>
> > > > > I don't think this was a "goof", amigo. Perhaps you have another
> > > > > explanation for this than I do, and will share it with us.
>
> > > > > John Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney to the floor and was
> > > > > recovered by a nurse.
>
> > > > Connally was suffering from a life threatening gunshot wound so his
> > > > powers
> > > > of perception are somewhat suspect. He may have assumed it was a bullet.
> > > > Did the nurse claim she picked a bullet up from the floor?
>
> > > I have no idea. I only know that she told people it came from Connally's
> > > gurney.
>
> > If you have no idea, it is just another glaring example of you
> > assuming facts that are not in evidence.
>
> That is total nonsense.
>
> The fact that I do not know whether the nurse told people that she
> picked the bullet up from the floor, does not in any conceivable way,
> prove that I make false assumptions.
>

No, it just proves you are making baseless assumptions.

> This is just pointless babblage.
>

Pretty much describes your entire argument.

> > If the nurse didn't say she
> > picked up a bullet from the guerney or the floor, you have no evidence
> > that such a bullet existed.
>
> That is totally illogical and makes no sense at all.
>
> If she told anyone about picking the bullet up, it probably wasn't very
> many.

So now it is "if" she told anyone about picking up a bullet. So let me see
if I understand. Your whole case for a whole bullet being recovered by
this unnnamed nurse is an iffy assumption that she told a few people about
it. That's a really compelling case you've made Bob.

> The FBI could not have carried out this scam if they had not
> gotten her and at least a couple others to go along with them.
>

This whole fairy tale you are spinning is a scam and it looks sillier
the harder you try to save it.

> I go into great detail about that in the article. Why don't you read it,
> and try to pay attention?
>

If you want me to read your article, you need to establish some credibilty
first. You don't do by assuming so many things without being able to cite
any evidence to support them. All you do is base one false assumption on
another.

>
>
> > > > But of course,
> > > > you never consider all the possibilities. You ALWAYS gravitate to the
> > > > conspiratorial one.
>
> > > I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter whether she
> > > picked it up from the floor or took it directly off the gurney. It is the
> > > fact that she then showed it to the district attorney and gave it to
> > > officer Nolan that settles the issue.
>
> > No, but it does matter WHAT she picked up whether it was from the
> > floor or the guerney. I asked you to cite where she said she picked up
> > a BULLET.
>
> It's a pretty lame tactic to demand a citation that you know, doesn't
> exist,

THIS IS INCREDIBLE. If there is statement to cite, just where the hell
do you get the idea this unnamed nurse picked up a bullet. You are
making shit up.

> especially since you just acknowledged that it doesn't matter where
> the bullet came from.
>

So it doesn't matter that your theory is based on an unnamed nurse whom
you can't quote having picked up a bullet that is not in evidence from
some unknown place. Have I got that right?

> She showed the bullet to Wade, and described it as a whole bullet from
> Connally's "gurney" and "thigh", to three extremely reliable witnesses.
>

If you can't cite a quote from this unnamed nurse, how the hell do you
know what she described?

> Why would it matter that we cannot cite her stating where the bullet came
> from? We know that it came from John Connally, and that's all that really
> matters.
>

This is entering the realm of the bizarre. You are imagining things

that are not in evidence.

> > Do you have any such statement from her, or do you just
> > assume she was referring to a bullet.
>
> She showed the bullet to Wade and told Wade, Nolan and Stinson that it was
> indeed a bullet from Connally's gurney and from his thigh.

You know this even though you can't cite a quote from her. This is
getting comical.

> Even the FBI
> admitted that it came from Connally's thigh in their interview of Nolan on
> 11/23/63.
>

The FBI admitted a non-existent bullet came from Connally's thigh? I
don't suppose you can support that claim either.

> Of course she was referring to a bullet.
>

In her non-existent statement.

> > You also need to establish that
> > the object she picked up off the floor was the object she gave to
> > Nolan and not the wrist fragments that were removed during surgery.
> > You need to connect all the dots and you have failed to do so.
>
> John, you're making no sense at all.
>
> She told three men that it was a single bullet.

You don't know who "she" is and you can't cite a statement by her but you
claim "she" made such a statement. Do you have any idea how ridiculous
that is?

> If that had been Bell, she
> would have said the envelope contained fragments from Connally's arm.
>

OK, so we know this unnamed nurse was not Bell. You are really zeroing
in on who she was.

> Bell was adamant that she did NOT give her envelope to anyone in uniform.
> She gave it to plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, after they
> came into her office.
>
> The FBI lied about that and they lied when they claimed that she said she
> gave Nolan a SINGLE bullet fragment. That's because their problem was that
> Nolan's envelope did indeed, contain a single fragment/bullet.
>

I love how you accuse other people of lying when you can't cite any
evidence for your silly accusations. You are making it up. Every bit
of it.

You make one baseless assertion after another for which you even admit you
can't cite evidence and you claim I can't prove my assertions? This is
just too much. Everything I believe is based on hard evidence which really
does exist. Everything you believe is based on imaginary things.

> 1. All four of the men who originally examined the stretcher bullet
> refused to verify that it was CE-399. The FBI would not release the
> reasons for their refusals.
>

Your credibility on this issue is non-existent after you conveniently
omitted the fact that Elmer Todd did verify that his initials were on
CE399 and it was the bullet the gave to Robert Frazier. You can't quote a
single person who handled the bullet that Tomlinson found who said that
CE399 was not that bullet.

> 2. The man who found the stretcher bullet originally stated that it came
> from a different stretcher than the one he brought down from the second
> floor.
>

He thought it came from a different stretcher but he was not sure.

> 3. Parkland supervisor and ex-police officer O.P. Wright was adamant
> that CE-399 was shaped much differently than the bullet from the
> stretcher.
>

Why don't you quote his words. We don't believe yours.

> 4. The FBI lied to the WC when they said that agent Odum got a
> verification from the two civilians.
>

People who live in glass houses....

> 5. At least one and probably three sets of initials that were written on
> the stretcher bullet are nowhere to be found on CE399.
>

Complete bullshit. You are basing this on claims by some crackpot that he
can't see those initials on a PHOTOGRAPH of the bullet. The people who put
their initials on CE399 have verified that the initials are on the bullet.

> 6. The governor of Texas, the Dallas DA, officer Bobby Nolan and Conally
> aide Bill Stinson all confirmed that the bullet which wounded Connally was
> recovered on the second floor and given to Nolan. Wade stated that the
> nurse was holding the bullet in her hand, that came from Connally's
> gurney.
>

I notice you never quote any of your witnesses verbatim. We always get
your paraphrasing of what they said so you can twist their words to fit
your theory. You would have more credibility if you would quote them
directly, but if you did that, you couldn't make your case.

> 7. The FBI lied when they claimed that supervisor Bell said she gave a
> single fragment to officer Nolan.
>
> Ok, so instead of making more BS, unsupported assertions, why don't you
> show us your evidence and testimony to support CE399 and explain all these
> inconvenient witnesses, John? That way we can put yours on one side of the
> scale and mine on the other.
>

People whose positions you have distorted are not inconvenient
witnesses. Quoting them verbatim would be inconvenient for you.

[jas]

On Oct 25, 9:13 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 8:04 PM, jas wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 10:27 pm, "Gary Combs"<glcco...@charter.net>  wrote:
> >> moot point anyway because CE 399 was forensically matched to Oswald's
> >> Carcano to the exclusion of all other weap
>
> >> BULLSHIT even if it were, don't prove who fired the gun. I do believe he
> >> was the scapecoat, but maybe at the time unwittingly, caught on soon,
> >> though.
>
> > You CT guys really need to get another reactive catch- phrase. How
> > about ROAD APPLES or HORSE PUCKY for a change?
>
> We only choose euphemisms because the automatic censor will reject the
> correct words.

>
> > Yes, CE 399 was scientifically matched to Oswald's Carcano to the
> > exclusion of all other weapons, as were all the other bullet fragments
> > retrieved from the limo, Connally's wrist, and JFK's head.
>
> No. They could only link the two large fragments found in the front seat
> ballistically to the rifle because they had intact jackets.
> You can't prove where the lead core fragments came from.
> NAA is dead.

How else did lead core bullet material get to the crime scene? Someone
"willed" it there? CE 399 wasn't an almost whole bullet with lead core and
jacket material?

Please.

At the time NAA was the sound science of the era, and holds up to scutiny
today. No one has been able to debunk the NAA used in the assassination
investigation.

>
> > What part of this do you not understand? Do you do nothing but read
> > conspiracy books?
>
> Why do you not understand CABL?

What the heck does this mean? Please refrain from using ambiguous
acronymns.

>Is that because you do nothing but read
> WC defender books?

No, in order to knowledgeably and fairly conclude that Oswald acted
alone, I have to read and study CT stories too. That's what makes it
so interesting.

[Hank Sienzant]

I had a discussion with Bob on this a few months ago. It's his theory that
the Tomlinson bullet is unrelated to the assassination, and from another
shooting in Dallas treated earlier that day at Parkland.

Of course, he has no evidence there was another shooting treated earlier
that day at Parkland, nor that there was a bullet from that shooting that
just happened to fall out of the victim to be found by Tomlinson.

He simply assumes all this so he can 'close the loop' and argue that the
bullet found in Parkland was unrelated to the assassination and switched
while in federal custody for a bullet that tied back to Oswald's weapon.

Of course, if I understand his theory correctly, another whole bullet
recovered from surgery was also switched, this time for fragments, while
in Federal custody.

It's like a shell game, but with bullets.


Hank

[Robert Harris]

In article
<7be01054-199b-434c...@m17g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

What in holy hell is the matter with you???

You know very well that I never claimed that the stretcher bullet had
anything to do with the assassination.

You're just babbling and making no sense at all.




Robert Harris

[bigdog]

It shows that a good CT will go to any length, no matter how absurd,
to deny the rock solid and overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.
And then they claim to be in pursuit of the truth!!!

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bdea9448-fa89-4d93...@l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

In reply to my statement,

"This was a fairly serious offense and their main suspect was still alive
then. Those agents seriously risked letting the alleged perp walk, or at
the very least, having the bullet thrown out of court, especially after
formally refusing to confirm it."

You replied,

"Pure nonsense. An example of an amateur playing lawyer."

I took that to mean that you thought it was "pure nonsense" that
evidence could be thrown out of court, if the chain of custody was not
protected.

Obviously, you were flatly wrong, as even Dr. McAdams expert confirmed.
But if you did not mean that then tell us what you DID mean.

>
> > But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other arguments
> > which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
> > Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and Parkland
> > supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that the
> > real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
> > given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.
> >
> I did address those points.

I think we have much different definitions for the term, "address".

"Nolan did not handle a bullet. He handled a fragment. He mistakenly
thought it came from Connally's thigh when in fact in came from his
wrist."

Just blurting out a totally unsupported assertion without the slightest
justification is not what I call "addressing" an issue. I call that
running from it.

Why couldn't you at least address the fact that Connally, Wade and
Stinson, as well as the FBI report from 11/23/63, all corroborated
Nolan's recollection?

Or the fact that the FBI lied about their interview with Audrey Bell,
for the obvious purpose of trying to make it appear that she was the one
who gave Nolan an envelope?

In an HONEST exchange, both parties must address ALL the issues.

Evasion corrupts the process John. Why would you want to dodge the most
important facts surrounding this issue?

> This is just an example of witnesses
> getting things partially correct and in the case of Wade, someone who
> was getting all of his information second hand

No sir. He was reporting his first hand encounter with that nurse and
stated that she held a "bullet" in her hand.

"I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the
operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was
on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a
while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
assume that's the pristine bullet."


He was not talking about four tiny fragments, John. And they came from
surgery, NOT from the "gurney".

That same nurse told Nolan and Stinson that the envelope she brought
them, contained a single bullet from Connally's "gurney".

And John Connally himself stated that the nurse picked up a bullet that
fell from his "gurney".

That's FOUR men confirming exactly the same story, PLUS one Parkland
supervisor confirming that the FBI lied when they tried to claim it was
her envelope that was given to Nolan.

This is much like the original stretcher bullet witnesses - 100%
agreement, except now we're talking about 5 witnesses instead of 4.

> and got a number of
> things wrong. Wade was a witness to nothing. Everything he said was
> hearsay.

This is just babblage, John. You're trying to overcome facts with words.

And he said that he saw here holding the bullet in her hand. How
exactly, is that hearsay?

>
> But as long as we are on the subject of avoiding issues, I noticed
> that you failed to respond to my question as to why you chose to
> believe Todd over Frazier when Frazier testified that CE399 was the
> bullet Todd gave him, that he initialed it, and his initials were on
> the bullet while Todd never testified and his initials were not on the
> bullet.

I don't know how anyone could accept anything coming from the FBI after
they repeated lied about the key issues related to CE399.

Obviously, Frazier lied and Todd lied when he claimed to have verified
his nonexistent initials on CE399.

Whether he also lied about initialing the bullet, really doesn't matter.
Either way, CE399 could not have been the same bullet that Tomlinson
found. And that's all that really matters.







Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 9:24 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <7be01054-199b-434c-b0a9-026a584a8...@m17g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK, so you are claiming the bullet Tomlinson found just happened to be
lying on a guerney. Of course, you probably have no idea when the
previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER, so you
just assume there was such a victim and nobody noticed the bullet
until Tominson knocked it onto the floor. And by an amazing
coincidence, he got shot by a bullet that was so similar to CE399 that
Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the bullet he found. Even more
amazing that the bullet would have passed through this unnamed
shooting victim apparently without striking any bone because as CTs
have told us for years, even a copper jacketed bullet when striking
bone directly will deform badly, yet this bullet apparently barely had
enough energy to exit from this unnamed victim's body and lodge in his
clothing rather than into whatever object was behind him when he was
shot. It's understandable that CE399 would do this because it passed
through two torsos, a rib bone, a wrist bone, and into a thigh before
it lost its steam. But this magic bullet you have hypothesized barely
made it through your imaginary victim.

Then of course there is the curious condition of CE399. How do you
suppose it got flattened at the base. If as you allege, it was fired
into cotton wadding or water, any deformation would be slight and be
to the nose of the bullet, not the base. How do you suppose that got a
bullet to deform in such an odd way and why would they go to the
trouble of producing a bullet in that condition?

[Robert Harris]

In article
<303fb1c6-6925-4a9d...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 25, 10:43?am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 11:18?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:> In

Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to imply that it was illogical to
think that a bullet "just happened" to fall out of a victim, when you
believe the FBI's claim that this bullet "just happened" to fall out of
Connally?

Why are you guys always so desperate to find something to ridicule? Don't
you think it would be a lot more impressive to just discuss the facts and
evidence?

>
> He simply assumes all this so he can 'close the loop' and argue that the
> bullet found in Parkland was unrelated to the assassination and switched
> while in federal custody for a bullet that tied back to Oswald's weapon.
>
> Of course, if I understand his theory correctly, another whole bullet
> recovered from surgery was also switched, this time for fragments, while
> in Federal custody.

Instead of distorting and twisting what I said, why not just post a link
to the article and let people decide for themselves?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<9f7ae0b4-9f46-4526...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 25, 10:56?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ab9366e4-1734-4c2a-8abf-64036197e...@v8g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

My article contains more legitimate content, evidence and analysis than
you have posted in your entire life.

>
> > Do you really think BS like this impresses anyone?
> >
> It certainly hasn't impressed me.

Another zero.

Utter nonsense.

It is the statements by Connaly, Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell which prove
that the bullet was recovered by that nurse and given to Nolan.

And it is the statement of Connally, that tells us she picked the bullet
up from the floor.

That is not a baseless assumption, since Connally provided a very solid
basis for that conclusion.

You make no sense at all. Why are you posting all this pointless,
illogical gibberish??

>
> > This is just pointless babblage.
> >
> Pretty much describes your entire argument.

No sir. You just made a false statement, claiming there was no basis to
believe that this nurse recovered a bullet from the floor.

You are once again, flatly wrong.

>
> > > If the nurse didn't say she
> > > picked up a bullet from the guerney or the floor, you have no evidence
> > > that such a bullet existed.
> >
> > That is totally illogical and makes no sense at all.
> >
> > If she told anyone about picking the bullet up, it probably wasn't very
> > many.
>
> So now it is "if" she told anyone about picking up a bullet.

I never in my life stated that she told anyone. Why are you trying to
make the false insinuation that I changed my position?

This is the most ludicrous conversation I have had since the last time I
debated Zfilm alterationists in A.C.J.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Connally did not see WHAT she picked up. It was actually his cuff link.

[Anthony Marsh]

> OK, so you are claiming the bullet Tomlinson found just happened to be
> lying on a guerney. Of course, you probably have no idea when the

Tomlinson didn't say that. He said he found it on the floor.

> previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER, so you

Which previous gunshot victim? You mean from 1962? They just have
hundreds of bullets rolling around on the floor for decades?

> just assume there was such a victim and nobody noticed the bullet
> until Tominson knocked it onto the floor. And by an amazing
> coincidence, he got shot by a bullet that was so similar to CE399 that
> Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the bullet he found. Even more
> amazing that the bullet would have passed through this unnamed
> shooting victim apparently without striking any bone because as CTs
> have told us for years, even a copper jacketed bullet when striking
> bone directly will deform badly, yet this bullet apparently barely had
> enough energy to exit from this unnamed victim's body and lodge in his
> clothing rather than into whatever object was behind him when he was
> shot. It's understandable that CE399 would do this because it passed
> through two torsos, a rib bone, a wrist bone, and into a thigh before
> it lost its steam. But this magic bullet you have hypothesized barely
> made it through your imaginary victim.
>

And in the Australian shooting tests their bullet just plopped out of
the chest without hitting the wrist and bounced off the gel block.

> Then of course there is the curious condition of CE399. How do you
> suppose it got flattened at the base. If as you allege, it was fired

Maybe when they put it in a vise to drill into the base for testing?

> into cotton wadding or water, any deformation would be slight and be
> to the nose of the bullet, not the base. How do you suppose that got a

The Henry Hurt test bullet fired into a barrel of water looks a lot like
CE399.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<66737aa9-572b-4d86...@n38g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 27, 9:24?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7be01054-199b-434c-b0a9-026a584a8...@m17g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > ?bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK, so you are claiming the bullet Tomlinson found just happened to be
> lying on a guerney.

OIC, so it's perfectly reasonable that a bullet from Connally "just
happened to be lying on a gurney" but ridiculous if its anyone else's.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on that because your logic escapes
me.

> Of course, you probably have no idea when the
> previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER,

Get somebody at Parkland to tell me and stop saying that they can't
violate their "privacy" rules and I will be happy to report that for
you:-)

> so you
> just assume there was such a victim and nobody noticed the bullet
> until Tominson knocked it onto the floor.

What a terrible distortion of my analysis!

I have shown you a dozen verifiable reasons why that bullet could not have
been CE399. You know very well, why I came to the conclusions I did. Why
don't you address them instead of making things up?

And once again, your argument is totally fallacious. Why do you imply that
it is reasonable for a bullet to have been laying around from Connally and
falling to the floor, but not from anyone else??

Tomlinson was gone for a considerable period of time after he brought that
stretcher down from the second floor.

> And by an amazing
> coincidence, he got shot by a bullet that was so similar to CE399 that
> Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the bullet he found.

Yoohoo!! Earth to Mr. dog!

Tomlinson never in his life, said that the two bullets looked alike.
Bardwell Odum confirmed that the FBI lied when they claimed that Tomlinson
told him that.

And in fact, an FBI airtell, which they never showed the WC of course,
specifically stated that he and Wright refused to verify CE399, just like
the two Secret Service agents did.

> Even more
> amazing that the bullet would have passed through this unnamed
> shooting victim apparently without striking any bone because as CTs
> have told us for years, even a copper jacketed bullet when striking
> bone directly will deform badly, yet this bullet apparently barely had
> enough energy to exit from this unnamed victim's body and lodge in his
> clothing rather than into whatever object was behind him when he was
> shot.

Not necessarily.

This could have been the result of a simple error, if a nurse or doctor
layed a bullet down during surgery and forgot to bag it.

Emergency rooms can get rather hectic at times. Mistakes like that
happen.

> It's understandable that CE399 would do this because it passed
> through two torsos, a rib bone, a wrist bone, and into a thigh before
> it lost its steam. But this magic bullet you have hypothesized barely
> made it through your imaginary victim.

There is no reason whatsoever, to assume that is how the bullet got
there.

>
> Then of course there is the curious condition of CE399. How do you
> suppose it got flattened at the base.

Bullets fired into water or wadding usually exhibit some bending or
deformation. CE399 is a perfect match.


Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 3:32 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <303fb1c6-6925-4a9d-b9c5-5a6f5f36b...@a7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  Hank Sienzant <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>

> Don't you think it's a bit ridiculous to imply that it was illogical to
> think that a bullet "just happened" to fall out of a victim, when you
> believe the FBI's claim that this bullet "just happened" to fall out of
> Connally?
>
> Why are you guys always so desperate to find something to ridicule?

You don't make it too difficult to find.

> Don't
> you think it would be a lot more impressive to just discuss the facts and
> evidence?
>

Yes I do. When are you going to start?

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 2:48 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <bdea9448-fa89-4d93-8be1-3593c5a2a...@l10g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,

Well since you have misrepresented what various witnesses have said, I
should not be surprised that you would misrepresent what I said. I did not
say that it was law enforcement was not required to maintain chain of
custody. The nonsense I was referring to was your claim that the
investigators failed to do that. That is just you playing lawyer. Had the
case gone to court, the chain would have been established from Tomlinson
to whomever was called up to present it to the court. Each person in the
chain would testify from whom they received the bullet and to whom they
gave it to, establishing the chain.

>
>
> > > But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other arguments
> > > which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
> > > Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and Parkland
> > > supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that the
> > > real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
> > > given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.
>
> > I did address those points.
>
> I think we have much different definitions for the term, "address".
>
> "Nolan did not handle a bullet. He handled a fragment. He mistakenly
> thought it came from Connally's thigh when in fact in came from his
> wrist."
>
> Just blurting out a totally unsupported assertion without the slightest
> justification is not what I call "addressing" an issue. I call that
> running from it.
>

The King of Unsupported Assertions has accused me of stealing a page
from his playbook.

> Why couldn't you at least address the fact that Connally, Wade and
> Stinson, as well as the FBI report from 11/23/63, all corroborated
> Nolan's recollection?
>

Connally was unconscious when the fragments were removed from his wrist,
and he was suffering from a severe gunshot wound when he heard what he
assumed was a bullet drop to the floor and picked up by a nurse. He never
saw that object and only assumed it was the bullet that had fallen from
his thigh. The other witnesses were all operating under the same false
impression, that a bullet came from Connally's thigh when in fact only
fragments were removed from his wrist. When one person gets a false
impression of what happened and then tells another person, that person
gets the same misinformation.

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 3:34 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <9f7ae0b4-9f46-4526-b231-5f6f1cea6...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Which statement by any of these witnesses says they saw a whole
bullet. And please, their words, not yours.

> And it is the statement of Connally, that tells us she picked the bullet
> up from the floor.
>

Did Connally see a bullet.

> That is not a baseless assumption, since Connally provided a very solid
> basis for that conclusion.
>

It is Connally's assumption it was a bullet he heard hit the floor.

> You make no sense at all. Why are you posting all this pointless,
> illogical gibberish??
>

Trying to keep up with you but that's almost impossible.

>
>
> > > This is just pointless babblage.
>
> > Pretty much describes your entire argument.
>
> No sir. You just made a false statement, claiming there was no basis to
> believe that this nurse recovered a bullet from the floor.
>
> You are once again, flatly wrong.
>

Did anyone see Nurse X pick up a bullet? Did anyone see Nurse X give a
whole bullet to someone? Did Nurse X say she picked up a whole bullet? Did
Nurse X say she gave a whole bullet to someone?

>
>
> > > > If the nurse didn't say she
> > > > picked up a bullet from the guerney or the floor, you have no evidence
> > > > that such a bullet existed.
>
> > > That is totally illogical and makes no sense at all.
>
> > > If she told anyone about picking the bullet up, it probably wasn't very
> > > many.
>
> > So now it is "if" she told anyone about picking up a bullet.
>
> I never in my life stated that she told anyone. Why are you trying to
> make the false insinuation that I changed my position?
>

Well I guess you answered my last two questions. Nurse X never told anyone
about a bullet. Now all you have to do is find a witness who either saw
Nurse X pick up a whole bullet or saw Nurse X give a whole bullet to
someone else? Got anybody?

> This is the most ludicrous conversation I have had since the last time I
> debated Zfilm alterationists in A.C.J.
>

This is the most lucicrous conversation I have had since I debated
Rossley.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<f5483ee0-9e62-49f9...@s10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

I did not such thing.

> I
> should not be surprised that you would misrepresent what I said.

How the hell did I misrepresent you when I cited you verbatim??

> I did not
> say that it was law enforcement was not required to maintain chain of
> custody. The nonsense I was referring to was your claim that the
> investigators failed to do that.

Those sentences are pure gibberish. I have no idea what you are saying.

The investigators failed to do what??

> That is just you playing lawyer. Had the
> case gone to court, the chain would have been established from Tomlinson
> to whomever was called up to present it to the court. Each person in the
> chain would testify from whom they received the bullet and to whom they
> gave it to, establishing the chain.

Utter nonsense. Rowley and Johnson would have broken the chain by
refusing to verify CE399.

It's not enough to state that you saw "A" bullet. That means absolutely
nothing. The witnesses needs to verify "THE" bullet.

>
> >
> >
> > > > But what really bothers me is that he repeatedly deletes other
> > > > arguments
> > > > which he knows he can't even make a lame response to. The statements of
> > > > Gov Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan, Connally aide Stinson and
> > > > Parkland
> > > > supervisor Audrey Bell, paint a very clear picture which proves that
> > > > the
> > > > real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and
> > > > given to Nolan, who delivered it that evening to the DPD.
> >
> > > I did address those points.
> >
> > I think we have much different definitions for the term, "address".
> >
> > "Nolan did not handle a bullet. He handled a fragment. He mistakenly
> > thought it came from Connally's thigh when in fact in came from his
> > wrist."
> >
> > Just blurting out a totally unsupported assertion without the slightest
> > justification is not what I call "addressing" an issue. I call that
> > running from it.
> >
>
> The King of Unsupported Assertions has accused me of stealing a page
> from his playbook.

Really?

Why don't you cite an example or two of my unsupported assertions -
verbatim please.

>
> > Why couldn't you at least address the fact that Connally, Wade and
> > Stinson, as well as the FBI report from 11/23/63, all corroborated
> > Nolan's recollection?
> >
>
> Connally was unconscious when the fragments were removed from his wrist,

What does that have to do with the bullet that the nurse retrieved???

You make no sense at all.

> and he was suffering from a severe gunshot wound when he heard what he
> assumed was a bullet drop to the floor and picked up by a nurse. He never
> saw that object

WOW!!

And I thought you did zero research.

Would you mind posting a cite on that? I didn't realize that he never
saw the bullet.

> and only assumed it was the bullet that had fallen from
> his thigh.

You got me there. Maybe the bullet fell from his ass!

> The other witnesses were all operating under the same false
> impression, that a bullet came from Connally's thigh when in fact only
> fragments were removed from his wrist.

I guess they all just suffered from the same delusion eh?

Something in the water perhaps?

> When one person gets a false
> impression of what happened and then tells another person, that person
> gets the same misinformation.

No sir, they didn't get that information from one another. They were
each very specific that they got it from the nurse, who was undoubtedly,
the one who retrieved the bullet.

John, you're getting beyond desperate. You need to stop making
assertions that you couldn't prove or justify, to save your life.

The evidence proves beyond all doubt that the FBI repeatedly lied and
that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second
and given to officer Nolan.






Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 28, 11:43 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <f5483ee0-9e62-49f9-83be-c776c3620...@s10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Did the nurse tell them it was a bullet that was picked up off the
floor or one removed during surgery?

> John, you're getting beyond desperate. You need to stop making
> assertions that you couldn't prove or justify, to save your life.
>

I'm not making assertions. I am pointing out the absurdity of yours.

> The evidence proves beyond all doubt that the FBI repeatedly lied and
> that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second
> and given to officer Nolan.
>

I'm sure you have managed to convince yourself of that, despite all
evidence to the contrary.

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <66737aa9-572b-4d86-83d6-3e3f7a703...@n38g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

It is more than logical since the bullet was ballisticly matched to a
rifle found behind Connally's position when he was shot and where a
witnesse saw shots fired from. The bullet would only have been on the
stretcher a short time before discovered by Tomlinson. You on the other
hand want us to believe this bullet was lying on one of the guerneys for
an indefinite period of time, nobody saw it, and by a remarkable
coincidence looked like CE399.

> > Of course, you probably have no idea when the
> > previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER,
>
> Get somebody at Parkland to tell me and stop saying that they can't
> violate their "privacy" rules and I will be happy to report that for
> you:-)
>

In other words, you are guessing.

> > so you
> > just assume there was such a victim and nobody noticed the bullet
> > until Tominson knocked it onto the floor.
>
> What a terrible distortion of my analysis!
>
> I have shown you a dozen verifiable reasons why that bullet could not have
> been CE399. You know very well, why I came to the conclusions I did. Why
> don't you address them instead of making things up?
>

You have given us no reason to doubt the authenticity of CE399 despite
dozens of feable attempts.

> And once again, your argument is totally fallacious. Why do you imply that
> it is reasonable for a bullet to have been laying around from Connally and
> falling to the floor, but not from anyone else??
>

I just explained that one.

> Tomlinson was gone for a considerable period of time after he brought that
> stretcher down from the second floor.
>
> > And by an amazing
> > coincidence, he got shot by a bullet that was so similar to CE399 that
> > Tomlinson said that CE399 looked like the bullet he found.
>
> Yoohoo!! Earth to Mr. dog!
>
> Tomlinson never in his life, said that the two bullets looked alike.
> Bardwell Odum confirmed that the FBI lied when they claimed that Tomlinson
> told him that.
>

Odum said in 2002 he didnt remember having done that.

> And in fact, an FBI airtell, which they never showed the WC of course,

The classic Harris innuendo.

> specifically stated that he and Wright refused to verify CE399, just like
> the two Secret Service agents did.
>

Show me where they used the word "refused".

> > Even more
> > amazing that the bullet would have passed through this unnamed
> > shooting victim apparently without striking any bone because as CTs
> > have told us for years, even a copper jacketed bullet when striking
> > bone directly will deform badly, yet this bullet apparently barely had
> > enough energy to exit from this unnamed victim's body and lodge in his
> > clothing rather than into whatever object was behind him when he was
> > shot.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> This could have been the result of a simple error, if a nurse or doctor
> layed a bullet down during surgery and forgot to bag it.
>

So it is OK for you to assume that these people forgot to follow accepted
procedures but if an investigator didn't follow what you believe was a
standard procedure, that is evidence of cover up.

> Emergency rooms can get rather hectic at times. Mistakes like that
> happen.
>

I see. A conspiracy theory can accept that humans make mistakes but if
anyone who took part in the investigation made a mistake, that is evidence
of a cover up. I don't suppose you think that people like Stinson, Nolan,
or Wade could have been mistaken about what they believed.

> > It's understandable that CE399 would do this because it passed
> > through two torsos, a rib bone, a wrist bone, and into a thigh before
> > it lost its steam. But this magic bullet you have hypothesized barely
> > made it through your imaginary victim.
>
> There is no reason whatsoever, to assume that is how the bullet got
> there.
>

When have you ever needed a reason to assume? Do you know of any copper
jacketed ammunition that is so low powered it would not easily pass
completely through a victim if it struck no bone?

>
>
> > Then of course there is the curious condition of CE399. How do you
> > suppose it got flattened at the base.
>
> Bullets fired into water or wadding usually exhibit some bending or
> deformation. CE399 is a perfect match.
>

I guess that statement sounds good to you and you need to stake out that
position to save your silly theory. Can you support your claim that a
bullet fired into wadding or water would flatten at the base, rather than
the nose which would take the brunt of any impact? Can you support your
claim that CE399 was fired into wadding or water? Guess which choice I am
betting on. I'm also betting you won't admit you can't.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<a3f426c7-53cd-44ae...@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 27, 3:34?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9f7ae0b4-9f46-4526-b231-5f6f1cea6...@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Why do you continue to demand that I cite things that I never claimed?

You're playing games, john. After a while it gets tedious and very
predictable.

>
> > And it is the statement of Connally, that tells us she picked the bullet
> > up from the floor.
> >
>
> Did Connally see a bullet.

How else could he have know what the nurse picked up? Your tactics are
pathetic.


"Bill said he almost got run over by a red car."

"Yeah, but he never said he SAW a red car - na, na na na naaaa."

>
> > That is not a baseless assumption, since Connally provided a very solid
> > basis for that conclusion.
> >
>
> It is Connally's assumption it was a bullet he heard hit the floor.

So, you have decided that he didn't see the bullet and that he just
guessed that it was. Is that it?

How exactly did you come to that strange conclusion John - other than
through sheer desperation:-)

Connally did not say that he "thought" it was a bullet, or he "guessed"
it was a bullet or any other qualifier. He said,

"It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed though my back,
chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.".


More importantly, he was corroborated by DA Wade, who then encountered the
nurse who held that bullet in her hand and told him that it came from
Connally's gurney - just as she told Nolan and Stinson.

You're not going to talk your way out of this, amigo.

>
> > You make no sense at all. Why are you posting all this pointless,
> > illogical gibberish??
> >
>
> Trying to keep up with you but that's almost impossible.

It is not illogical to believe 5 extremely reliable witnesses who fully
corroborated one another.

It is illogical to pretend that they didn't really experience or see
what they claimed.

>
> >
> >
> > > > This is just pointless babblage.
> >
> > > Pretty much describes your entire argument.
> >
> > No sir. You just made a false statement, claiming there was no basis to
> > believe that this nurse recovered a bullet from the floor.
> >
> > You are once again, flatly wrong.
> >
>
> Did anyone see Nurse X pick up a bullet?

Yes, John Connally did.

> Did anyone see Nurse X give a
> whole bullet to someone?

Yes, Wade saw the bullet in her hand and she showed it to Stinson and gave
it to Nolan, clearly stating that it contained a whole bullet from
Connally's gurney.

Do you really think this was nurse bell who had just placed four tiny
fragments into a clear plastic box and then placed the box into an
envelope, and then wrote on the envelope that it contained "fragments"
from Connally's "right arm"???



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Simple, he ASSuMEd.

>
> "Bill said he almost got run over by a red car."
>
> "Yeah, but he never said he SAW a red car - na, na na na naaaa."
>
>
>>
>>> That is not a baseless assumption, since Connally provided a very solid
>>> basis for that conclusion.
>>>
>>
>> It is Connally's assumption it was a bullet he heard hit the floor.
>
> So, you have decided that he didn't see the bullet and that he just
> guessed that it was. Is that it?
>

Yes. Was Connally just guessing when he wrote in his book that all the
Secret Service agents jumped out of Halfback and ran to the TSBD?
Or did he see it?

> How exactly did you come to that strange conclusion John - other than
> through sheer desperation:-)
>

He was flat on his back.

> Connally did not say that he "thought" it was a bullet, or he "guessed"
> it was a bullet or any other qualifier. He said,
>
> "It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed though my back,
> chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.".
>

He doesn't say he SAW it.

>
> More importantly, he was corroborated by DA Wade, who then encountered the
> nurse who held that bullet in her hand and told him that it came from
> Connally's gurney - just as she told Nolan and Stinson.
>
> You're not going to talk your way out of this, amigo.
>
>>
>>> You make no sense at all. Why are you posting all this pointless,
>>> illogical gibberish??
>>>
>>
>> Trying to keep up with you but that's almost impossible.
>
>
> It is not illogical to believe 5 extremely reliable witnesses who fully
> corroborated one another.
>

Never rely on witnesses. It is not corroboration if they just repeat what
the other person told them.

> It is illogical to pretend that they didn't really experience or see
> what they claimed.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This is just pointless babblage.
>>>
>>>> Pretty much describes your entire argument.
>>>
>>> No sir. You just made a false statement, claiming there was no basis to
>>> believe that this nurse recovered a bullet from the floor.
>>>
>>> You are once again, flatly wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Did anyone see Nurse X pick up a bullet?
>
> Yes, John Connally did.
>
>
>> Did anyone see Nurse X give a
>> whole bullet to someone?
>
> Yes, Wade saw the bullet in her hand and she showed it to Stinson and gave
> it to Nolan, clearly stating that it contained a whole bullet from
> Connally's gurney.
>

Or an envelope.

[bigdog]

On Oct 31, 8:35 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <a3f426c7-53cd-44ae-b58b-f7f0f6647...@n13g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

OK, so if none of these witnesses said they saw a whole bullet, on
what basis do you claim the nurse gave Nolan a whole bullet?

>
>
> > > And it is the statement of Connally, that tells us she picked the bullet
> > > up from the floor.
>
> > Did Connally see a bullet.
>
> How else could he have know what the nurse picked up? Your tactics are
> pathetic.
>

He could not have known. That is the point. He assumed it was a
bullet. You are assuming it was a bullet. But by your own admission,
no witness SAID they saw a bullet.

> "Bill said he almost got run over by a red car."
>
> "Yeah, but he never said he SAW a red car - na, na na na naaaa."
>
>
>
> > > That is not a baseless assumption, since Connally provided a very solid
> > > basis for that conclusion.
>
> > It is Connally's assumption it was a bullet he heard hit the floor.
>
> So, you have decided that he didn't see the bullet and that he just
> guessed that it was. Is that it?
>

Pretty much. If Connally didn't say he saw a bullet that was picked up
by the nurse, why should I believe he saw a nurse pick up a bullet.
Why would you believe it.

> How exactly did  you come to that strange conclusion John - other than
> through sheer desperation:-)
>

My conclusion is I don't know what the nurse picked up. You don't know
either. You are assuming it was a bullet. How did you come to that
strange conclusion.

> Connally did not say that he "thought" it was a bullet, or he "guessed"
> it was a bullet or any other qualifier. He said,
>
> "It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed though my back,
> chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh.".
>

So because he said that, it makes it a fact. That was probably the
impression he had. His statement would be more believeable if he said
he actually saw the bullet. He never said that.

> More importantly, he was corroborated by DA Wade, who then encountered the
> nurse who held that bullet in her hand and told him that it came from
> Connally's gurney - just as she told Nolan and Stinson.
>

You love to do this. You like to paraphrase what these people said
rather than quote them directly. But if you used their words instead
of your own, you couldn't make your case.

> You're not going to talk your way out of this, amigo.
>

I have nothing to talk my way out of. You are the one who has painted
yourself into a corner by making claims you can't substantiate.

>
>
> > > You make no sense at all. Why are you posting all this pointless,
> > > illogical gibberish??
>
> > Trying to keep up with you but that's almost impossible.
>
> It is not illogical to believe 5 extremely reliable witnesses who fully
> corroborated one another.
>

None of whom said they saw a bullet. At least that seems to be your
latest version.

> It is illogical to pretend that they didn't really experience or see
> what they claimed.  
>

Let's see if we can pin you down. Did any of these witnesses SAY they
saw a whole bullet? If so, please quote them saying that.

>
>
> > > > > This is just pointless babblage.
>
> > > > Pretty much describes your entire argument.
>
> > > No sir. You just made a false statement, claiming there was no basis to
> > > believe that this nurse recovered a bullet from the floor.
>
> > > You are once again, flatly wrong.
>
> > Did anyone see Nurse X pick up a bullet?
>
> Yes, John Connally did.
>
> > Did anyone see Nurse X give a
> > whole bullet to someone?
>
> Yes, Wade saw the bullet in her hand and she showed it to Stinson and gave
> it to Nolan, clearly stating that it contained a whole bullet from
> Connally's gurney.
>

At the beginning of this reply, you denied claiming that any of these
people said they saw a whole bullet. Now you seem to be claiming that
they did. So which is it. Is it really your position that these people
saw a whole bullet but none of the said they saw a whole bullet.

> Do you really think this was nurse bell who had just placed four tiny
> fragments into a clear plastic box and then placed the box into an
> envelope, and then wrote on the envelope that it contained "fragments"
> from Connally's "right arm"???
>

I don't know who that nurse was and neither do you. You are guessing
that the nurse who picked up the object from the floor was the one who
passed it on to Nolan.

[David Von Pein]

There is also the Warren Commission testimony of one of Connally's
doctors, Charles Gregory, which is testimony that a CTer like Bob
Harris would certainly want to avoid in his zeal to believe that a
nurse picked up a bullet in the operating room:


DR. GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all.
Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile
within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we
suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas
where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

--------

Now, let's just imagine for a second that Robert Harris is correct,
and that a nurse had picked up a whole bullet that fell out of
Governor Connally----

Given those circumstances, PLUS the conditions that Dr. Gregory
described in the testimony I just quoted above (i.e., "We suggested
that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he
had been to see if it could be...found"), don't you think that just
maybe the nuerse with the bullet would have spoken up and said to Dr.
Gregory (or somebody) -- "Oh, yes. I picked up a bullet off the floor
in the OR"?

Instead, the nurse never says a word when such a search of Connally's
belongings is made on 11/22/63.

Bottom Line Truth:

No bullet was found in the operating room.

The only bullet associated in any way at all with John Connally's
gunshot injuries is Bullet CE399. And I think even Robert Harris knows
this to be true (even if he won't admit it).

[Robert Harris]

In article
<8dbf1f15-8dbc-43a2...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

You need to stop making statements that cannot prove to save your life.

Your assertion requires PROOF. But the facts are that EVERYONE who
originally handled that bullet refused to verify that it was CE399.

And the next guy in the chain of possession, lied claiming his initials
were on CE399. But they aren't. You can see that for yourself. That's
FIVE consecutive negatives in the chain of possession and 100% of the
relevant witnesses.

How could even the most radical lone nut fanatic believe that CE399 was
the same bullet?

> The bullet would only have been on the
> stretcher a short time before discovered by Tomlinson. You on the other
> hand want us to believe this bullet was lying on one of the guerneys for
> an indefinite period of time, nobody saw it, and by a remarkable
> coincidence looked like CE399.

It DIDN'T look like CE399. O.P. Wright was adamant that the stretcher
bullet had a sharp tip and was shaped much differently. His conclusion
BTW was confirmed by Nathan Pool who told the HSCA that he was with
Tomlinson at the time, and that the stretcher bullet had a sharp tip.

Tomlinson obviously thought they were different too, or he wouldn't have
refused the FBI's attempt to get a confirmation from him.

You have ZERO legitimate evidence to support your assertion that the
bullets looked the same.

>
> > > Of course, you probably have no idea when the
> > > previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER,
> >
> > Get somebody at Parkland to tell me and stop saying that they can't
> > violate their "privacy" rules and I will be happy to report that for
> > you:-)
> >
>
> In other words, you are guessing.

ROFLMAO!!


Every relevant witness in the case outside of the FBI has confirmed that
these were not the same bullets, and I am "guessing"???

You seem to think that you can just ignore every relevant fact and
witness and continue to blurt out unsupported assertions. Well, I guess
that's about as good as one can do under totally hopeless conditions.










Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/1/2011 12:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> There is also the Warren Commission testimony of one of Connally's
> doctors, Charles Gregory, which is testimony that a CTer like Bob
> Harris would certainly want to avoid in his zeal to believe that a
> nurse picked up a bullet in the operating room:
>
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all.
> Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile
> within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we
> suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas
> where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."
>

And you refuse to deal with Dr. Shaw's statement recorded on TV that
Connally still had a bullet in his thigh and they would remove it later?
Was he lying or just mistaken? Did he say bullet when he meant fragment?
Do you know that sometimes doctors decide it is safer just to leave the
bullet in the patient?

Is the Youtube video on YOUR web site or do you refuse to post it because
it might destroy your carefully crafted theory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY

How many times will you duck my questions because they destroy your
theory?

> --------
>
> Now, let's just imagine for a second that Robert Harris is correct,
> and that a nurse had picked up a whole bullet that fell out of
> Governor Connally----
>
> Given those circumstances, PLUS the conditions that Dr. Gregory
> described in the testimony I just quoted above (i.e., "We suggested
> that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he
> had been to see if it could be...found"), don't you think that just
> maybe the nuerse with the bullet would have spoken up and said to Dr.
> Gregory (or somebody) -- "Oh, yes. I picked up a bullet off the floor
> in the OR"?
>

Not if she was not still in the room. Not if she was taught to not
interrupt and distract the doctors when they were working.

> Instead, the nurse never says a word when such a search of Connally's
> belongings is made on 11/22/63.
>

Who made that search and exactly where?
Isn't attempted murder a crime? So shouldn't the police have taken
Connally's clothes as evidence?

> Bottom Line Truth:
>
> No bullet was found in the operating room.
>

I think the nurse picked up his cuff link which went missing.
Can you argue against that?

> The only bullet associated in any way at all with John Connally's
> gunshot injuries is Bullet CE399. And I think even Robert Harris knows
> this to be true (even if he won't admit it).
>

Some of us think that CE567 and CE569 are associated with Connally's
wrist wound.

Humes and the other doctors all thought that the first shot went through
Kennedy and then Connally's chest and fell out intact, then the second
bullet hit Connally's wrist and broke up.

the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI_2998.pdf

I have never seen you deal with this or even acknowledge it.
You certainly won't post documents like that on your Web site.

[bigdog]

On Nov 1, 12:57 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <8dbf1f15-8dbc-43a2-942e-945fa2610...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

This is just you parsing their words to make it seem like they were
denying it was the same bullet they handled. They all said it looked like
the one they handled and gave to the next person in the chain. How could
any of them have made a positive ID of a bullet they hadn't seen for 6
months except for those, like Todd, who initialed the bullet and saw his
initials on CE399.

> And the next guy in the chain of possession, lied claiming his initials
> were on CE399. But they aren't.

Just because somebody gave testimony that doesn't fit your wacky theory
doesn't make him a liar. Just because the initials don't appear in a
photograph, doesn't mean they aren't there. Not one witness who handled
the bullet found by Tomlinson has denied CE399 is that bullet.

> You can see that for yourself.

That's just the point. Scratches made into hard metal like copper are not
necessarily going to show up in a photo. They might even be hard to spot
if you had the actual bullet. You might need to know exactly where the
initials were made to be able to spot them. Todd knew were he placed his
initials and was able to spot them. If every mark on a bullet showed up in
photographs, ballistics experts could use photographs of bullets to do the
ballistic matching. Of course they can't do that because those scratches
made by barrel of the gun aren't going to be seen in photographs, You have
to have the actual bullet. Photographs are nothing more than facsimiles of
actual objects. Even the highest quality photos aren't going to pick up
extremely fine detail. That's why you need to examine the bullet itself to
know what marks are on it. Todd did that and testified under oath the
CE399 was the bullet he received and passed up the chain.

> That's
> FIVE consecutive negatives in the chain of possession and 100% of the
> relevant witnesses.
>

As I said, not one of them denied CE399 was the bullet they originally
handled.

> How could even the most radical lone nut fanatic believe that CE399 was
> the same bullet?
>

I don't know. I guess because we can add 2 + 2 and arrive at 4.

> > The bullet would only have been on the
> > stretcher a short time before discovered by Tomlinson. You on the other
> > hand want us to believe this bullet was lying on one of the guerneys for
> > an indefinite period of time, nobody saw it, and by a remarkable
> > coincidence looked like CE399.
>
> It DIDN'T look like CE399. O.P. Wright was adamant that the stretcher
> bullet had a sharp tip and was shaped much differently. His conclusion
> BTW was confirmed by Nathan Pool who told the HSCA that he was with
> Tomlinson at the time, and that the stretcher bullet had a sharp tip.
>
> Tomlinson obviously thought they were different too, or he wouldn't have
> refused the FBI's attempt to get a confirmation from him.
>

I love how you read into people's statements what you need them to have
said rather than what they actually said. Tomlinson, who found the bullet
originally, said it looked like the same bullet.

> You have ZERO legitimate evidence to support your assertion that the
> bullets looked the same.
>

You mean other than the statements of the people who saw the original
bullet.

>
>
> > > > Of course, you probably have no idea when the
> > > > previous gunshot victim had been brought in the Parkland ER,
>
> > > Get somebody at Parkland to tell me and stop saying that they can't
> > > violate their "privacy" rules and I will be happy to report that for
> > > you:-)
>
> > In other words, you are guessing.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
> Every relevant witness in the case outside of the FBI has confirmed that
> these were not the same bullets, and I am "guessing"???
>

You have progressed from misrepresenting what the witnesses said to
completely making up the things you claim they have said. QUOTE one
witness who said CE399 was not the bullet they handled. Of course you
can't. You never use these witnesses' actual words. You would rather
misrepresent what they testified to. If you can make your argument by
using the witnesses' actual words, why don't you?

> You seem to think that you can just ignore every relevant fact and
> witness and continue to blurt out unsupported assertions. Well, I guess
> that's about as good as one can do under totally hopeless conditions.
>

How would you know? You never present any relevant facts.

[Anthony Marsh]

Great. Maybe it LOOKED LIKE a WCC M-C bullet because they wanted to
plant an Oswald bullet linking him to the crime.

>> And the next guy in the chain of possession, lied claiming his initials
>> were on CE399. But they aren't.
>
> Just because somebody gave testimony that doesn't fit your wacky theory
> doesn't make him a liar. Just because the initials don't appear in a
> photograph, doesn't mean they aren't there. Not one witness who handled
> the bullet found by Tomlinson has denied CE399 is that bullet.
>

Except for the people who did, including Tomlinson.

>> You can see that for yourself.
>
> That's just the point. Scratches made into hard metal like copper are not
> necessarily going to show up in a photo. They might even be hard to spot

Then how do you explain that even YOU can clearly see the FBI agent
marks on CE399 on the NA photos?
Is that only because someone enhanced them for you? You had never looked
at them before.

> if you had the actual bullet. You might need to know exactly where the
> initials were made to be able to spot them. Todd knew were he placed his
> initials and was able to spot them. If every mark on a bullet showed up in
> photographs, ballistics experts could use photographs of bullets to do the
> ballistic matching. Of course they can't do that because those scratches
> made by barrel of the gun aren't going to be seen in photographs, You have

We aren't talking about the scratching caused by the barrel, but in fact
those are photographs and the photographs are presented as evidence of a
match.
You haven't seen the ballistics evidence in person yourself and yet you
accept the FBI's photographs of the match.

> to have the actual bullet. Photographs are nothing more than facsimiles of
> actual objects. Even the highest quality photos aren't going to pick up
> extremely fine detail. That's why you need to examine the bullet itself to

They pick up the ballistics match. Then again you probably have not seen
the photos from the WC volumes.

> know what marks are on it. Todd did that and testified under oath the
> CE399 was the bullet he received and passed up the chain.
>

Fine, so when anyone testifies to something that alone is absolute proof
that it is true?

>> That's
>> FIVE consecutive negatives in the chain of possession and 100% of the
>> relevant witnesses.
>>
>
> As I said, not one of them denied CE399 was the bullet they originally
> handled.
>
>> How could even the most radical lone nut fanatic believe that CE399 was
>> the same bullet?
>>
>
> I don't know. I guess because we can add 2 + 2 and arrive at 4.
>

No, what you do is ASSuME.

>>> The bullet would only have been on the
>>> stretcher a short time before discovered by Tomlinson. You on the other
>>> hand want us to believe this bullet was lying on one of the guerneys for
>>> an indefinite period of time, nobody saw it, and by a remarkable
>>> coincidence looked like CE399.
>>
>> It DIDN'T look like CE399. O.P. Wright was adamant that the stretcher
>> bullet had a sharp tip and was shaped much differently. His conclusion
>> BTW was confirmed by Nathan Pool who told the HSCA that he was with
>> Tomlinson at the time, and that the stretcher bullet had a sharp tip.
>>
>> Tomlinson obviously thought they were different too, or he wouldn't have
>> refused the FBI's attempt to get a confirmation from him.
>>
>
> I love how you read into people's statements what you need them to have
> said rather than what they actually said. Tomlinson, who found the bullet
> originally, said it looked like the same bullet.
>

Looked liked does not mean it was exactly the same bullet. We can take 2
WCC bullets out of the same box and you would not be able to tell which
is which.

>> You have ZERO legitimate evidence to support your assertion that the
>> bullets looked the same.
>>
>
> You mean other than the statements of the people who saw the original
> bullet.
>

You reject those.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<0e240513-1b6c-42c7...@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

She told Wade and Nolan it came from Connally's gurney. Why are you
asking me this? You read the article.

It is important that they heard her say that, first because it is not
something they would have just assumed or guessed. The natural
presumption would have been that it was recovered during surgery, which
is what Stinson assumed.

And it is also important because it corroborates Governor Connally who
said that the bullet fell from his gurney and was picked up by the nurse.

>
> > John, you're getting beyond desperate. You need to stop making
> > assertions that you couldn't prove or justify, to save your life.
> >
> I'm not making assertions. I am pointing out the absurdity of yours.

No you aren't. You are asking things that were not cited in my article
and trying to make it appear that they are required.

But they are not. What these witnesses described is perfectly logical.
They are consistent with one another and describe events in a time
sequence that matches perfectly with the known events of that day.

>
> > The evidence proves beyond all doubt that the FBI repeatedly lied and
> > that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second
> > and given to officer Nolan.
> >
>
> I'm sure you have managed to convince yourself of that, despite all
> evidence to the contrary.

There is no "evidence to the contrary". Only five men were in a position
to verify that the stretcher bullet was CE399. Four of them refused and
the fifth deliberately lied.

Is that what you call "evidence to the contrary"???







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<1b3ecea5-23f2-4013...@13g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> There is also the Warren Commission testimony of one of Connally's
> doctors, Charles Gregory, which is testimony that a CTer like Bob
> Harris would certainly want to avoid in his zeal to believe that a
> nurse picked up a bullet in the operating room:

David, you never let up with the personal insults and stereotyping, do
you:-)

What is really sad is that in your frenzy to attack me, you never
bothered to read enough of my article to know that I specifically cited
both Dr. Gregory's WC testimony and his testimony before the HSCA.

>
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all.
> Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile
> within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we
> suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas
> where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

The FBI could not have covered this up without the help of a few
Parkland people, including the nurse who recovered the bullet and
certainly, Dr. Gregory.

Look at how Gregory dealt with the issue of Bell giving her envelope to
officer Nolan.

WC:

Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in attendance
with instructions that they should be presented to the appropriate
authorities present, probably a member of the Texas Rangers..

HSCA:

He (Doctor Gregory) stated he did not on his own knowledge know,
however, but he had been advised [that] Miss Bell obtained a receipt
from State Trooper Bob Nolan [a State of Texas highway patrol officer]
and transferred the metal fragment to him in accordance with
instructions from the Governor's office at Parkland Hospital.

(unquote)

Gregory and Bell worked together regularly, for years. Don't you think
she told him at one time or another, who she gave her envelope too? Why
did he have to say "probably a member of the Texas rangers" and tell the
HSCA that "he had been advised" that her envelope was given to Nolan?

This is from the Price report.

"Two of us conferred, and together agreed to release to Mrs. Wright the
information that according to Dr. Shires, only one bullet was involved
in Governor Connally's injury and that the fragment of this bullet which
was removed by Dr. Gregory from the wrist was in the possession of
Ranger Nolan."

BTW, Shires originally described a single fragment from Connally's
"thigh" but the word was crossed out and replaced with "wrist".

This was on Saturday and nurse Bell was on duty and had been interviewed
by the FBI. Why didn't they say that she confirmed giving that envelope
to Nolan? Why didn't they simply ask her?

Why didn't ANYONE from Parkland say that she confirmed giving her
envelope to Nolan???

ONLY the FBI made that claim, which Bell adamantly denied.


Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Nov 2, 3:00 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <0e240513-1b6c-42c7-89be-f1630fd51...@4g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,

You don't even know who this nurse was yet you pretend to know what
she told Wade and Nolan. Fascinating!

> It is important that they heard her say that, first because it is not
> something they would have just assumed or guessed. The natural
> presumption would have been that it was recovered during surgery, which
> is what Stinson assumed.
>

The only objects recovered during surgery were wrist fragments. That is
what was given to the investigators. If some of them presumed it was a
whole bullet or that it came from Connally's thigh, that was their
mistake.

> And it is also important because it corroborates Governor Connally who
> said that the bullet fell from his gurney and was picked up by the nurse.
>

You have no way of knowing that the object picked up from the floor was
the same object passed on to the investigators. You are simply guessing.
You are guessing that the nurse who picked that object up was the same
nurse that later passed an object to the investigators. You are guessing
that the object picked up from the floor was a bullet because you rely
solely on Connally who was also guessing. He was suffering from a severe
gunshot wound and was being prepped for surgery. What's your excuse?

>
>
> > > John, you're getting beyond desperate. You need to stop making
> > > assertions that you couldn't prove or justify, to save your life.
>
> > I'm not making assertions. I am pointing out the absurdity of yours.
>
> No you aren't. You are asking things that were not cited in my article
> and trying to make it appear that they are required.
>

I'm limited to what you write in your article?

> But they are not. What these witnesses described is perfectly logical.

Until you try to put the pieces together and find out they don't fit.

> They are consistent with one another and describe events in a time
> sequence that matches perfectly with the known events of that day.
>

Except it doesn't fit with CE399, Todd's positive identification of CE399,
and the observation by the other witnesses who handled the bullet
Tomlinson found that CE399 looked like that bullet, so you have to claim
CE399 was switched, Todd lied, and the bullet Tomlinson found had nothing
to do with the assassination. But that is how CTs see all evidence. If it
fits their theory it's genuine. If it doesn't fit, it's bogus.

>
>
> > > The evidence proves beyond all doubt that the FBI repeatedly lied and
> > > that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second
> > > and given to officer Nolan.
>
> > I'm sure you have managed to convince yourself of that, despite all
> > evidence to the contrary.
>
> There is no "evidence to the contrary". Only five men were in a position
> to verify that the stretcher bullet was CE399. Four of them refused and
> the fifth deliberately lied.
>
> Is that what you call "evidence to the contrary"???
>

It certainly is contrary to your position. You twist their statements by
saying they refused to verify CE399 which creates the impression they were
saying it was not the same bullet. The truth is that they said it looked
like the bullet but could not say for sure it was the same bullet for
obvious reasons. That is the whole truth. But you only want to tell half
the truth because the other half doesn't suit your purpose.

[bigdog]

On Nov 2, 3:02 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <1b3ecea5-23f2-4013-9579-376a9fde8...@13g2000prp.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > There is also the Warren Commission testimony of one of Connally's
> > doctors, Charles Gregory, which is testimony that a CTer like Bob
> > Harris would certainly want to avoid in his zeal to believe that a
> > nurse picked up a bullet in the operating room:
>
> David, you never let up with the personal insults and stereotyping, do
> you:-)
>
> What is really sad is that in your frenzy to attack me, you never
> bothered to read enough of my article to know that I specifically cited
> both Dr. Gregory's WC testimony and his testimony before the HSCA.
>
>
>
> > DR. GREGORY -- "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all.
> > Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile
> > within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we
> > suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas
> > where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."
>
> The FBI could not have covered this up without the help of a few
> Parkland people, including the nurse who recovered the bullet and
> certainly, Dr. Gregory.
>

Right, Bob. Everyone who didn't go along with your silly story must have
been lying their asses off. Keep trying to pound those square pegs into
the round holes.

God forbid somebody would correct a mistake.

[Anthony Marsh]

During THAT surgery. Right after THAT surgery Dr. Shaw gave a TV
interview where he said that a bullet remained in Connally's thigh and
it would be removed later. Not fragments. Not removed in the operation
just completed.

>> And it is also important because it corroborates Governor Connally who
>> said that the bullet fell from his gurney and was picked up by the nurse.
>>
>
> You have no way of knowing that the object picked up from the floor was
> the same object passed on to the investigators. You are simply guessing.
> You are guessing that the nurse who picked that object up was the same
> nurse that later passed an object to the investigators. You are guessing
> that the object picked up from the floor was a bullet because you rely
> solely on Connally who was also guessing. He was suffering from a severe
> gunshot wound and was being prepped for surgery. What's your excuse?
>

Some of us think it was his cufflink which went missing.
Which incidentally was made from a Mexican peso.
Maybe it LOOKED like a bullet fragment to someone from a distance.

CONNALLY: His -- he's turning back and his hand is on his thigh. It
crushed this wrist and you know, shot the cufflink off.

"The nurse dropped one of John's gold cufflinks, made with a Mexican
Peso, into my hand. The other had been shot off"

>>
>>
>>>> John, you're getting beyond desperate. You need to stop making
>>>> assertions that you couldn't prove or justify, to save your life.
>>
>>> I'm not making assertions. I am pointing out the absurdity of yours.
>>
>> No you aren't. You are asking things that were not cited in my article
>> and trying to make it appear that they are required.
>>
>
> I'm limited to what you write in your article?
>
>> But they are not. What these witnesses described is perfectly logical.
>
> Until you try to put the pieces together and find out they don't fit.
>
>> They are consistent with one another and describe events in a time
>> sequence that matches perfectly with the known events of that day.
>>
>
> Except it doesn't fit with CE399, Todd's positive identification of CE399,
> and the observation by the other witnesses who handled the bullet
> Tomlinson found that CE399 looked like that bullet, so you have to claim
> CE399 was switched, Todd lied, and the bullet Tomlinson found had nothing
> to do with the assassination. But that is how CTs see all evidence. If it
> fits their theory it's genuine. If it doesn't fit, it's bogus.

At least Jean admits that there is a contradiction there.
Does that make her a conspiracy kook in your eyes?

>
>>
>>
>>>> The evidence proves beyond all doubt that the FBI repeatedly lied and
>>>> that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second
>>>> and given to officer Nolan.
>>
>>> I'm sure you have managed to convince yourself of that, despite all
>>> evidence to the contrary.
>>
>> There is no "evidence to the contrary". Only five men were in a position
>> to verify that the stretcher bullet was CE399. Four of them refused and
>> the fifth deliberately lied.
>>
>> Is that what you call "evidence to the contrary"???
>>
>
> It certainly is contrary to your position. You twist their statements by
> saying they refused to verify CE399 which creates the impression they were
> saying it was not the same bullet. The truth is that they said it looked
> like the bullet but could not say for sure it was the same bullet for
> obvious reasons. That is the whole truth. But you only want to tell half
> the truth because the other half doesn't suit your purpose.
>

Seems I am the only one actually quoting CE2011.