The Secret Service And CE399

[David Von Pein]

On September 23, 2012, I sent an e-mail to former Secret Service agent
Gerald Blaine. I sent the same e-mail message to former Secret Service
agent Clint Hill as well (by way of Lisa McCubbin; I didn't have an e-
mail address for Mr. Hill, so I asked Lisa if she would forward my message
to him).

The e-mail I sent contained questions that I had concerning the Secret
Service's policy for marking evidence. I received a very strange reply
from Mr. Blaine on Sept. 27.

The link below includes my original e-mail to Mr. Blaine, plus all
follow-up correspondence. I will be updating this link when (and if) I get
more replies from Gerald Blaine and/or Clint Hill. I thought some people
here might be interested in this:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

[Anthony Marsh]

After all that blather do you still claim that conspiracy believers have
no right to question the truthfulness of the Secret Service/and/or/FBI
agents and question the chain of custody of the evidence? If you enjoy
horror stories you might want to follow what happened here in
Massachusetts with its crime lab.
On a personal note if I were to question CE399 the way you just did you
would be calling me a kook.

[David Von Pein]

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (10:08:14 P.M. EDT)
From: Gerald Blaine
To: David Von Pein

----------------------------------

Dave,

Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed
away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like
he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the
bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck
with Clint what he remembers.

It is very unusual for WHD [White House Detail] agents to get involved
in investigative work, but Dick went to Cal and studied Criminal
Justice so he should have known the rules of evidence.

James Rowley once worked for the FBI and he too should have understood
the rules. I have no doubt that it was the bullet that came from the
stretcher.

Jerry

[David Von Pein]

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (11:26:29 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine

----------------------------------

Hi again Jerry,

Thanks for your latest reply.

There was, indeed, an envelope involved with the transfer of Bullet
CE399 as it went from the possession of the Secret Service to the FBI
lab in Washington on 11/22/63. That "envelope" fact is confirmed in
Commission Document No. 7 (which I linked in an earlier mail I sent
you).

[EDIT -- John Hunt also photographed the envelope at the Natl.
Archives in July 2004; scroll a little ways down the webpage below for
more info on that:]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

So, if Richard Johnsen marked the envelope, rather than the bullet
itself, it would certainly explain why he said he could not
"positively identify" the bullet that was later shown to him by Elmer
Todd of the FBI in June of 1964. Because in such a circumstance,
Johnsen wouldn't have placed his initials on the bullet itself, but
instead would have marked only the container (envelope) that Johnsen
put the bullet into.

However, if Dick Johnsen (and possibly James Rowley too) had marked
the evidence envelope containing the bullet, I'm wondering why the FBI
(in CE2011) didn't mention something about Johnsen and/or Rowley
marking that envelope in the text of the report we find in CE2011?

Do you think Johnsen and Rowley, in the intervening sevens months
between November 1963 and June 1964, had just forgotten about marking
the envelope? And therefore they never even mentioned it in June when
the FBI showed them the bullet? Or is it possible that they did
mention marking the envelope, but the FBI just failed to note that
important fact in CE2011?

From the way it stands in the official record of CE2011, we are
unquestionably left with the impression (to the delight of many
conspiracy theorists around the globe) that neither Johnsen nor Rowley
could complete any kind of chain of possession or chain of custody for
Bullet CE399 at all. Is that the way it appears to you by reading
CE2011, Jerry?

In addition, do you have any more information you can supply me
regarding your previous statement about Richard Johnsen himself being
the person who handed the bullet over to the FBI on 11/22/63 (instead
of it being James Rowley)?

The official documents clearly indicate that it was Rowley, and not
Johnsen, who gave the bullet (and envelope) to FBI agent Elmer Todd on
the night of the assassination.

If you acquire any additional information about this matter, please
drop me a line.

I thank you very much, Jerry, for the answers you have given me today.
I greatly appreciate it.

And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was
turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was
positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact
(for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts
on the Internet in the past several years.

Regards,
David Von Pein

[John Reagor King]

In article
<0b7181e7-d3ca-4f86...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

I think you're onto something here. The envelope was marked. The bullet
wasn't. That seems to me to be a perfectly plausible explanation.

[John Reagor King]

In article <506541ce$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/27/2012 11:33 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On September 23, 2012, I sent an e-mail to former Secret Service agent
> > Gerald Blaine. I sent the same e-mail message to former Secret Service
> > agent Clint Hill as well (by way of Lisa McCubbin; I didn't have an e-
> > mail address for Mr. Hill, so I asked Lisa if she would forward my message
> > to him).
> >
> > The e-mail I sent contained questions that I had concerning the Secret
> > Service's policy for marking evidence. I received a very strange reply
> > from Mr. Blaine on Sept. 27.
> >
> > The link below includes my original e-mail to Mr. Blaine, plus all
> > follow-up correspondence. I will be updating this link when (and if) I get
> > more replies from Gerald Blaine and/or Clint Hill. I thought some people
> > here might be interested in this:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html
>
> After all that blather do you still claim that conspiracy believers have
> no right to question the truthfulness of the Secret Service/and/or/FBI
> agents and question the chain of custody of the evidence?

I think we all have the right to question the chain of evidence, even
those who don't believe in a conspiracy in the assassination itself.
However, independently of any chain of evidence there is a good deal
more to support CE 399 being the bullet that went through both men than
otherwise.

> If you enjoy
> horror stories you might want to follow what happened here in
> Massachusetts with its crime lab.
> On a personal note if I were to question CE399 the way you just did you
> would be calling me a kook.

Mindreading again, Anthony?

[David Von Pein]

It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he was
talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House stationary
at 7:30 PM on Nov. 22, which states that Johnsen received the "attached
expended bullet" from O.P. Wright at Parkland:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HUEhMScterk/UGZMu7lf05I/AAAAAAAAJm8/yDjt1jhkjEA/s1600/Richard-Johnsen-Note-Regarding-Stretcher-Bullet.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FoxiImP_tig/UGUvr_sOf0I/AAAAAAAAJmI/hLmS9kXOt2o/s1600/CE399-Envelope.png

Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written by
Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically attached to
the envelope (linked above) which contained stretcher bullet CE399. Hence
the words "the attached expended bullet" at the beginning of the note.

And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original note,
which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left the White
House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple holes (or possibly
the staples themselves) which are seen in the envelope as photographed by
John Hunt in 2004.

And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten words
of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in
possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials being
present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is documentation in
the official records of this case that shows a complete chain of custody
of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/ Wright....to Johnsen....to
Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.

Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown above is
still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain" of custody
at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is not signed with
his handwritten signature or initials and is not still physically attached
to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about receiving the bullet
from Rowley.

[Anthony Marsh]

You really need to follow the news. Just today the state police arrested
Annie Dookhan and charged her with tampering with evidence and obstruction
of justice. Already defense attorneys are starting to use her name as a
verb, as in the FBI, Secret Service and DPD Dookhaned the evidence in the
JFK case. The state may have to open the gates of the prisons and let all
the prisoners go free.

The problem with framing an innocent man is not just depriving an innocent
man of his freedom, but also that you then don't catch the real criminals.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/28/2012 9:20 PM, John Reagor King wrote:

CE399 was marked. Maybe you think it wasn't marked properly or the way
you wanted to see it marked.

[Robert Harris]

Anyone who wants a good laugh, might wish to read David and my exchanges
at the Ed forum. David desperately tries to change the subject and
flatly refuses to discuss the statements of Gov. Connally,
Dallas DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, Connally aide Bill Stinson and
nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&st=15

All of those witnesses confirmed that the actual bullet that wounded
Connally was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and then given to
officer Nolan. It could not have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

Nor is David interested in discussing why the FBI awakened Tomlinson at
1:30 in the morning, to tell him to keep his mouth shut about the
bullet. By some very strange coincidence, that call was made roughly 90
minutes after fragments arrived at the FBI labs that could be compared
with Tomlinson's bullet.

I wrote a detailed article on the subject which is at this url:

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






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
>
> It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
> Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he was
> talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House stationary

David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by
witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless
embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson said:

"The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."

The bullet was marked by Johnson, which every law enforcement agent in
1963 knew, meant that it was initialed. Had he written something on an
envelope, he would have said so. As I told you long ago, the obvious
reason why he refused to verify CE399, was that his initials were not on
the bullet.

Neither are FBI agent Todd's initials. He flatly lied when he said his
initials are on that bullet.

These are the issues I asked you about in the Ed forum, which you
continue to evade:

John Connally:

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the
floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it
up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the
one that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose
from my thigh."

DA Henry Wade:

"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."

Officer Billy Nolan:

"Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides.
His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson).
And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that
she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.

Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's
gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were
just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him"

Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?

Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet.

And I don't know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet
because it was in a little, small brown envelope. And it was sealed and
it was about, I'd say 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when I
got it and I never did look at it or anything."

Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet
fragment or as a bullet.

Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a bullet. That's all."

Connally Aide Bill Stinson, whom Nolan said was standing next to him,
obviously missed or misunderstood the part about the bullet coming from
the gurney. He thought it was recovered in surgery.

from Ramparts magazine

"Before the Commission discredited Connally's testimony they should at
least have heard all the important witnesses. Ramparts found one the
Commission never talked to; they never even asked him for an affidavit.
He is William Stinson, an aide to Governor Connally at the time of the
assassination. Today, although officially employed by the Veterans
Administraton, he has an office in the White House. Stinson told us he
was in the operating room, wearing a sterile uniform, when the doctors
operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The last thing they did,'
said Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from the governor's
thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him.'".

The FBI tried to cover this up by making it appear that Nolan was given
the tiny fragments that nurse Audrey Bell gave to plain clothed agents
in her office. This is from the ARRB report on her testimony:

When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number
000919, Record# 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two
respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),”
whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she turned
over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning
it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret
Service.


Let's review:

1. Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney onto the floor and was
picked up by a nurse.

2. Wade encountered a nurse, probably the same one, who was holding a
bullet (not an envelope) in her hand and said it came from Connally's
"gurney". He told her to give it to the cops, pronto.

3. She did exactly as she was told and put the bullet into an envelope
and gave it to officer Nolan, telling him also, that it was a "bullet"
(not a fragment or fragments) that came from Governor Connally's "gurney".

4. Bill Stinson, who was with Nolan at the time, misunderstood and
thought the bullet was recovered in surgery.

Tell me what happened David. Were they all on drugs? Did they all lie in
order to promote a crazy conspiracy theory?

I also notice that you aren't interested in talking about that FBI phone
call at 1:30 in the AM, to Tomlinson, telling him to keep his mouth shut
about the bullet, just after they received fragments in Dallas that they
could compare with Tomlinson's bullet. Strange coincidence, eh David??

This is the article that anyone interested in this subject needs to read:

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


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2012 12:56 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
> Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he was
> talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House stationary
> at 7:30 PM on Nov. 22, which states that Johnsen received the "attached
> expended bullet" from O.P. Wright at Parkland:
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HUEhMScterk/UGZMu7lf05I/AAAAAAAAJm8/yDjt1jhkjEA/s1600/Richard-Johnsen-Note-Regarding-Stretcher-Bullet.jpg
>

Looks to me as though the note was stapled to the back of the envelope
and later pulled off.

> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FoxiImP_tig/UGUvr_sOf0I/AAAAAAAAJmI/hLmS9kXOt2o/s1600/CE399-Envelope.png
>

Any chance of finding a photo of the back of the envelope? This is the
type of thing that John Hunt would have done.

> Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written by
> Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically attached to
> the envelope (linked above) which contained stretcher bullet CE399. Hence
> the words "the attached expended bullet" at the beginning of the note.
>

I see nothing wrong with that chain of evidence.

> And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original note,
> which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left the White
> House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple holes (or possibly
> the staples themselves) which are seen in the envelope as photographed by
> John Hunt in 2004.
>

It might be possible to match the dimensions with an animated GIF if you
knew the size of the envelope and the note paper and then superimpose
them. I doubt anyone would be allowed to do it in real life by handling
the original exhibits.

> And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten words
> of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in
> possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials being
> present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is documentation in
> the official records of this case that shows a complete chain of custody
> of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/ Wright....to Johnsen....to
> Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.
>

Ok, but is Johnsen essential to the chain of custody?

> Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown above is
> still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain" of custody
> at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is not signed with
> his handwritten signature or initials and is not still physically attached
> to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about receiving the bullet
> from Rowley.
>

Maybe there is a scientific method to prove that it was originally stapled
to the evidence envelope. I remember a case where a researcher proved that
a note was originally stapled to a document. Other researchers had said
that the note about JFK withdrawing all the troops was about Vietnam, but
the researcher proved that it was originally stapled to a memo about the
Federal troops JFK sent down South to protect black student integrating
the schools.

I think it was an article in The Archvist.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by
witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless

embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson [sic] said:
"The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Sigh.

Bob apparently didn't read (or comprehend) anything beyond just Mr.
Blaine's first e-mail to me.

It's quite obvious, however, that Gerald Blaine wasn't exactly sure
WHAT item was "marked" by SA Richard Johnsen (the bullet itself or a
container that the bullet was put into), because after I reminded
Blaine that CE2011 says that Johnsen couldn't positively I.D. the
bullet, Mr. Blaine said this to me:

"Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he
passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence.
Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing
it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will
recheck with Clint what he remembers."

And if Secret Service agent Johnsen had "marked" an envelope in some
manner (or if, as I suggested in another post, in lieu of marking the
envelope itself, if he had attached a note to the Q1/CE399 evidence
envelope, which he almost certainly DID do, as I pretty much proved
previously via CE1024 [at 18 H 800]), that is tantamount to marking
the bullet itself, in my view. And I think any reasonable person, who
isn't prone to screaming "it was fake" at the drop of a hat, would
agree with me on that.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/29/2012 9:44 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
>> Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he was
>> talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House
>> stationary
>
> David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by
> witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless
> embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson said:
>
> "The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."
>
> The bullet was marked by Johnson, which every law enforcement agent in
> 1963 knew, meant that it was initialed. Had he written something on an

That is simply not true. Standard procedure is to mark the object or put
it in something which you then mark. Johnsen did that.

> envelope, he would have said so. As I told you long ago, the obvious

He did the next best thing, he typed up a note and stapled it to the
envelope.

[Robert Harris]

In article <5067b567$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/29/2012 9:44 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:
> >>
> >> It's possible that when Richard Johnsen told Clint Hill (per Gerald
> >> Blaine) that he (Johnsen) marked the evidence (re: CE399), perhaps he was
> >> talking about his typewritten note that he wrote on White House
> >> stationary
> >
> > David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by
> > witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless
> > embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson said:
> >
> > "The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
> > Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."
> >
> > The bullet was marked by Johnson, which every law enforcement agent in
> > 1963 knew, meant that it was initialed. Had he written something on an
>
> That is simply not true. Standard procedure is to mark the object or put
> it in something which you then mark. Johnsen did that.

Didn't you even bother to read what this man said??

"The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA
Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."

The "BULLET" was marked - not some envelope.

You and Von Pein seem desperate to twist this around and embellish that
statement. But it is crystal clear and explains perfectly, why Johnson
refused to sign off on CE399.

His initial was nowhere on the that bullet.

>
> > envelope, he would have said so. As I told you long ago, the obvious
>
> He did the next best thing, he typed up a note and stapled it to the
> envelope.

That's nice, but what does the note have to do with him marking the
bullet?

You obviously haven't read the article.

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





Robert Harris

> > respects: it quotes her as turning over łthe metal fragment (singular),˛

[Robert Harris]

"Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed
away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he
must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet
itself"

It really doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like he marked the
bullet the same way everybody else marked bullets in 1963. They
initialed them.

The FBI's first opportunity to test the stretcher bullet against
fragments that were large enough to be evaluated, arrived at their labs
just after 11 PM. Roughly 90 minutes after that, Tomlinson was awakened
by a phone call from the FBI, demanding that he "keep his mouth shut"
about the bullet. Obviously, they did not match, which is undoubtedly
why everyone who originally handled the stretcher bullet refused to
confirm that is the same as CE399. And as I told you before, the most
likely reason why the SS agents refused to verify CE399 was that it
didn't bear their initials.

Neither did it bear the initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who lied when
he claimed that his initials were on CE399. As you know very well, they
are nowhere on that bullet.

As Connally himself stated, the actual bullet that wounded him, fell
from his gurney to the floor, where it was recovered by a nurse, just
prior to his surgery. DA Wade encountered that nurse after the surgery
and as Wade stated, she was holding the bullet in her hand and told him
it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police ASAP.

The nurse did exactly as she was told and put it into an envelope which
she gave to officer Bobby Nolan. Nolan, who I interviewed, stated that
the nurse told him the bullet came from Connally's gurney - exactly as
she told Wade. He then delivered it to the DPD the following morning,
where it was undoubtedly, scarfed up by the FBI.

The FBI tried to coverup the bullet by claiming that it was the envelope
into which nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell placed tiny fragments from
Connally's wrist. But not surprisingly, Bell adamantly denied their
claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan and that it contained only a
single fragment, which is not surprising since her envelope was clearly
labelled, "fragments" (plural).

There is much more about this in my article on the subject which can be
found here:

http://jfkhistory.co...ellArticle.html