Harris Doesn't Understand Rules of Evidence

[John McAdams]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Robert Harris]

In article <ldb9a7hernus2cbls...@4ax.com>,
John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm

John, that link is to an article which doesn't even mention CE399 except
in a side bar, linking to one of your own newsgroup posts.

In your article, you seem to be claiming that because Johnson wrote a note
saying he received a bullet (no mention of Rowley), that this was
sufficient to preserve the chain of custody.

The problem is that there was no way to confirm that Johnson received THAT
bullet. The same was true of Rowley.

And the fallacy to your argument is that both men refused to verify CE399
as the same bullet. They would have done the same at an Oswald trial, to
the absolute delight of the defense attorney.

But the real problem is, that it is highly unlikely that these guys failed
to do what all four of the FBI agents did. In case you didn't know, FBI
agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399.

Let me ask you just one question john. Don't you think the FBI was
embarrassed enough by the refusal of these men to verify CE399, that they
would have been eager to blame the lack of corroboration on their failure
to initial the bullet???

Don't you think they would have loved to say, "Johnson and Rowley
couldn't confirm the bullet because they didn't mark it."??

Their silence speaks volumes john. And of course, you aren't about to
discuss the fact that the real bullet that wounded Connally was recovered
on the second floor and given to officer Nolan, are you?



Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "FBI agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399." <<<

Bull.

Elmer Todd's initials are positively on Commission Exhibit 399,
because Todd HIMSELF verified his initials being on that bullet (see
CE2011; Page 3):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

Just because conspiracy theorist John Hunt couldn't find Todd's
initials when Hunt looked at four of the NARA preservation photos of
CE399, that doesn't mean that Todd's initials are not there at all.

In fact, when examining the various NARA photos, it's very difficult
to make out ANYONE'S initials, including Frazier's and Killion's. I
can see a few scratches in the bullet, but as far as being able to
determine specifically whose marks those are--I can't do it. The marks
aren't distinct enough via the photographs.

It therefore doesn't surprise me in the least that Elmer Todd's
initials cannot be definitively found on the bullet (when utilizing
the NARA photos, which is what John Hunt did use; he did not examine
the bullet itself at the National Archives).

But CE2011 proves for all time that Todd did put his initials on
Bullet CE399. Naturally, all conspiracy theorists think that the
official FBI report dated July 7, 1964 (which is the document that is
contained in CE2011) is a fake and a fraud.

CTers must apparently believe that J. Edgar Hoover & Company must have
either forced Elmer Todd to say (falsely) that he put his initials in
Bullet CE399, or the FBI just invented the part we see in CE2011 which
states that Elmer Todd positively identified his own initials on
CE399.

Funny, though, that if the latter is the case--then why in the world
didn't Hoover just go whole hog and tell some more lies about Darrell
Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, James Rowley, and Richard Johnsen?

I.E., why didn't the FBI just lie and say that those four men DID
positively identify CE399? Why did they stop at ONLY Elmer Todd with a
positive identification?

Don't the CTers wonder about that at all?

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-49.html

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 1:26 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <ldb9a7hernus2cbls0p1d6cgqmchjhf...@4ax.com>,

Had the case gone to court, everyone who handled the bullet would have
been called to testify and the chain of possession would have been
established. Because the case never went to trial, no such testimony
was ever given. If you want to take from that there was no chain of
possession, you are only fooling yourself.

[John McAdams]

On 24 Oct 2011 01:26:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <ldb9a7hernus2cbls...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm
>
>John, that link is to an article which doesn't even mention CE399 except
>in a side bar, linking to one of your own newsgroup posts.
>

That's the point.

I'm quoting from a standard forensics text, not some buff book.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2011 9:05 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "FBI agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399."<<<
>
> Bull.
>
> Elmer Todd's initials are positively on Commission Exhibit 399,
> because Todd HIMSELF verified his initials being on that bullet (see
> CE2011; Page 3):
>

And you think that everyone's memory is perfect and no one ever lies?
What did Poe say and what did he actually do?

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
>
> Just because conspiracy theorist John Hunt couldn't find Todd's
> initials when Hunt looked at four of the NARA preservation photos of
> CE399, that doesn't mean that Todd's initials are not there at all.
>

Excellent. So you mean that YOU personally went to the National Archives
and viewed CE399 for yourself in person and could see for yourself that
Todd's initials are on CE399? Can you upload the photos YOU took of
CE399 and point out Todd's initials?
It's fun for WC defenders to debunk conspiracy researchers research, but
it doesn't count if they don't duplicate the steps taken by the
conspiracy researcher.
If you can't do what he did then you have no standing to criticize him.

> In fact, when examining the various NARA photos, it's very difficult
> to make out ANYONE'S initials, including Frazier's and Killion's. I
> can see a few scratches in the bullet, but as far as being able to
> determine specifically whose marks those are--I can't do it. The marks
> aren't distinct enough via the photographs.
>

Gee, and if we wait another 100 years the tarnish will completely
obscure ALL markings so that no future expert will be able to verify
anything.
In the mean time real scientists will have invented a way to see the
markings even under the tarnish.
I have the same problem with certain people here not realizing that the
way the bullets or fragments looked when they were found has changed,
both naturally and from handling, testing and/or tampering.
Two fragments become four or one fragment becomes two or two fragments
become zero.

> It therefore doesn't surprise me in the least that Elmer Todd's
> initials cannot be definitively found on the bullet (when utilizing
> the NARA photos, which is what John Hunt did use; he did not examine
> the bullet itself at the National Archives).
>

Fine, so does that mean that you are willing to throw out CE399?
Or that you are willing to ignore the break in the chain of evidence?

> But CE2011 proves for all time that Todd did put his initials on
> Bullet CE399. Naturally, all conspiracy theorists think that the
> official FBI report dated July 7, 1964 (which is the document that is
> contained in CE2011) is a fake and a fraud.
>

No, but you yourself admit that we can't verify for ourselves that Todd's
initials are on CE 399. Even if the document is genuine, even if the
testimony is true in his mind, that does not prove that it is exactly what
he did. Look at the problem with Poe marking the Tippit shooting bullet
cases.

> CTers must apparently believe that J. Edgar Hoover& Company must have

> either forced Elmer Todd to say (falsely) that he put his initials in
> Bullet CE399, or the FBI just invented the part we see in CE2011 which
> states that Elmer Todd positively identified his own initials on
> CE399.
>

Well, we know from past experience that the FBI lies and suborns perjury.
For many years the FBI was using Mob members as informants. And lying to
all other law enforcement and the courts about it. And framed 5 bookies
for murder to protect the real murderer who was their informant. CE399 may
be genuine, but the chain of evidence is shaky and might have gotten it
thrown out of court.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/24/2011 1:26 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article<ldb9a7hernus2cbls...@4ax.com>,
> John McAdams<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm
>
> John, that link is to an article which doesn't even mention CE399 except
> in a side bar, linking to one of your own newsgroup posts.
>
> In your article, you seem to be claiming that because Johnson wrote a note
> saying he received a bullet (no mention of Rowley), that this was
> sufficient to preserve the chain of custody.
>
> The problem is that there was no way to confirm that Johnson received THAT
> bullet. The same was true of Rowley.
>
> And the fallacy to your argument is that both men refused to verify CE399
> as the same bullet. They would have done the same at an Oswald trial, to
> the absolute delight of the defense attorney.
>

Mark Lane would have been the defense attorney. You should read what
Mark Lane has said about CE399.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<0f957f3c-58c9-4265...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

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

> >>> "FBI agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399." <<<
>
> Bull.
>
> Elmer Todd's initials are positively on Commission Exhibit 399,
> because Todd HIMSELF verified his initials being on that bullet

Yes and OJ is innocent because said HIMSELF that he didn't kill anybody.

And I thought bigdog was bad:-)

> (see
> CE2011; Page 3):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

You do not cite members of the FBI to prove that the FBI was honest,
David. This is lame.

>
> Just because conspiracy theorist John Hunt couldn't find Todd's
> initials when Hunt looked at four of the NARA preservation photos of
> CE399, that doesn't mean that Todd's initials are not there at all.

Hunt had no problem at all identifying three sets of initials, and even
discussed the identity of each the signers with SA Frazier.

There were ONLY three sets and he confirmed who each of them were - but
none were Todd's.

>
> In fact, when examining the various NARA photos, it's very difficult
> to make out ANYONE'S initials, including Frazier's and Killion's.

Did you go to the archives and examine the original photos? Hunt did and
he had no problem spotting them and confirming the lettering in each one.

>I
> can see a few scratches in the bullet, but as far as being able to
> determine specifically whose marks those are--I can't do it. The marks
> aren't distinct enough via the photographs.
>
> It therefore doesn't surprise me in the least that Elmer Todd's
> initials cannot be definitively found on the bullet (when utilizing
> the NARA photos, which is what John Hunt did use; he did not examine
> the bullet itself at the National Archives).

You did not look at the original photos.

>
> But CE2011 proves for all time that Todd did put his initials on
> Bullet CE399.

David, you're insulting everyone's intelligence with that argument. No FBI
employee would ever admit that CE399 was not the original bullet.

If Todd's initials are on CE399 then you would be able to prove it instead
of making all these lame excuses.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <4ea5b8a2....@news.supernews.com>,

john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2011 01:26:13 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ldb9a7hernus2cbls...@4ax.com>,
> > John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm
> >
> >John, that link is to an article which doesn't even mention CE399 except
> >in a side bar, linking to one of your own newsgroup posts.
> >
>
> That's the point.
>
> I'm quoting from a standard forensics text, not some buff book.

Well, let's look at your own cite then,

"..there is always that possibility that one witness in the chain may for
some reason be unavailable at the time of the trial. The unavailability of
any one witness may be enough to exclude the object from being
introduced."

If the unavailability of one witness can get evidence tossed, what happens
when TWO witnesses are not just unavailable, but state that they cannot
verify that evidence??

Four FBI people handled either the stretcher bullet or CE399. Every one of
them initialed the bullet they handled. So why would two consecutive
Secret Service agents fail to mark that bullet?

And why are you dodging my questions?

The FBI NEEDED to offer the WC a reason for why these witnesses refused to
verify CE399. Why didn't they tell them that they just didn't bother to
mark it?

And why didn't they mention that reason in their reports?

I think one or probably both of them DID mark it. And it was the absence
of their initials that caused them to refuse to verify CE399.

And why do you evade the evidence and facts which prove that the actual
bullet from Connally's leg was given to officer Nolan on the second floor?
If you haven't read this article, you need to.

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


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice try. How about citing a real forenics manual?
Such as Law Enforcement Invesigations, FM 19-20 of 29 April 1977.
Page 153:

Marking Evidence

Evidence is properly marked so it may be
readily identified later.
The investigator places his initials, the
date of recovery, and the time, written in
military style, on each item of evidence so
that he can positively identify it at a later
date. Where several items of identical or
similar appearance are recovered, he adds an
identifying number on each item. No two
items of evidence in the same case
should bear the same identifying mark-
ings.
All identifying markings and a description
of items to which they are affixed should be
recorded in the investigator's notes. A sui-
table marking would be "FRG 1 May 76
1500." The identifying number, if used, will
have no bearing on or relation to, the number
designation of the exhibit in the report of
investigation.

Page 155:

A fired bullet submitted as an exhibit may
be either jacketed as is military ammunition
or lead which is common with commercially
manufactured ammunition. Markings may
be placed on the base of the bullet if sufficient
area exists and such marking will not
obliterate the manufacturer's marking or
other markings which may be in this location.
If the base cannot be marked, the bullet(s)
should be place in a suitably marked
container.
A bullet is never marked in such a
manner that the rifling imprints will be
defaced. Deformed bullets and jacket frag-
ments will also be placed in a marked con-
tainer.

_______________________

Note: In the accompanying illustration
captioned "Marking Bullets" arrows point
to the "Rifling Marks" and also to the tip
of the bullet saying, "Not Here."

Page 156;

Large caliber cartridge cases are
marked within the mouth. Small caliber
cartridge cases are placed in a container
which is then marked. Cartridges are
never marked on the base or on the
side -- to avoid obliterating other mark-
ings of evidentiary value. Markings are
always made on clean areas free of blood, dirt
or other adherent substances which could be
significant to the laboratory examiner.

[David Von Pein]

Tony,

The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
I don't.

Poe was unsure whether he marked the two Benavides shells or not. But,
of course, the "Poe Didn't Mark The Shells" argument goes nowhere
anyway -- because there are two other shells that didn't go through
Poe's hands--and those shells have no problem at all with any "chain
of custody" issues (even per most CT fanatics). And those two OTHER
shells are also from Oswald's revolver.

And since we know there was ONLY ONE PERSON dumping shells out of a
gun at 10th & Patton on 11/22/63, then it's fairly simple to determine
that ALL of the shells found on the ground that day came from Oswald's
gun.

Or would you like to theorize the crazy scenario of there having
already been some shells lying around in the Davises' yard BEFORE
11/22? That'd be a new one for CTers.

[tom...@cox.net]

With the Warren Commision, hre was "NO Rules of Eidence.! ! !

\Making it a Kangaroo Court

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

There has never been any doubt that the Warren Commission Was a JOKE.


bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 1:26=A0am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <ldb9a7hernus2cbls0p1d6cgqmchjhf...@4ax.com>,

> > =A0John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm
> >
> > John, that link is to an article which doesn't even mention CE399
> > except in a side bar, linking to one of your own newsgroup posts.
> >
> > In your article, you seem to be claiming that because Johnson wrote a

> > not=

> e
> > saying he received a bullet (no mention of Rowley), that this was
> > sufficient to preserve the chain of custody.
> >
> > The problem is that there was no way to confirm that Johnson received

> > THA=

> T
> > bullet. The same was true of Rowley.
> >
> > And the fallacy to your argument is that both men refused to verify
> > CE399 as the same bullet. They would have done the same at an Oswald
> > trial, to the absolute delight of the defense attorney.
> >
> > But the real problem is, that it is highly unlikely that these guys

> > faile=

> d
> > to do what all four of the FBI agents did. In case you didn't know, FBI
> > agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399.
> >
> > Let me ask you just one question john. Don't you think the FBI was
> > embarrassed enough by the refusal of these men to verify CE399, that
> > they would have been eager to blame the lack of corroboration on their
> > failure to initial the bullet???
> >
> > Don't you think they would have loved to say, "Johnson and Rowley
> > couldn't confirm the bullet because they didn't mark it."??
> >
> > Their silence speaks volumes john. And of course, you aren't about to
> > discuss the fact that the real bullet that wounded Connally was
> > recovered on the second floor and given to officer Nolan, are you?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Had the case gone to court, everyone who handled the bullet would have
> been called to testify and the chain of possession would have been
> established. Because the case never went to trial, no such testimony
> was ever given. If you want to take from that there was no chain of
> possession, you are only fooling yourself.

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 11:04 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <0f957f3c-58c9-4265-8a9b-c77402bae...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "FBI agent Todd's initials also are nowhere to be found on CE399." <<<
>
> > Bull.
>
> > Elmer Todd's initials are positively on Commission Exhibit 399,
> > because Todd HIMSELF verified his initials being on that bullet
>
> Yes and OJ is innocent because said HIMSELF that he didn't kill anybody.
>
> And I thought bigdog was bad:-)
>
> > (see
> > CE2011; Page 3):
>

> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...

Do you want us to sneak into the National Archives and steal the bullet. I
made the mistake of taking your word for it that Todd's initials were not
on CE399. After decades of arguing with CTs, I should have known better.
So now it comes out that Todd has said that he verified his initials were
on CE399 and there is absolutely no conflict between what Todd said and
what Frazier testified to before the WC. I guess you just forgot to
mention that part. But because some yahoo couldn't see Todd's initials on
photographs of the bullet, you make the ridiculous assumption that both
Todd and Frazier were lying. Not only has your house of cards come
tumbling down, but you need a new deck, preferably one with 52 cards in
it.

[bigdog]

On Oct 24, 11:07 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The FBI NEEDED to offer the WC a reason for why these witnesses refused to
> verify CE399. Why didn't they tell them that they just didn't bother to
> mark it?
>

Please be specific who these witnesses were and quote exactly what they
said when they "refused" to verify CE399.

[Robert Harris]

John, what is important here is confirmed in your own article. It was
absolutely mandatory that the agents who handled what they thought at the
time, was the bullet that killed the President, in a manner that would
protect the chain of custody.

The notion that they just forgot to initial it, or were negligent is
absurd. Had that been the case they would have been fired. And the FBI
would not have been bashful about reporting their failure.

When they reported on Todd's alleged confirmation of CE399, the FBI
included the *reason*, which they claimed was the fact that he initialed
the bullet and could see his initials on CE399.

Setting aside the minor detail that Todd's initials are not on CE399, why
would they have cited a reason for Todd's verification but not a reason
for the Secret Service agents denial?

And then there is the incredible omission by the WC to even ask Rowley
about it when they had him on the witness stand and under oath.

CE399 was a biggie for the Commission. They talked about it and questioned
witnesses about it endlessly. And yet they never once asked any of those
four men, two of whom testified before them, for an explanation for their
rejection of that bullet.

And then there are those pesky little facts about the bullet that really
did wound Governor Connally. Why do you remain silent about that john?



Robert Harris


In article
<bobharris77-F7DD...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

[Jason Burke]

On 10/25/2011 3:12 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> With the Warren Commision, hre was "NO Rules of Eidence.! ! !
>
> \Making it a Kangaroo Court
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John McAdams<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

Odd, I don't believe the Warren Commision (sic) was a court of law. I
believe they were just trying to find out what happened. Which they did,
very well. So well, in fact, that almost 49 years of fantasy and BS hasn't
shaken it.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<63b5c4f4-a1ad-4d25...@28g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

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

> Tony,
>
> The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
> LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.

That was pretty tough since his initials weren't on CE399, David:-)

The FBI's policy was made crystal clear by J. Edgar Hoover, "The public
must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone - despite the fact that in
private conversations with LBJ, he expressed his belief that Connally was
hit by a sniper from the front.

Over and over again, they lied to cover up this crime. Even the WC
complained about their failure to followup conspiracy leads.

They lied when they claimed that SA Odum got a confirmation from Tomlinson
and Wright and they lied about their interview with Parkland supervisor,
Bell.

You should ask john mcadams sometime about the time when his team which
had posted thousand of messages attacking Ray and Mary La Fontaine had to
go totally and forever silent on that issue after we proved that the FBI
lied in federal court about the identity of an informant who could only
have been Oswald.

And yet blithely accept a totally uncorroborated claim by FBI agent Todd,
without so much as a speck of corroboration.

> Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
> fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
> I don't.

You believe it David, because you WANT to believe it. You have no
corroboration of any kind and to save your life, you could never show us
those initials.


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't know how to explain this to you in English so that you can
understand it, but are you aware of the fact that one person can look at
something and see some detail on it but by the time the next person looks
at it that detail is no longer there?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/25/2011 10:45 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
> LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
> Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
> fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
> I don't.

Stop misrepresenting what I said. I never said anything about CE2011
being fradulent. I did suggest that the appearance of the bullet could
change from when Todd saw his initials on CE 399 to when Hunt looked at it.

>
> Poe was unsure whether he marked the two Benavides shells or not. But,
> of course, the "Poe Didn't Mark The Shells" argument goes nowhere
> anyway -- because there are two other shells that didn't go through
> Poe's hands--and those shells have no problem at all with any "chain
> of custody" issues (even per most CT fanatics). And those two OTHER
> shells are also from Oswald's revolver.
>

So, it's ok with you if half the evidence has no chain of evidence.

> And since we know there was ONLY ONE PERSON dumping shells out of a

> gun at 10th& Patton on 11/22/63, then it's fairly simple to determine

> that ALL of the shells found on the ground that day came from Oswald's
> gun.
>

You don't know that. You assume that.
Don't the markings on the primers match the hammer of Oswald's gun?

> Or would you like to theorize the crazy scenario of there having
> already been some shells lying around in the Davises' yard BEFORE
> 11/22? That'd be a new one for CTers.
>

That is not the leading alternative theory. The alternative theory that
some advance is that there was a second shooter.
So far I have not heard a theory about a different shooter planting
Oswald revolver shells at the scene.

[bigdog]

On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <63b5c4f4-a1ad-4d25-b6bd-9d3a6d843...@28g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Tony,
>
> > The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
> > LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
>
> That was pretty tough since his initials weren't on CE399, David:-)
>
> The FBI's policy was made crystal clear by J. Edgar Hoover, "The public
> must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone - despite the fact that in
> private conversations with LBJ, he expressed his belief that Connally was
> hit by a sniper from the front.
>

Hoover never said that. You probably don't know who did. Hoover
revealed in his private conversations how ignorant he was of the
details of the shooting.

> Over and over again, they lied to cover up this crime. Even the WC
> complained about their failure to followup conspiracy leads.
>

You just make things up because it sounds interesting to you. There is
nothing to support these claims.

> They lied when they claimed that SA Odum got a confirmation from Tomlinson
> and Wright and they lied about their interview with Parkland supervisor,
> Bell.
>

If it is a choice between believing the FBI or believing you, it is an
easy call.

> You should ask john mcadams sometime about the time when his team which
> had posted thousand of messages attacking Ray and Mary La Fontaine had to
> go totally and forever silent on that issue after we proved that the FBI
> lied in federal court about the identity of an informant who could only
> have been Oswald.
>

You mean you assume it could only have been Oswald.

> And yet blithely accept a totally uncorroborated claim by FBI agent Todd,
> without so much as a speck of corroboration.
>
> > Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
> > fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
> > I don't.
>
> You believe it David, because you WANT to believe it. You have no
> corroboration of any kind and to save your life, you could never show us
> those initials.
>

No, Bob. We would have to have the bullet in our possession to do
that. Do you think the National Archives would let us borrow it for a
few days?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The alternative [Tippit murder] theory that some advance is that there was a second shooter. So far I have not heard a theory about a different shooter planting Oswald revolver shells at the scene." <<<

You'd better brush up on Jim Garrison's lunacy then:

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges
were found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not
eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find
gratuitous
cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer
deliberately takes the trouble to eject them [which Oswald did, of
course]. We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from
Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers
as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/26/2011 12:16 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <63b5c4f4-a1ad-4d25...@28g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Tony,
>>
>> The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
>> LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
>
> That was pretty tough since his initials weren't on CE399, David:-)
>
> The FBI's policy was made crystal clear by J. Edgar Hoover, "The public
> must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone - despite the fact that in
> private conversations with LBJ, he expressed his belief that Connally was
> hit by a sniper from the front.
>

Hoover never said anything like that. Once again you are caught
misrepresenting statements.

> Over and over again, they lied to cover up this crime. Even the WC
> complained about their failure to followup conspiracy leads.
>
> They lied when they claimed that SA Odum got a confirmation from Tomlinson
> and Wright and they lied about their interview with Parkland supervisor,
> Bell.
>
> You should ask john mcadams sometime about the time when his team which
> had posted thousand of messages attacking Ray and Mary La Fontaine had to
> go totally and forever silent on that issue after we proved that the FBI
> lied in federal court about the identity of an informant who could only
> have been Oswald.
>

The whole Oswald as an FBI informant nonsense was a hoax started by
William Alexander to get back at Hoover for threatening him into remove
the charge on Oswald that he was part of an "International Communist
Conspiracy."

[timstter]

There has never been any doubt that your POSTS are a joke, in my view.

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/26/2011 8:52 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <63b5c4f4-a1ad-4d25-b6bd-9d3a6d843...@28g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>> David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tony,
>>
>>> The Poe situation isn't the same as the Todd instance. Elmer Todd
>>> LOOKED RIGHT AT CE399 and identified his own initials on the bullet.
>>
>> That was pretty tough since his initials weren't on CE399, David:-)
>>
>> The FBI's policy was made crystal clear by J. Edgar Hoover, "The public
>> must be convinced.." that Oswald acted alone - despite the fact that in
>> private conversations with LBJ, he expressed his belief that Connally was
>> hit by a sniper from the front.
>>
> Hoover never said that. You probably don't know who did. Hoover

I think he was paraphrasing what Katzenbach said in his memo.

> revealed in his private conversations how ignorant he was of the
> details of the shooting.
>

Ya think?

>> Over and over again, they lied to cover up this crime. Even the WC
>> complained about their failure to followup conspiracy leads.
>>
> You just make things up because it sounds interesting to you. There is
> nothing to support these claims.
>

David Belin complained on TV shows about how certain agencies did not
share information with the WC.

>> They lied when they claimed that SA Odum got a confirmation from Tomlinson
>> and Wright and they lied about their interview with Parkland supervisor,
>> Bell.
>>
> If it is a choice between believing the FBI or believing you, it is an
> easy call.
>
>> You should ask john mcadams sometime about the time when his team which
>> had posted thousand of messages attacking Ray and Mary La Fontaine had to
>> go totally and forever silent on that issue after we proved that the FBI
>> lied in federal court about the identity of an informant who could only
>> have been Oswald.
>>
> You mean you assume it could only have been Oswald.
>

I think he is refering to the William Alexander hoax.

>> And yet blithely accept a totally uncorroborated claim by FBI agent Todd,
>> without so much as a speck of corroboration.
>>
>>> Therefore, Todd's initials ARE on the bullet. And CE2011 verifies that
>>> fact. Naturally, you think CE2011 is a fraudulent document. Great. But
>>> I don't.
>>
>> You believe it David, because you WANT to believe it. You have no
>> corroboration of any kind and to save your life, you could never show us
>> those initials.
>>
> No, Bob. We would have to have the bullet in our possession to do
> that. Do you think the National Archives would let us borrow it for a
> few days?
>

The question is whether the National Archives would let YOU examine the
bullet in person. They have for many WC defenders and few conspiracy
believers. Do you claim that they did not allow John Hunt to examine it?

[Robert Harris]

In article
<63775e80-e5af-4d33...@v15g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The witnesses who refused to verify CE399 were Tomlinson, Wright, Johnson
and Rowley.

For obvious reasons, the FBI would not reveal the reasons for their
denials, although Tomlinson confirmed in his WC testimony and in a
documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite, that the stretcher bullet did not
come from the stretcher he brought down from the second floor, and O.P.
Wright confirmed that the stretcher bullet was shaped much differently
than CE399.

All of those cites can be found in the article which you said you already
read.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<0137d9b2-8154-4f12...@h39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

Nonsense.

Both Johnson and Rowley would have refused to verify it, which would
have caused CE399 to get tossed - and rightly so.

> Because the case never went to trial, no such testimony
> was ever given.

Only a real expert would have known that!

> If you want to take from that there was no chain of
> possession, you are only fooling yourself.

You need to read the article that John McAdams posted, which confirmed
that even a witness failing to show up can cause evidence to be thrown
out. A flat refusal to verify by a witness (or two) in the chain of
possession, is the kiss of death.

You need to let go of this pathetic argument that has been discredited
not only by the experts I cited but McAdams' expert as well.

Johnson and Rowley undoubtedly, initialed the bullet. If they hadn't the
FBI would have said so. But they remained silent, for the obvious reason
that they didn't want to reveal the real reason for those men's denials.




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d0802914-9a0d-45b0...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 11:04?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0f957f3c-58c9-4265-8a9b-c77402bae...@j36g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

Ideally, it would be great to look at the original bullet. Otherwise,
just do what Hunt did and examine the original photos.

>I
> made the mistake of taking your word for it that Todd's initials were not
> on CE399.

LOL!!!

No, you just discovered that your position was untenable if you
acknowledged that fact and so, had to take a fallback position.

Mimicking David is a good plan though. Nobody knows how to retreat like
he does:-)

> After decades of arguing with CTs, I should have known better.

Yes, it's all "our" fault that you had to make a hasty retreat:-)

> So now it comes out that Todd has said that he verified his initials were
> on CE399 and there is absolutely no conflict between what Todd said and
> what Frazier testified to before the WC.

So it just "comes out"???

Did you think that FBI agent Todd DENIED that his initials were on
CE399???

I didn't think there was anyone who had studied this case for more than
a week, who didn't realize that after personally showing CE399 to
Johnson and Rowley and getting unanimous rejections, Todd then proceeded
to claim that he would verify it for the FBI.

That article was not written for people who are clueless about the case.
It was written for folks with at least a minimal amount of knowledge.

I also never mentioned that the assassination happened in Dallas, did
I:-)

I doubt that this will bother you much but Todd lied. He also never
reported the reason why Rowley and Johnson refused to verify CE399, at
least to anyone outside of the FBI.

> I guess you just forgot to
> mention that part.

There were hundreds of things I "forgot" to mention, but apparently, my
real sin was to overestimate the intelligence of a few of my readers:-)

> But because some yahoo couldn't see Todd's initials on
> photographs of the bullet,

Correction: NO ONE sees Todd's intitials on that bogus piece of
evidence, not you, not Mr. Von Pein, and not anyone else.

> you make the ridiculous assumption that both
> Todd and Frazier were lying.

Those are not assumptions, ridiculous or otherwise. They are proven
facts.

You do not exonerate the FBI by citing FBI agents, amigo. That's just
not how it works. If it did, then you must believe that Oswald was
innocent because he said he didn't shoot anybody.

We already know for a fact that the FBI lied about SA Odums interview
and verification, and we know they lied about their interview with
Audrey Bell.

How many more lies do they have to tell before you stop blindly
accepting everything they say??



Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 26, 9:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <63775e80-e5af-4d33-af82-5dc472625...@v15g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 11:07?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The FBI NEEDED to offer the WC a reason for why these witnesses refused to
> > > verify CE399. Why didn't they tell them that they just didn't bother to
> > > mark it?
>
> > Please be specific who these witnesses were and quote exactly what they
> > said when they "refused" to verify CE399.
>
> The witnesses who refused to verify CE399 were Tomlinson, Wright, Johnson
> and Rowley.
>

And of course you won't quote them. You prefer to twist their words to
suit your purpose.

> For obvious reasons, the FBI would not reveal the reasons for their
> denials, although Tomlinson confirmed in his WC testimony and in a
> documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite, that the stretcher bullet did not
> come from the stretcher he brought down from the second floor, and O.P.
> Wright confirmed that the stretcher bullet was shaped much differently
> than CE399.
>
> All of those cites can be found in the article which you said you already
> read.
>

And what article would that be?

[bigdog]

On Oct 26, 9:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <0137d9b2-8154-4f12-afcf-813b07ea4...@h39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,

All that is necessary for the chain of evidence to be established is
that one person testifies he gave the bullet to another person and
that person testifies they received the bullet and passed it on to the
next person and so on. That is from one of the examples which YOU
provided.

> You need to let go of this pathetic argument that has been discredited
> not only by the experts I cited but McAdams' expert as well.
>
> Johnson and Rowley undoubtedly, initialed the bullet.

A blatant assumption. Did either of them testify to having initialed
the bullet?

> If they hadn't the
> FBI would have said so. But they remained silent, for the obvious reason
> that they didn't want to reveal the real reason for those men's denials.
>

So in your mind, their silence on this matter allows you to assume
they initialed the bullet. What a joke!!!

[David Von Pein]

>>> "NO ONE sees Todd's intitials on that bogus piece of evidence, not you, not Mr. Von Pein, and not anyone else." <<<

But Todd's initials are on that bullet just the same. And CE2011
proves that Todd identified CE399 by way of finding HIS OWN INITIALS
on that bullet.

And I don't care what John Hunt said, the marks of Cunningham,
Frazier, and Killion on CE399 are not very distinct at all via the
NARA photos that Hunt used.

"On June 24, 1964, Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd...identified C1,
a rifle bullet [CE399], as being the same one he received from James
Rowley...on November 22, 1963. This identification was made from
initials marked thereon by Special Agent Todd at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation Laboratory upon receipt." -- CE2011; Pg. 3

[David Von Pein]

More talk about CE399/Todd/Tomlinson/Wright/etc.:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2011 9:24 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> More talk about CE399/Todd/Tomlinson/Wright/etc.:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html
>

I particularly like DVP's excuse which is that incompetence is the root
cause of all these discrepancies. Or bad memory.

"When Bardwell Odum, decades later, said he didn't show CE399 to
anybody at Parkland in June of 1964, it's very likely that he just
simply did not remember doing so. More than 37 years had passed, and I
wonder how good Odum's memory was in November 2001."

Of course certain conspiracy believers will never admit that simple
incompetence on the part of the SS, FBI or autopsy doctors can explain a
mistake and that conspiracy is the only possible solution.
Yet DVP gets a pass from all his WC defender buddies on his GUESSING
that incompetence is the only possible solution.
If a conspiracy believer had said the same thing, you can be sure that
McAdams and Company would be demanding absolute proof. And where is that
absolute proof? Where is the proof that Odom could possibly have taken
the bullet from the National Archives to show people at Parkland
Hospital? Where is the sign-out sheet for the evidence? Where is the
internal memo from or to Odom outlining the FBI plans to show CE399 to
the witnesses? Once again the answer is that no WC defender will ever
look for these documents. Only a conspiracy theorist. And of course the
government continues to withhold all these files and we can't find out
the answer for another 100 years. And WC defenders like it that way.
So that they are free to guess and call it incompetence when conspiracy
believers call it conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

True, in general, but remember that this was a Texas case which Wade
would have been prosecuting and his record was something like 24
convictions out of 25 cases. And Texas was famous for convicting
innocent men.

[bigdog]

On Oct 26, 9:08 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d0802914-9a0d-45b0-bbe3-e3c9196e1...@s14g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

On the one hand, we have the person who put the initials on the bullet
who looked at the bullet and saw his initials and on the other hand we
have some schmuck who only looked at a photo of the bullet and you
choose to believe the schmuck.

> >I
> > made the mistake of taking your word for it that Todd's initials were not
> > on CE399.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> No, you just discovered that your position was untenable if you
> acknowledged that fact and so, had to take a fallback position.
>

You blatantly misrepresented Todd's position. He said his initials were on
the bullet and you tried to hide that fact to make your silly case.

> Mimicking David is a good plan though. Nobody knows how to retreat like
> he does:-)
>

Are you going to deny Todd has said his initials were on the bullet?

> > After decades of arguing with CTs, I should have known better.
>
> Yes, it's all "our" fault that you had to make a hasty retreat:-)
>

As Colonel Corbett said in the Korean War movie of the same name,
"RETREAT HELL!!!"

> > So now it comes out that Todd has said that he verified his initials were
> > on CE399 and there is absolutely no conflict between what Todd said and
> > what Frazier testified to before the WC.
>
> So it just "comes out"???
>

Let's put it another way. You've been exposed.

> Did you think that FBI agent Todd DENIED that his initials were on
> CE399???
>

It was my blunder for believing your half truth on the subject.

> I didn't think there was anyone who had studied this case for more than
> a week, who didn't realize that after personally showing CE399 to
> Johnson and Rowley and getting unanimous rejections, Todd then proceeded
> to claim that he would verify it for the FBI.
>

So you think that someone who has studied the case for a week is going to
know every last detail about what every witness had to say about the case.
There are 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. Is one supposed to commit
all that information to memory? I made the mistake of trusting you to tell
the whole truth about the matter. That won't happen again.

> That article was not written for people who are clueless about the case.
> It was written for folks with at least a minimal amount of knowledge.
>

You're being ridiculous. AGAIN!!!

> I also never mentioned that the assassination happened in Dallas, did
> I:-)
>
> I doubt that this will bother you much but Todd lied.

There is a difference between you and Todd. I believe Todd.

> He also never
> reported the reason why Rowley and Johnson refused to verify CE399, at
> least to anyone outside of the FBI.  
>

Why would he?

> > I guess you just forgot to
> > mention that part.
>
> There were hundreds of things I "forgot" to mention, but apparently, my
> real sin was to overestimate the intelligence of a few of my readers:-)
>

No, your intent was to hide the fact that Todd verified his initials were
on the bullet. You wanted to make it appear that the bullet Todd initialed
was not the same bullet Frazier initialed. In fact, they initialed the
same bullet and that was CE399, your bullshit not withstanding.

> > But because some yahoo couldn't see Todd's initials on
> > photographs of the bullet,
>
> Correction: NO ONE sees Todd's intitials on that bogus piece of
> evidence, not you, not Mr. Von Pein, and not anyone else.
>

You are talking about photographs. Todd, saw the actual bullet, knew
where he initialed it, and confirmed his initials were on it.

> > you make the ridiculous assumption that both
> > Todd and Frazier were lying.
>
> Those are not assumptions, ridiculous or otherwise. They are proven
> facts.
>

Only to someone who believes in fairy tales.

> You do not exonerate the FBI by citing FBI agents, amigo. That's just
> not how it works. If it did, then you must believe that Oswald was
> innocent because he said he didn't shoot anybody.
>

There is a mountain of evidence Oswald shot at two people. There is no
evidence any FBI agent lied in this case. Your ridiculously overactive
imagination does not constitute evidence of anything.

> We already know for a fact that the FBI lied about SA Odums interview
> and verification, and we know they lied about their interview with
> Audrey Bell.
>
> How many more lies do they have to tell before you stop blindly
> accepting everything they say??
>

How many more fairy tales are you going to tell.

[David Von Pein]

CE399 ADDENDUM:

It should also be pointed out (over and over again) to the conspiracy
theorists that BOTH Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright told the FBI in June
of 1964 that Bullet CE399 looked like the bullet they each saw on
11/22/63.

CTers, however, will always ignore that very important fact that both
Tomlinson AND Wright said that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet they
each saw on Nov. 22....but they could not make a POSITIVE identification
of the bullet because neither man put any mark on the missile. So,
obviously, they could not POSITIVELY say that 399 was THE exact bullet
they saw....particularly due to the fairly undamaged state that CE399 was
in.

If the bullet had been badly deformed or had some other distinguishing
mark or jagged edge on it that would make it look greatly different from
any other Carcano bullet, then perhaps Tomlinson or Wright would have been
able to confidently say something akin to: "Yes, that is definitely the
bullet I handled on November 22nd--I can tell by this jagged edge over
here."

But since 399 was, indeed, in such good shape (looking basically like any
other UNFIRED Carcano FMJ bullet they could have been shown), then how
could anybody expect either Tomlinson or Wright to come out and say (with
certainty) that CE399 is definitely THE bullet they each saw on Nov. 22?

Actually, when you think about this topic for more than a few moments, it
seems perfectly reasonable (and CORRECT) for both Tomlinson and Wright to
have said they couldn't be positively sure that CE399 was the stretcher
bullet. Because if they had said anything else, it would have seemed very
phony and disingenuous on their part...because ALL OTHER CARCANO BULLETS
WITHOUT THE INITIALS OF TOMLINSON AND WRIGHT would have looked pretty much
exactly the same to those two men.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

[bigdog]

On Oct 27, 9:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> More talk about CE399/Todd/Tomlinson/Wright/etc.:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-37.html

But of course, in the CT mindset, just because Tomlinson and Wright could
only say it looked like the bullet that was found and passed on to the
investigators, it must mean it was not the same bullet they saw, because
they could not positively identify it. Bullets are mass produced in molds
and one bullet is going to look almost exactly like another. A bullet that
only deformed slightly, as was the case with CE399, is not going to have
enough distinctive characteristics to allow a witness to positively
identify it more than 6 months after he last saw it.

This reminds me of a Robin Williams comedy routine. Impersonating a
scientist with a British accent, he explained the process of the cloning
of a sheep. "Through cloing, we have produced two identical sheep. As if
anybody could tell the fucking difference before.".

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, let me get this straight. Your central theory is that Odum was simply
wrong in not remembering that he had shown CE399 to the Parkland
witnesses. Then you claim that Todd on the other hand could not have made
the same type of simple mistake. What about Poe? Did he really initial the
Tippit shells or did he just think he had? And what about the bullet
itself which you admit does not clearly show the markings? Look at the
example you used on your Web site.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/6/60/Photo_naraevid_CE399-7.jpg

Are you claiming that John Hunt simply looked at the NARA photos on his
computer and couldn't see anything so he reasoned that there was nothing
there?

Can you notice any difference in appearance in those NARA photos taken in
1985 and the earliest photos taken of CE399 beyond the fact that they only
had black and white in the old days?

For example the NARA photos are in color and the NA puts a color
registration card on each exhibit. What is that funny green stuff in the
cannelure? Guacamole? Why does the bullet appear so much darker in 1985 as
compared to how shiny it looked in 1963? If you held up a 1963 bullet next
to the 1985 bullet would witnesses say they look exactly the same? What is
that thing called when metal gets darker and darker over time? Don't you
think that alone could account for someone being able to see a tiny
scratch on a bullet in 1963 and not being able to see it in 1985? How long
does it take for a copper roof to change from brown to green?

[Anthony Marsh]

And you don't mind if they lied as long as they work for the government.
And you don't realize that someone can sign off for an envelope without
seeing what's in it.

[jas]

Why do you run in circles by re-asserting the kettle-pot tactic? All
you're saying is CTs tend to think incompetence is indication of
conspiracy and LNs turn to the evidence to explain.

Or, put another way, conspiracists like to speculate without any proof
of what they're alleging, and LNs cite the hard evidence derived from
exhaustive scientific research over half a century.

So what's your point?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "If you held up a 1963 bullet next to the 1985 bullet would witnesses
say they look exactly the same? What is that thing called when metal gets
darker and darker over time? Don't you think that alone could account for
someone being able to see a tiny scratch on a bullet in 1963 and not being
able to see it in 1985?" <<<

Sounds like Tony is making my argument for me.

So, where's the dispute now, Anthony? You sure seem to be agreeing with me
with regard to Todd's initials being on the bullet, but they just can't be
clearly seen in the NARA pictures.

Want to argue about agreeing with me now?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I want to argue with your presuming to say that I agree with you.
I may have a similar conclusion, but yours may be just far enough off
that I can't endorse your solution.
I can't verify that Todd's initials were EVER on CE399. I certainly
wouldn't take his word on it. But if they were someone might not be able
to see them years later due to the change in the bullet surface.
I notice how you never answer my questions.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<41dd4110-a60b-4f46...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Calling researchers names, who've done more work on the case in an
afternoon than you've done in your lifetime, tells us much more about
you than it does him, john.

This is a childish way to discuss one of the most important crimes in
modern history.

If you thought that FBI agent Todd denied that his initials were on
CE399, I'm sorry for your confusion. I can only suggest that if you are
ignorant of basic facts like this, you should do a little research
before blurting out the things you do.

Todd only claimed his verification after all the others refused to do
so. And we already know that his initials are nowhere to be found on
CE399. If you think otherwise, then show them to us.

Also, Todd is the one who interviewed Johnson and Rowley and to this
day, has never explained why they refused. And his required 302 report
on that interview is nowhere to be found.







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<0c0a108b-cda5-462c...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

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

> CE399 ADDENDUM:
>
> It should also be pointed out (over and over again) to the conspiracy
> theorists that BOTH Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright told the FBI in June
> of 1964 that Bullet CE399 looked like the bullet they each saw on
> 11/22/63.

BULLSHIT!!

I know that you've already read this article, since you referenced it in
the past. How can you make a statement like that, knowing full well that
Odum flatly denied ever conducting that interview?

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMag
ical.htm

>
> CTers, however, will always ignore that very important fact that both
> Tomlinson AND Wright said that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet they
> each saw on Nov. 22....

David, would you mind linking us to the 302 report on that interview:-)

> but they could not make a POSITIVE identification
> of the bullet because neither man put any mark on the missile.

PROVE IT!

Post the words of those men, stating that the reason they rejected CE399
was that they didn't mark the bullet.

Oh wait!!!

There was never a report on that interview - mainly because it never
took place, as Odum himself, confirmed.

> So,
> obviously, they could not POSITIVELY say that 399 was THE exact bullet
> they saw....particularly due to the fairly undamaged state that CE399 was
> in.

What amazing revelations, David!

Now all you need to do is post citations to prove them.

Can we expect them soon?

>
> If the bullet had been badly deformed or had some other distinguishing
> mark or jagged edge on it that would make it look greatly different from
> any other Carcano bullet, then perhaps Tomlinson or Wright would have been
> able to confidently say something akin to: "Yes, that is definitely the
> bullet I handled on November 22nd--I can tell by this jagged edge over
> here."

David, you seem to be the only one saying all this - not the witnesses.
Why don't you let us in on what THEY said?

Oh hell, I'll help you out on this one - you can thank me later:-) As
I'm sure you know, Thompson interviewed Wright in 1967. This is from his
book, *Six Seconds in Dallas*.

(quoting)

Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in
November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any
description of #399, Wright said: ?That bullet had a pointed tip.?

?Pointed tip?? Thompson asked.

?Yeah, I?ll show you. It was like this one here,? he said, reaching into
his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six
Seconds.?[8]

As Thompson described it in 1967, ?I then showed him photographs of CE?s
399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald?s rifle)
(sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as
resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour
later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the
picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.?

(unquote)

Not only did Wright confirm that the two bullets were vastly different,
but his surprise at seeing photos of CE399, prove that he had not been
shown that bullet before.

As Bardwell Odum himself confirmed, that interview never happened. The
FBI just made it all up, and told the WC a blatant lie, for the obvious
purpose of trying to make them believe the two bullets were the same.





Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

On Oct 28, 8:15 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <0c0a108b-cda5-462c-9e31-42e457211...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > CE399 ADDENDUM:
>
> > It should also be pointed out (over and over again) to the conspiracy
> > theorists that BOTH Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright told the FBI in June
> > of 1964 that Bullet CE399 looked like the bullet they each saw on
> > 11/22/63.
>
> BULLSHIT!!
>
> I know that you've already read this article, since you referenced it in
> the past. How can you make a statement like that, knowing full well that
> Odum flatly denied ever conducting that interview?
>

> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMor...

This isn't from Thompson's book, it's from an email he
wrote to Gary Aguilar 33 years later.

http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/evenmoremagical/evenmoremagical.htm#_edn8

In Six Seconds Thompson wrote: " I asked [Wright] what the
bullet looked like, and he replied that it had a pointed tip like the one
I held in my hand (earlier he had procured a .30 caliber unfired
projectile that he had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment)."

Years later, Thompson said that Wright *wasn't* asked about
the shape and pulled a bullet out of a drawer. He even "recalled" their
conversation about it. This is just one small example of how memories
change over time. Memories aren't reliable, don't you get it?

>
> As Thompson described it in 1967, ?I then showed him photographs of CE?s
> 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald?s rifle)
> (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as
> resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour
> later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the
> picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.?
>
> (unquote)
>
> Not only did Wright confirm that the two bullets were vastly different,
> but his surprise at seeing photos of CE399, prove that he had not been
> shown that bullet before.

Proves no such thing, Robert.

[bigdog]

On Oct 28, 9:13 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <41dd4110-a60b-4f46-a3a0-f5bd0be6e...@l19g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

That's wonderful since in no way do I consider myself a research. I am
a skeptic with a keen BS detector and this is BS.

> This is a childish way to discuss one of the most important crimes in
> modern history.
>

This crime was solved a long time ago. The nonsense you guys engage in
hardly qualifies as serious research. It is an excercise in futility and
has been for many decades. Sorry if I can't take you guys seriously.

> If you thought that FBI agent Todd denied that his initials were on
> CE399, I'm sorry for your confusion. I can only suggest that if you are
> ignorant of basic facts like this, you should do a little research
> before blurting out the things you do.
>

You clearly attempted to create the impression that Todd did not find his
initials on the ball. It is one of the half truths you resort to in orde
to create false impressions. When you claim witnesses refused to confirm
that CE399 was the bullet they had seen. The WHOLE truth is that these
witnesses said it looked like the bullet they saw but could not say
positively because the bullet didn't have any obviously identifying
characteristics to distinquish it from another bullet and because it had
been many months since they originally saw it.

> Todd only claimed his verification after all the others refused to do
> so. And we already know that his initials are nowhere to be found on
> CE399. If you think otherwise, then show them to us.
>

Another one of your innuendos to create the impression that Todd was
engaging in a deceit. Your description creates the impression that Todd
made his verification only because the others could not make a positive
identification. You have no evidence Todd lied but you spin the truth to
make it look like he did. One of just many reasons why I don't take any of
you guys seriously. You can't make your case by being straight forward
with the facts.

> Also, Todd is the one who interviewed Johnson and Rowley and to this
> day, has never explained why they refused. And his required 302 report
> on that interview is nowhere to be found.
>

Oh brother, more innuendos. There is no reason for Todd to explain
anything because nothing Johnson and Rowley said indicates CE399 was not
the bullet they originally saw. They simply said it looked like the bullet
they saw but could not make a positive identification. This whole notion
that Todd or anyone else at the FBI had any reason to hide anything is a
joke. The things the witnesses said regarding CE399 are perfectly
compatible with it being a genuine piece of evidence. They said it looked
like the bullet because some of them did not initial it or observe any
other unique characteristics, they would have no way of being positive it
was the same bullet. Through your half truths and innuendos, you are
trying to create the impression that they denied it was the same bullet
when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

People don't know from bullets. I bet if we showed you an SMI bullet and
a WCC bullet you wouldn't be able to tell which is which. Do you even
know what a cannelure is?

[Anthony Marsh]

The first question is how can someone see something which is not there?
The second question is why do WC defenders here make excuses for FBI
agents lying about the evidence?

>> Todd only claimed his verification after all the others refused to do
>> so. And we already know that his initials are nowhere to be found on
>> CE399. If you think otherwise, then show them to us.
>>
>
> Another one of your innuendos to create the impression that Todd was
> engaging in a deceit. Your description creates the impression that Todd
> made his verification only because the others could not make a positive
> identification. You have no evidence Todd lied but you spin the truth to
> make it look like he did. One of just many reasons why I don't take any of
> you guys seriously. You can't make your case by being straight forward
> with the facts.
>

Well instead of deceit why don't we just claim that he was simply wrong
or maybe that he was insane?

[Robert Harris]

In article
<eb77af6e-2385-4114...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 28, 8:15?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0c0a108b-cda5-462c-9e31-42e457211...@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> > David, you seem to be the only one saying all this ?- not the witnesses.

> > Why don't you let us in on what THEY said?
> >
> > Oh hell, I'll help you out on this one - you can thank me later:-) As
> > I'm sure you know, Thompson interviewed Wright in 1967. This is from his
> > book, *Six Seconds in Dallas*.
> >
> > (quoting)
> >
> > Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in
> > November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any
> > description of #399, Wright said: ?That bullet had a pointed tip.?
> >
> > ?Pointed tip?? Thompson asked.
> >
> > ?Yeah, I?ll show you. It was like this one here,? he said, reaching into
> > his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six
> > Seconds.?[8]
>
> This isn't from Thompson's book, it's from an email he
> wrote to Gary Aguilar 33 years later.
>
> http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/evenmoremagical/evenmoremagical.h
> tm#_edn8
>
> In Six Seconds Thompson wrote: " I asked [Wright] what the
> bullet looked like, and he replied that it had a pointed tip like the one
> I held in my hand (earlier he had procured a .30 caliber unfired
> projectile that he had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment)."
>
> Years later, Thompson said that Wright *wasn't* asked about
> the shape and pulled a bullet out of a drawer. He even "recalled" their
> conversation about it. This is just one small example of how memories
> change over time. Memories aren't reliable, don't you get it?

They're not the only thing that isn't reliable m'dear.

What you are ignoring is the fact that Thompson talked to Wright about
the pointed tip AFTER Wright pulled a bullet out of the drawer. So, his
statement years later was quite accurate.

You also forgot to mention this part,

"I then drew three bullet shapes: one pointed like the .30 caliber;
another long with rounded tip - like 399; still another squat and
rounded, like a .38 caliber. Wright picked the pointed tip as the one
that most resembled the bullet found on the stretcher."

The bottom line here is that Wright was indeed, adamant that CE399 was
shaped much differently than the original stretcher bullet.

>
> >
> > As Thompson described it in 1967, ?I then showed him photographs of CE?s
> > 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald?s rifle)
> > (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as
> > resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour
> > later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the
> > picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.?
> >
> > (unquote)
> >
> > Not only did Wright confirm that the two bullets were vastly different,
> > but his surprise at seeing photos of CE399, prove that he had not been
> > shown that bullet before.
>
> Proves no such thing, Robert.

I'm afraid it does Jean. Thompson also showed Wright a photograph of
CE399 but he remained adamant that that was not the bullet he handled,
and that the stretcher bullet had a much sharper tip.

Isn't it a drag that every single relevant witness outside of the FBI
suffered this terrible memory loss and all supported the same very
inconvenient conclusion?

Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

On Oct 28, 7:46 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <eb77af6e-2385-4114-b3e8-f144ed83d...@a17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

> >http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/evenmoremagical/evenmore...

> > tm#_edn8
>
> >             In Six Seconds Thompson wrote:  " I asked [Wright] what the
> > bullet looked like, and he replied that it had a pointed tip like the one
> > I held in my hand (earlier he had procured a .30 caliber unfired
> > projectile that he had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment)."
>
> >             Years later, Thompson said that Wright *wasn't* asked about
> > the shape and pulled a bullet out of a drawer.  He even "recalled" their
> > conversation about it.  This is just one small example of how memories
> > change over time.  Memories aren't reliable, don't you get it?
>
> They're not the only thing that isn't reliable m'dear.
>
> What you are ignoring is the fact that Thompson talked to Wright about
> the pointed tip AFTER Wright pulled a bullet out of the drawer. So, his
> statement years later was quite accurate.

No, it wasn't. I'm not disputing that Wright remembered the
bullet as being pointed. I'm saying that memories change, and Thompson's
two versions of how it went down illustrate that.

>
> You also forgot to mention this part,
>
> "I then drew three bullet shapes: one pointed like the .30 caliber;
> another long with rounded tip - like 399; still another squat and
> rounded, like a .38 caliber. Wright picked the pointed tip as the one
> that most resembled the bullet found on the stretcher."

No need to quote that, since I'm not disputing that in 1966
Wright thought the bullet was pointed.

>
> The bottom line here is that Wright was indeed, adamant that CE399 was
> shaped much differently than the original stretcher bullet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > As Thompson described it in 1967, ?I then showed him photographs of CE?s
> > > 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald?s rifle)
> > > (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as
> > > resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour
> > > later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the
> > > picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.?
>
> > > (unquote)
>
> > > Not only did Wright confirm that the two bullets were vastly different,
> > > but his surprise at seeing photos of CE399, prove that he had not been
> > > shown that bullet before.
>
> >           Proves no such thing, Robert.
>
> I'm afraid it does Jean. Thompson also showed Wright a photograph of
> CE399 but he remained adamant that that was not the bullet he handled,
> and that the stretcher bullet had a much sharper tip.

It literally does not matter whether Wright was adamant or not.
Check the research -- there is little or no correlation between witness
certainty and witness accuracy. Juries assume that there is. But studies
have shown that there isn't. Innocent men have gone to prison based on
testimony from "adamant" witnesses. It's also well established that
memories change. You could look it up.

>
> Isn't it a drag that every single relevant witness outside of the FBI
> suffered this terrible memory loss and all supported the same very
> inconvenient conclusion?

Not in their original statements, they didn't. And here's a
conspiracy researcher's interview of Tomlinson you could order from the
National Archives for a nominal fee, in which Tomlinson said that he was
shown a bullet by an FBI agent, and that it looked like the one he found:

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/26832/jfksnew.txt

(If the link doesn't work, just search for "Tomlinson" and "Marcus".)

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Now, wait a minute. You are letting down your fellow WC defenders. You
are supposed to claim that the conspiracy believers just made it up.

>>
>> You also forgot to mention this part,
>>
>> "I then drew three bullet shapes: one pointed like the .30 caliber;
>> another long with rounded tip - like 399; still another squat and
>> rounded, like a .38 caliber. Wright picked the pointed tip as the one
>> that most resembled the bullet found on the stretcher."
>
> No need to quote that, since I'm not disputing that in 1966
> Wright thought the bullet was pointed.
>

Which bullet? Just some random bullet someone showed him? But not CE399,
because it was still in the National Archives at the time.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<427fed0d-1ec2-4a82...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Thompson was a janitor for god's sake. He caved in to every govt agent
or lawyer who ever questioned him. But his original, untainted story was
that the bullet came from a different stretcher than the one he brought
down.

Furthermore, the FBI's own Airtel confirmed that both he and Wright
refused to verify CE399.

And finally, the FBI lied, claiming that SA Odum got a partial
verificaton from them. Why doesn't that bother you Jean?

Is it really more important to you to "win" debates and to acknowledge
the ridiculously obvious fact that this was scam by the FBI.

>
> >
> > You also forgot to mention this part,
> >
> > "I then drew three bullet shapes: one pointed like the .30 caliber;
> > another long with rounded tip - like 399; still another squat and
> > rounded, like a .38 caliber. Wright picked the pointed tip as the one
> > that most resembled the bullet found on the stretcher."
>
> No need to quote that, since I'm not disputing that in 1966
> Wright thought the bullet was pointed.

So are you claiming that he was delusional too, like the five witnesses
who confirmed that the bullet that actually wounded Connally was
recovered by a nurse who passed it to officer Nolan?

Jean, do you have a large file box at hom with hundreds of index cards,
entitled "Excuses"? Or did you enter them into a database yet:-)

>
> >
> > The bottom line here is that Wright was indeed, adamant that CE399 was
> > shaped much differently than the original stretcher bullet.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > As Thompson described it in 1967, ?I then showed him photographs of
> > > > CE?s
> > > > 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald?s rifle)
> > > > (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these
> > > > as
> > > > resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour
> > > > later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the
> > > > picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.?
> >
> > > > (unquote)
> >
> > > > Not only did Wright confirm that the two bullets were vastly different,
> > > > but his surprise at seeing photos of CE399, prove that he had not been
> > > > shown that bullet before.
> >
> > >           Proves no such thing, Robert.
> >
> > I'm afraid it does Jean. Thompson also showed Wright a photograph of
> > CE399 but he remained adamant that that was not the bullet he handled,
> > and that the stretcher bullet had a much sharper tip.
>
> It literally does not matter whether Wright was adamant or not.
> Check the research -- there is little or no correlation between witness
> certainty and witness accuracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong Jean, but I have to suspect that if Wright said
he was uncertain, it would have mattered to you a LOT!

But his saying that he was certain, just isn't worth poop. Is that how
it works:-)

> Juries assume that there is. But studies
> have shown that there isn't.

I don't think you will ever be able to show us a study that witnesses
who express certainty are not more reliable than those who don't.

But what is even more important than Wright's confirmation that the
bullets were different is the fact that he obviously, never told the FBI
that they looked similar.

This was an ex-police officer who was supposed to have been shown the
most important piece of evidence in American history.

Don't you find it just incredible that this event was "forgotten" by
both the FBI agent was was alleged to have conducted it and the man who
was supposed to have been interviewed???

> Innocent men have gone to prison based on
> testimony from "adamant" witnesses. It's also well established that
> memories change. You could look it up.

Yawn...

>
> >
> > Isn't it a drag that every single relevant witness outside of the FBI
> > suffered this terrible memory loss and all supported the same very
> > inconvenient conclusion?
>
> Not in their original statements, they didn't.

That's not true.

> And here's a
> conspiracy researcher's interview of Tomlinson you could order from the
> National Archives for a nominal fee, in which Tomlinson said that he was
> shown a bullet by an FBI agent, and that it looked like the one he found:
>
> http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/26832/jfksnew.txt

Your link is no good.

>
> (If the link doesn't work, just search for "Tomlinson" and "Marcus".)

Just post the document, Jean. Cut n paste it here, along with the
corroboration you have for this guy's claim.

I realize that Tomlinson was wishy washy and changed his story at the
drop of a hat. But his original, uncontaminated testimony tells the
tale. And even the FBI confirmed in their own Airtel that Tomlinson
refused to verify CE399 - just like the others did.





Robert Harris



>
> Jean

[Mitch Todd]

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 7:46 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Oct 28, 8:15?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

I'm not going to belabor the mistake that turns Josiah Thompson into
a janitor, but this little gem from Harris just tickles me:

> Thompson was a janitor for god's sake. He caved in to every govt agent

> or lawyer who ever questioned him. [...]

*** two sentences down*****

[Robert Harris]

In article
<f198cefc-263b-487a...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

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

> >>> "NO ONE sees Todd's intitials on that bogus piece of evidence, not you,
> >>> not Mr. Von Pein, and not anyone else." <<<
>
> But Todd's initials are on that bullet just the same.

I'm afraid not, David. I don't think that issue is in dispute anymore.


http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png



Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Oct 30, 3:53 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f198cefc-263b-487a-b120-8eece2afc...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "NO ONE sees Todd's intitials on that bogus piece of evidence, not you,
> > >>> not Mr. Von Pein, and not anyone else." <<<
>
> > But Todd's initials are on that bullet just the same.
>
> I'm afraid not, David. I don't think that issue is in dispute anymore.
>

You just disputed David's statement and than said the issue is not in
dispute. About as logical as anything else you have claimed.

[Robert Harris]

In article <4ead8298$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,

"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 28, 7:46 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Oct 28, 8:15?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not going to belabor the mistake that turns Josiah Thompson into
> a janitor, but this little gem from Harris just tickles me:
>
> > Thompson was a janitor for god's sake. He caved in to every govt agent
> > or lawyer who ever questioned him. [...]

Woohoo!! Great job Mitch!

Nutters 1
Harris 234






Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

I would rather see him are argue that Todd's initials WERE once on CE399.
I don't think anyone can get away with arguing that Todd's initials ARE
still on CE399 without showing them to us, which he refuses to do.

[bigdog]

On Oct 30, 9:15 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Woohoo!! Great job Mitch!
>
> Nutters  1
> Harris 234
>
> Robert Harris

Is this the FUBAR scoreboard?

[Mitch Todd]

"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote

So, at the declare-victory-and-get-out moment?

[Jean Davison]

On Oct 30, 8:40 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <427fed0d-1ec2-4a82-a5be-0c30aa4b0...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

"Refused" is your word, it's not in the document.

>
> And finally, the FBI lied, claiming that SA Odum got a partial
> verificaton from them. Why doesn't that bother you Jean?

I don't know that anyone lied. There's a conflict there,
for sure, but other explanations may be possible.

>
> Is it really more important to you to "win" debates and to acknowledge
> the ridiculously obvious fact that this was scam by the FBI.
>
>
> > > You also forgot to mention this part,
>
> > > "I then drew three bullet shapes: one pointed like the .30 caliber;
> > > another long with rounded tip - like 399; still another squat and
> > > rounded, like a .38 caliber. Wright picked the pointed tip as the one
> > > that most resembled the bullet found on the stretcher."
>
> >            No need to quote that, since I'm not disputing that in 1966
> > Wright thought the bullet was pointed.
>
> So are you claiming that he was delusional too, like the five witnesses
> who confirmed that the bullet that actually wounded Connally was
> recovered by a nurse who passed it to officer Nolan?

There's nothing "delusional" about it. MEMORIES CHANGE. If
you doubt that, please do some basic research.

Here's one example from a paper I found online:

QUOTE:

1. The Special Issue of Witness Confidence

The issue of the relationship between witness confidence and accuracy
is
particularly important, since confidence is the single cue to
accuracy
jurors rely on most. There is widespread belief (among college
students,
jurors, police officers, trial lawyers, and even the U.S. Supreme
Court)
that witness accuracy and witness confidence are highly correlated.
[1]


Given this widespread belief, it should not be surprising
that
there is substantial evidence that jurors (and mock jurors) rely
substantially on witness confidence to judge the accuracy of the
witness's
testimony.[2] Further, jurors tend to give more weight to the
confidence
of the witness than to factors that are more predictive of accuracy.
This
has been demonstrated in a series of studies by Wells, Lindsay, and
their
colleagues.[3]


Across all of these studies, mock jurors were unable to
discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Confidence of
the
witness was a strong predictor of perceived accuracy, whereas, (1)
***confidence was not actually significantly related to accuracy,***
and (2)
mock juror perceptions of witness accuracy were not related to actual
witness accuracy. In fact, juror perceptions of witness confidence
accounted for as much as 50% of the variance in juror judgments of
accuracy. Cutler and his colleagues[4] found that out of ten witness
variables known to affect actual accuracy, only confidence predicted
perceptions of accuracy and verdicts. Thus, it is clear that witness
confidence has a dramatic influence on jurors' perceptions of witness
accuracy.


*** It is equally clear that confidence is not a good
predictor of
witness accuracy. Recent reviews and meta-analyses of the literature
on
the relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy have
uniformly
concluded that witness confidence is only modestly (at best) related
to
accuracy-either between or within subjects.[5]***


There is also some evidence that eyewitness confidence is,
in
part, a stable individual difference variable. Looking at
accuracy-confidence relationships within individual subjects, Brown,
Deffenbacher & Sturgill[6] found that a given eyewitness's confidence
when
correct was highly correlated with that person's confidence when
incorrect. In contrast, however, a given eyewitness's confidence when
correct was not significantly higher than that same person's
confidence
when incorrect. ***In other words, a person's confidence in their own
eyewitness testimony seems to be determined more by whether (s)he is
a
confident person than by the accuracy of his/her testimony.[7] ****


To summarize, then, jurors are strongly affected by the confidence of
the
witness, such that they are very likely to believe a confident
witness.
Unfortunately, however, ***confident witnesses are not reliably more
likely
overall to be accurate than less confident
witnesses.***
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[My emphasis throughout]

END OF QUOTE
-- from "Foibles of Witness Memory for Traumatic/High Profile Events,"
SMU Law Review, available online

>
> But what is even more important than Wright's confirmation that the
> bullets were different is the fact that he obviously, never told the FBI
> that they looked similar.

Your "obviously" seems to mean, "I have no evidence for
this, but it's obvious to me that..."

>
> This was an ex-police officer who was supposed to have been shown the
> most important piece of evidence in American history.

Can you show that policemen have better memories?

>
> Don't you find it just incredible that this event was "forgotten" by
> both the FBI agent was was alleged to have conducted it and the man who
> was supposed to have been interviewed???

Where did Wright or Tomlinson deny being shown a bullet
by the FBI?

>
> > Innocent men have gone to prison based on
> > testimony from "adamant" witnesses.  It's also well established that
> > memories change.  You could look it up.
>
> Yawn...
>
>
>
> > > Isn't it a drag that every single relevant witness outside of the FBI
> > > suffered this terrible memory loss and all supported the same very
> > > inconvenient conclusion?
>
> >        Not in their original statements, they didn't.  
>
> That's not true.
>
> > And here's a
> > conspiracy researcher's interview of Tomlinson you could order from the
> > National Archives for a nominal fee, in which Tomlinson said that he was
> > shown a bullet by an FBI agent, and that it looked like the one he found:
>
> >http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/26832/jfksnew.txt
>
> Your link is no good.
>
>
>
> > (If the link doesn't work, just search for "Tomlinson" and "Marcus".)
>
> Just post the document, Jean. Cut n paste it here, along with the
> corroboration you have for this guy's claim.

"This guy" is conspiracy theorist Raymond Marcus, who wrote
"The Bastard Bullet." He provided a transcript to the HSCA, and I
posted most of it in this 2005 thread (post 154):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/f6009676aa46ae1f/de5b13bad34e1606?hl=en&q=marcus+tomlinson+author:jean+author:davison

If the link doesn't work, search Google Groups for "A
Surprising Tomlinson Interview"


Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

And we know why you REFUSE to quote CE 2011. Because it VERIFIES the
fact that you want to cover up:

Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he found on a hospital
carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963 but he cannot
positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O. P.
Wright.

> Deffenbacher& Sturgill[6] found that a given eyewitness's confidence