David VP's Latest Theory

[Robert Harris]

I suppose I should commend David for at least having the courage to
address an important issue, but the logic of his analysis is.. well, you
be the judge.

David's position is that nurse Audrey Bell, who placed four tiny
fragments from Connally's wrist, into an evidence envelope, first showed
the envelope to DA Henry Wade, who misunderstood her, thinking she said
that it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney".

She then passed the envelope to officer Bobby Nolan who also
misunderstood her description of tiny fragments from the wrist, thinking
that she said it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney". He then
initialed the envelope and carried it around that afternoon and evening,
not noticing that it was labelled "bullet fragments from the arm".

Bell of course, also made a terrible mistake. She thought that she
passed the fragments on to two plain clothed agents in her office and
was certain she never gave them to Nolan or anyone else who was in
uniform then, standing around in the hallway.

Oh, almost forgot - in addition to Wade's mistake, Nolan's mistake and
Bell's mistake, there was Connally's mistake. Like all of his other
arguments, David never provides a speck of evidence or testimony to
support his claim, that Connally never saw the bullet that was recovered
by that nurse.

Interested readers might want to put themselves in Connally's shoes for
a moment. You have just been shot and are about to go into surgery,
presumably to have whatever bullets removed, that were in your body. You
hear a sound as something hits the floor. You cannot see it because you
looked the other way as the nurse examined it, so you have to take a
wild guess. Would it be:

1. A surgical instrument fell to the floor.

2. A nurse dropped an earring or other item of jewelry.

or

3. A bullet that struck you, emerged from your body and fell to the floor.

I don't know about you, but for me, #3 would be by far, the least likely
presumption. And even if he had taken a wild guess, Connally would have
been rather dishonest to state with such certainty, that this was a bullet.

The other far more likely possibility is, that he saw the bullet on the
floor, or saw the nurse examine it after she picked it up. Think about -
how could she NOT have held the bullet in her hand and taken a few
seconds to examine it??

Since my previous reply to David seems to have evaporated, I will
respond to him, once again.

David Von Pein wrote:> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> David, you can't talk your way out of this. Four very reliable witnesses
> were 100% consistent in their recollections.
>
> It is insane to believe that Nolan and Wade both "mistakenly" thought
that
> the nurse said the bullet came from Connally's gurney, while Connally
> "mistakenly" thought the bullet came from his gurney.
>
> And all three of those men were consistent that this was a whole bullet.
> Do you really think that all of them made EXACTLY the same errors??
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Well, Bob, since it's my firm belief that this JFK case is filled with
> people who did, indeed, make "EXACTLY the same errors" --- such as the
> "Grassy Knoll" witnesses (who all made "EXACTLY the same errors");

And your "belief", is all it is.

The large majority of people who have researched this case, believe that
at least one shot was fired from the knoll or somewhere at the west end
of DP.

But even if you were correct, this would have nothing to do with the
CE399 issue.

> and the
> three autopsy surgeons (who all, incredibly, made "EXACTLY the same error"
> regarding the true location of the entry wound in President Kennedy's
> head);

There is no evidence whatsoever, that they were wrong - only your
subjective "belief" :-)

And of course, that has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing.
Each situation must be evaluated on an individual basis. If a witness
was wrong about the color of the perp's socks, that does not mean that
he was wrong that shots were fired.


> and the many witnesses at Parkland Hospital (who all made "EXACTLY
> the same error" with respect to the location of the large wound in JFK's
> head)

Utter nonsense. David, have you noticed that almost without exception,
you base your conclusions on your personal, subject beliefs, which you
cannot prove to save your proverbial life?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Parkland doctors were
wrong, but if they had been.... well, you know the rest.


> --- then yes, I do believe it's possible for multiple people to have
> been of the incorrect belief that the envelope handled by Officer Bobby
> Nolan contained a "bullet" rather than just "fragments", and that
multiple
> people might have also gotten the erroneous impression that this alleged
> "whole bullet" had fallen directly off of Governor Connally's stretcher
> and onto the floor.

Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

First, only Nolan was told that the envelope he received, contained a
bullet. Wade never mentioned an envelope and was very specific that she
held a "bullet" in her hand, as she told him that it was a bullet from
Connally's gurney.

And no one got an "erroneous impression". You are obviously, trying to
make it appear that this was some kind of subjective guesswork. But
these were professionals. They were specifically told that this was a
whole bullet from Connally's gurney - exactly as Connally himself stated.


>
> The two key pieces of mistaken information (the "whole bullet" and
> "falling from the gurney/stretcher") would have probably *started* with
> just ONE person saying those things.

Ahh!!

So Connally whispered into someone's ear and they whispered into someone
else's ear and they whispered....

David, I cannot think of words which adequately describe how impressed I
am by your critical thinking skills:-)

>
> The erroneous information then spreads to other people, who then
relay the
> same mistaken information to still more people. That's how most false
> rumors get started.

David, I think you need to get up to speed on this issue, so that you
won't embarrass yourself like this.

There was no whispering campaign from one person to another. Connally
certainly didn't whisper in anyone's ear. And FWIW, I considered the
possibility that Nolan had been influenced by Wade or Connally. But he
told me that he had never in his life, met either man and had heard
nothing either of them ever said about this issue.

He also stated that he never read Connally's book and was unaware of
Connally's statement about the nurse retrieving that bullet, as well as
Wade's interview on the subject.

> And they can spread fast too, like the erroneous
> report that spread throughout the world on 11/22/63 via radio,
television,
> and the newswires about how a Secret Service agent had been killed during
> the assassination of JFK. But, of course, we know that no SS agent was
> killed--or even shot--during the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

Sigh...

This argument could not possibly be relevant to the issues we are
discussing. Who are you hoping to convince?

>
> Robert Harris will disagree with the above scenario due to John Connally
> HIMSELF, according to his own book, saying that he heard a bullet fall
> from his stretcher.

No sir. I am disagreeing because with the possible exception Ralph
Cinque's crap, this is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard in
this forum.

> But Mr. Connally never SAW any such "bullet", did he
> Bob?

witness: Then a red convertible pulled into the driveway.

David: Ha!! He never said he SAW a red convertible!

Of course he saw it David. That's how he knew what it was - duh.


> No, he didn't. So any metal object that he might have heard clinking
> to the floor could conceivably have been any number of metal objects,
> couldn't it?

Of course not.

Because he saw the nurse pick it up. So, if it was something else, he
would have known it wasn't a bullet.

And he was fully corroborated by that nurse, who told both Wade and
Nolan, that this was a "bullet" from Connally's "gurney".

Let me try a wild and crazy, conspiracy theory on ya, David.

My theory is, that Connally, Bell, Wade, and Nolan all told the truth.
Except for Connally, all of them were professionals who were acutely
aware that when it comes to forensic evidence, the details are EVERYTHING!


> (And I have previously stated in another post the speculation
> that it was perhaps one of Mr. Connally's cuff links that fell to the
> floor, because one of the Governor's cuff links was never found.)

Connally knew that the cufflink was missing, when he wrote his book.
Don't you think he would have thought of that, if he hadn't firmly
identified the bullet?

And the corroborations cannot be refuted, David. There is no way anyone
would just assume that the bullet came from a "gurney" rather than from
surgery, if they had not been specifically told that.

>
> Plus, in all of Governor Connally's many interviews that he gave to the
> press following the assassination, how many times did he ever say
anything
> at all about hearing a bullet falling to the floor in the Parkland
> operating room?
>
> The answer to that last question is: *Zero times*.

Ahh!! So you think Connally lied?

He had stated off the record, that he realized this was a conspiracy,
but that the nation needed to move on, so he never publicly stated his
views.

If he had told the WC about this, it would have been a bombshell. It
would have exposed the FBI's flagrant coverup of the conspiracy and the
fact that they disposed of critical evidence.

Did you ever read the FD-302 on the Connally's David?

Well of course you didn't, because none was ever made public. You will
also never find one on Jackie. Of course, the FBI had to interview these
key witnesses. But there is absolutely no public record about what was
said then.

We do know however, that Jackie told two entirely different stories to
the WC. One, was what she "used to believe" and the other was the
amended version of her story, which I am quite certain, she absolutely
abhored. In the original, she heard a "first" shot and a "second" shot
*AFTER* Connally began to shout. And she also stated, that she "used to
believe" there was a third.

We should talk about this sometime, but for the moment, we should
consider that like Jackie, John Connally was very likely, influenced by
the FBI, regarding what he should and should not say.


>
> Connally never once said anything at all about any such "operating room"
> bullet.

You have no idea how many times he discussed that. You only know that he
did not go public with it, until he was literally, on his death bed.

> It's in his book, yes. But don't you think it's a little strange
> that he never mentioned this "operating room bullet" episode in any
of his
> many appearances that he made after November 22nd?

Not at all. You only need to understand that for almost thirty years, he
believed it was in the nation's best interests that the conspiracy
remained unknown.

You should read this article by Doug Thompson, who knew Connally personally.

http://www.rense.com/general70/connol.htm

This is from that article (quoting):

I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed
Kennedy?

"Absolutely not," Connolly said. "I do not, for one second, believe the
conclusions of the Warren Commission."

So why not speak out?

"Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will
never speak out publicly about what I believe."


>
> And you, Bob, surely can't imply that Mr. Connally was "covering up"
> anything in his post-11/22 interviews, right?

I don't "imply" David. I leave that to folks like you.

I base my conclusions on the facts and evidence.

> Because if Connally was part
> of the proverbial "cover up", then he would very likely have never
been so
> vocal about his belief that the Single-Bullet Theory was untrue.
Would he?

You only need to read his own words, David.

And even if he was the biggest liar on Earth, you can't get around the
fact that this nurse told both the district attorney and officer Nolan
that the bullet did indeed, come from Connally's "gurney".

She told both of them that, in two separate conversations. Your "theory"
that they just misunderstood her, is about as silly as things get around
here.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/13/2014 10:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> I suppose I should commend David for at least having the courage to
> address an important issue, but the logic of his analysis is.. well, you
> be the judge.
>
> David's position is that nurse Audrey Bell, who placed four tiny
> fragments from Connally's wrist, into an evidence envelope, first showed
> the envelope to DA Henry Wade, who misunderstood her, thinking she said
> that it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney".
>

I doubt that is his position. Did he specifically say 4 or did you make
up the 4?

Show me where Bell wrote 4 or Four on the evidence envelope.
SHOW me the evidence photo of 4 fragments taken on 11/22/63.
You can't because only 2 fragments were removed from the wrist and given
to Audrey Bell. Those 2 fragments later became 3 fragments and after NAA
became 4 fragments. But 4 fragments were not given to Audrey Bell.

> She then passed the envelope to officer Bobby Nolan who also
> misunderstood her description of tiny fragments from the wrist, thinking
> that she said it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney". He then
> initialed the envelope and carried it around that afternoon and evening,
> not noticing that it was labelled "bullet fragments from the arm".
>
> Bell of course, also made a terrible mistake. She thought that she
> passed the fragments on to two plain clothed agents in her office and
> was certain she never gave them to Nolan or anyone else who was in
> uniform then, standing around in the hallway.
>
> Oh, almost forgot - in addition to Wade's mistake, Nolan's mistake and
> Bell's mistake, there was Connally's mistake. Like all of his other
> arguments, David never provides a speck of evidence or testimony to
> support his claim, that Connally never saw the bullet that was recovered
> by that nurse.
>
> Interested readers might want to put themselves in Connally's shoes for
> a moment. You have just been shot and are about to go into surgery,
> presumably to have whatever bullets removed, that were in your body. You
> hear a sound as something hits the floor. You cannot see it because you
> looked the other way as the nurse examined it, so you have to take a
> wild guess. Would it be:
>
> 1. A surgical instrument fell to the floor.
>
> 2. A nurse dropped an earring or other item of jewelry.
>
> or
>
> 3. A bullet that struck you, emerged from your body and fell to the floor.
>

4. His other gold cuff link fell to the floor.

[Robert Harris]

Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/13/2014 10:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> I suppose I should commend David for at least having the courage to
>> address an important issue, but the logic of his analysis is.. well, you
>> be the judge.
>>
>> David's position is that nurse Audrey Bell, who placed four tiny
>> fragments from Connally's wrist, into an evidence envelope, first showed
>> the envelope to DA Henry Wade, who misunderstood her, thinking she said
>> that it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney".
>>
>
> I doubt that is his position.

Then why didn't you ask him, so that you wouldn't embarrass yourself
like this?

> Did he specifically say 4 or did you make
> up the 4?
>
> Show me where Bell wrote 4 or Four on the evidence envelope.

Bell told the HSCA that there were "four or five".

The actual number was four.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg

If you don't know these things, then look them up.

> SHOW me the evidence photo of 4 fragments taken on 11/22/63.
> You can't because only 2 fragments were removed from the wrist and given
> to Audrey Bell. Those 2 fragments later became 3 fragments and after NAA
> became 4 fragments. But 4 fragments were not given to Audrey Bell.

Sigh..

And you wonder why I usually don't answer your questions:-)




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/14/2014 7:22 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/13/2014 10:08 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> I suppose I should commend David for at least having the courage to
>>> address an important issue, but the logic of his analysis is.. well, you
>>> be the judge.
>>>
>>> David's position is that nurse Audrey Bell, who placed four tiny
>>> fragments from Connally's wrist, into an evidence envelope, first showed
>>> the envelope to DA Henry Wade, who misunderstood her, thinking she said
>>> that it was a whole bullet from Connally's "gurney".
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that is his position.
>
> Then why didn't you ask him, so that you wouldn't embarrass yourself
> like this?
>

Ask whom what? IF you mean DVP he posts enough here that he makes his
opinions well known. And you can't quote him saying what you claim.

>> Did he specifically say 4 or did you make
>> up the 4?
>>
>> Show me where Bell wrote 4 or Four on the evidence envelope.
>
> Bell told the HSCA that there were "four or five".
>

Good guess. Only 2 were placed into evidence by Frazier.

> The actual number was four.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg
>

No, again, pay attention. You are showing what was in evidence in 1978,
not 1963. That is known in the trade as an anachronism. I told you That
the 2 fragments became 3 and then became 4. They started out as 2. When
Josiah Thompson wrote about them there were only 2.

> If you don't know these things, then look them up.

Google it.
From 1999:

Thompson cites CE 842 as comprised of ONLY TWO FRAGMENTS, which is at odds
with Audrey Bell's claim that she had held "four or five fragments in her
hand", and there are five fragments (plus a minute particle immediately
above the largest fragment) shown in Groden. Thompson shows a WC photo
(p.197), depicting only two fragments as representing CE 842, the wrist
fragments. The photo shows apparently the largest fragment AND THE MINUTE
ONE, ABOUT ONE TENTH THE SIZE OF THE LARGEST, NOT HALF THE SIZE RE; BELL'S
STATEMENT THAT THE LARGEST fragment WAS ABOUT TWICE THE SIZE OF THE
SMALLEST, MATCHING WHAT WE SEE ON THE LEFT IN GRODEN.

Of the two fragments recovered from the Governor's
wrist, the larger was found to weigh 0.5 grain (5H72).
The smaller one plus the flakes of metal remaining in
his wrist might account for a like weight. This gives
us a total of about one grain for the wrist.

McAdams protects you by not allowing me to upload photographs of the
evidence. I know that you would not look at it if I posted it, but I
invite lurkers to look at the photo of CE842 taken in 1978 for the HSCA:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/CE843wc.jpg

And tell me if that looks like 4 or 5 fragments. What are you selling?

>
>
>> SHOW me the evidence photo of 4 fragments taken on 11/22/63.
>> You can't because only 2 fragments were removed from the wrist and given
>> to Audrey Bell. Those 2 fragments later became 3 fragments and after NAA
>> became 4 fragments. But 4 fragments were not given to Audrey Bell.
>
> Sigh..
>
> And you wonder why I usually don't answer your questions:-)
>

Because you know you'll lose.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I invite lurkers to look at the photo of CE842 taken in 1978 for the HSCA:

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/CE843wc.jpg

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're a little mixed up there, Tony. You didn't link to CE842. You linked
to a picture of CE843, which are the fragments removed from JFK's head.

The NARA color photo of CE842 clearly shows 4 fragments of metal. And one
of those fragments was weighed by Robert Frazier of the FBI, and he said
it weighed one-half of a grain [5 H 72].

There has been confusion over the years as to exactly how many bullet
fragments were removed from Governor Connally's right wrist. Bob Frazier
only talks about CE842 containing a SINGLE metal fragment when he received
that evidence from Vincent Drain on 11/22/63:

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "This [CE842] is a small fragment of metal which
weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is
a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a
bullet."

But Dr. Charles Gregory, who operated on Connally's wrist and removed some
bullet fragments, said that he retrieved "two or three" pieces of metal
from Connally's wrist during surgery.

And the envelope which is part of Warren Commission Exhibit 842 clearly
says the words "bullet fragments" (plural) on it, even though that very
same exhibit seems to show only one single piece of metal in the plastic
container to the right of the envelope:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm

And then there's this previously mentioned NARA color photo of Commission
Exhibit No. 842, which shows FOUR distinct metal fragments:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2FubIe1ZSeE/U8SdpJRO8bI/AAAAAAAA1z4/C6Vl-ezWIAs/s1600/NARA-Photo-CE842-Connally-Bullet-Fragments.jpg

And in the above picture, the biggest of the four fragments is just
slightly more than 2 millimeters in size. The NARA photo has been greatly
enlarged in order to show the fragments in more detail, and the ruler in
the photograph is clearly displaying MILLIMETERS. The remaining three
fragments in the above photo are about one-tenth the size of the biggest
fragment.

In other words, all of the bullet fragments that were removed from John
Connally's wrist were extremely small.

As to why there is only one single fragment seen in the Warren
Commission's photo of CE842, even though the accompanying envelope plainly
indicates that more than one fragment was taken from the "right arm" of
Governor Connally, I haven't the foggiest idea.

It would seem to suggest, however, that three of the fragments somehow got
separated from the one fragment that was examined by Bob Frazier, with
Frazier apparently not seeing or examining the other three pieces of metal
that were recovered from Connally's wrist at Parkland Hospital.

Now, with the confusion and uncertainty that exists concerning the
Connally fragments, I suppose a conspiracy theorist can argue that the
fragment that was weighed by the FBI's Robert Frazier was NOT the largest
of the four fragments we see in the NARA picture above, but was one of the
three smaller fragments visible in the picture.

I would contend, however, that it is likely that Frazier weighed the
biggest of those four fragments, with that fragment weighing only 0.5 of a
grain. And when comparing the biggest fragment seen in the NARA photo with
the one fragment visible in the CE842 picture published by the Warren
Commission, a similarity in the "triangular" shape of the fragments is
readily apparent. Whereas, the three much smaller fragments seen in the
NARA photo, when compared with the fragment seen in CE842, are not the
same shape at all [see photo comparison below].

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFi5bt0DWas/U8Sa07MUNkI/AAAAAAAA1zs/LX8xuBv1jEQ/s1600/NARA-Photo-And-CE842-Comparison.png

Therefore, via the scenario I just described, it's pretty clear that the
four fragments seen in the NARA photo do not weigh more than a TOTAL of
one grain (and probably even less than that).

And when we factor in the weight of all of the other bullet fragments that
were left inside Governor Connally's body after surgery, the total weight
of all bullet material deposited in his body on November 22, 1963, most
certainly does not exceed TWO grains of metal.

And the stretcher bullet (CE399) has lost approximately 2.2 to 2.4 grains
of its total mass. So the conspiracy theorists are once again wrong when
they insist that CE399 could not possibly be the bullet that struck
Governor Connally based on the "Too Many Fragments Left In Connally"
argument.

Footnote----

The number of bullet fragments that John Connally took with him to his
grave is not a definitive number, and I'll readily admit that fact. But I
think a good case can be made for only TWO tiny fragments of metal being
left in Connally's whole body when combining the testimony of all the
doctors involved in Governor Connally's treatment--Drs. Charles Gregory,
Robert Shaw, and Tom Shires).

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> I invite lurkers to look at the photo of CE842 taken in 1978 for the HSCA:
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/CE843wc.jpg
>
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You're a little mixed up there, Tony. You didn't link to CE842. You linked
> to a picture of CE843, which are the fragments removed from JFK's head.
>

> (That's got to be a bit of an embarrassing error for the JFK expert known
> as W. Anthony Marsh, doesn't it?)

>
> The NARA color photo of CE842 clearly shows 4 fragments of metal. And one
> of those fragments was weighed by Robert Frazier of the FBI, and he said

> it weighed one-half of a grain.

>
> There has been confusion over the years as to exactly how many bullet
> fragments were removed from Governor Connally's right wrist. Bob Frazier
> only talks about CE842 containing a SINGLE metal fragment when he received
> that evidence from Vincent Drain on 11/22/63:

That's because Frazier had other problems. The FBI also claimed that
Bell said the envelope she processed, only held a single fragment. But
they lied about that, just as they lied, claiming that she passed the
envelope to Nolan. In fact, Bell flatly denied saying either of those
things.

The FBI's problem was that they needed to convert Nolan's envelope,
which held the bullet (singular) that fell from Connally's gurney and
was recovered by a different nurse. In fact, the envelope appeared in
DPD records as containing just one fragment. Pretty strange, considering
that CE-842 clearly described multiple fragments, eh?

And BTW, it is quite easy to see that the plastic box in CE-842
contained exactly FOUR tiny fragments - no more and no less, which
matches quite well with Bell's testimony that it contained "four or five".

http://jfkhistory.com/fragments.png

>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "This [CE842] is a small fragment of metal which
> weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is
> a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a
> bullet."

Yes, but obviously, he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four,
and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments". There is no
way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to be sure that
he could pull of the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE object, so
Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope contained ONE
object, also.

>
> But Dr. Charles Gregory, who operated on Connally's wrist and removed some

> bullet fragments, said that he retrieved "2 or 3" pieces of metal from

> Connally's wrist during surgery.

He was wrong. It was not his job to pay attention to details like that,
and the CE-842 photo proves he was wrong.

>
> And the envelope which is part of Warren Commission Exhibit 842 clearly
> says the words "bullet fragments" (plural) on it, even though that very
> same exhibit seems to show only one single piece of metal in the plastic
> container to the right of the envelope:

Bullshit!

>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm

That shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied - no if, ands or
buts.


>
> And then we've got this NARA color photo of Commission Exhibit No. 842,

> which shows FOUR distinct metal fragments:
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/88/Photo_naraevid_CE842-1.jpg

Yes, those are the same frags we see in CE842, but moved into a corner.

This is more proof that Frazier knew that envelope contained four
fragments, when he testified before the WC. He lied, trying to make it
appear that this was the Nolan envelope - just as other FBI agents lied
about what Bell told them.

I'm not sure who said this, but it couldn't be more correct.

"..one lie leads to another as the liar tries to cover his or her lie
with more lies"


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

That's MY damn point. Only TWO fragments when introduced into evidence
by the WC. Thanks for confirming my point.
Certainly not 4 or 5. But then it becomes 3, and finally after Guinn
gets his hands on it -- 4. BTW, do you know that an aliquot is?

> And then there's this previously mentioned NARA color photo of Commission
> Exhibit No. 842, which shows FOUR distinct metal fragments:
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2FubIe1ZSeE/U8SdpJRO8bI/AAAAAAAA1z4/C6Vl-ezWIAs/s1600/NARA-Photo-CE842-Connally-Bullet-Fragments.jpg
>

Of course there are 4 fragments in 1978 after Guinn had cut the original
large fragment. That's my point. Harris made an anachronism.
He said Bell put 4 fragments into that envelope, but it only became 4
fragments after Guinn handled them.

> And in the above picture, the biggest of the four fragments is just
> slightly more than 2 millimeters in size. The NARA photo has been greatly
> enlarged in order to show the fragments in more detail, and the ruler in
> the photograph is clearly displaying MILLIMETERS. The remaining three
> fragments in the above photo are about one-tenth the size of the biggest
> fragment.
>

Wouldn't it be fun if the Archivist or Guinn took one of the tiny
windshield fragments and put it in CE 842?

> In other words, all of the bullet fragments that were removed from John
> Connally's wrist were extremely small.
>
> As to why there is only one single fragment seen in the Warren
> Commission's photo of CE842, even though the accompanying envelope plainly
> indicates that more than one fragment was taken from the "right arm" of
> Governor Connally, I haven't the foggiest idea.
>

That's my DAMN point. You've had all of 50 years and you still haven't
come up with a good cover-up theory. Slacker.

> It would seem to suggest, however, that three of the fragments somehow got
> separated from the one fragment that was examined by Bob Frazier, with
> Frazier apparently not seeing or examining the other three pieces of metal
> that were recovered from Connally's wrist at Parkland Hospital.
>

Simple oversight? Incompetence? Conspiracy? Read John Hunt's articles
about evidence handling by the FBI.

> Now, with the confusion and uncertainty that exists concerning the
> Connally fragments, I suppose a conspiracy theorist can argue that the
> fragment that was weighed by the FBI's Robert Frazier was NOT the largest
> of the four fragments we see in the NARA picture above, but was one of the
> three smaller fragments visible in the picture.
>

I don't think so.
Look at the evidence sheet. He measured everything, as small as 0.15 grains.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

> I would contend, however, that it is likely that Frazier weighed the
> biggest of those four fragments, with that fragment weighing only 0.5 of a
> grain. And when comparing the biggest fragment seen in the NARA photo with
> the one fragment visible in the CE842 picture published by the Warren
> Commission, a similarity in the "triangular" shape of the fragments is
> readily apparent. Whereas, the three much smaller fragments seen in the
> NARA photo, when compared with the fragment seen in CE842, are not the
> same shape at all [see photo comparison below].
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lFi5bt0DWas/U8Sa07MUNkI/AAAAAAAA1zs/LX8xuBv1jEQ/s1600/NARA-Photo-And-CE842-Comparison.png
>

And you see nothing suspicious about that?

> Therefore, via the scenario I just described, it's pretty clear that the
> four fragments seen in the NARA photo do not weigh more than a TOTAL of
> one grain (and probably even less than that).
>
> And when we factor in the weight of all of the other bullet fragments that
> were left inside Governor Connally's body after surgery, the total weight
> of all bullet material deposited in his body on November 22, 1963, most
> certainly does not exceed TWO grains of metal.
>

That's not ALL the fragments though. You guys still have fragments in
Connally's body. The unlogged fragment found elsewhere in his body, more
from his wrist and one from the leg.
I don't care how many grains you think they add up to. The point is the
playing around with the NUMBER of fragments and the alteration of
documents to hide fragments. You are in favor of those things. I oppose
them.

> And the stretcher bullet (CE399) has lost approximately 2.2 to 2.4 grains

I don't care what the exact loss was. That's not MY argument.

> of its total mass. So the conspiracy theorists are once again wrong when
> they insist that CE399 could not possibly be the bullet that struck
> Governor Connally based on the "Too Many Fragments Left In Connally"
> argument.
>

I never said that.

> Footnote----
>
> The number of bullet fragments that John Connally took with him to his
> grave is not a definitive number, and I'll readily admit that fact. But I

That's right. It's not definitive. It can change from day to day
depending on the weather or who's in power.

> think a good case can be made for only TWO tiny fragments of metal being
> left in Connally's whole body when combining the testimony of all the
> doctors involved in Governor Connally's treatment--Drs. Charles Gregory,
> Robert Shaw, and Tom Shires).
>

How many grains?

> More:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html
>

DVP said:

Conspiracy advocates claim that the bullet's missing grains of lead
(which totalled approximately 2.2 grains, when an "average"/"median"
weight of an unfired WCC/MC 6.5mm bullet like CE399 is used as a
comparison) are less than the weight of the bullet fragments that were
discovered inside the body of Texas Governor John B. Connally on
11/22/63.

I say: Wrong. Plus the fragments still in him when he was buried plus
fragments lost during the operation. Plus fragments destroyed or lost by
the FBI. OH, and BTW the chunk that Frazier cut out of the base for
testing BEFORE he weighed it. Where is that chunk from the base now?
Did Frazier accidentally swallow it? I know, I can hear it now, "The FBI
ate my homework."

[Anthony Marsh]

Not the same shapes. Not the same sizes.

[David Von Pein]

Question for Robert Harris.....

What about these official November 1963 FBI interviews with Audrey Bell
and Bobby Nolan, in which we find no reference to any "whole bullet"? Only
a single "fragment" is mentioned in the two FBI reports linked below.

Now, yes, CE842 does contain more than just a SINGLE metal fragment. I'm
not denying that fact at all. But your theory about a WHOLE BULLET being
handled by Nurse Bell and Officer Nolan suffers a pretty big setback when
we have a look at these two FBI documents from November 22 and 23, 1963
[Commission Document No. 5].....

BELL:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=161

NOLAN:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=162

Footnote----

The discrepancy that exists in the CD5 reports about the fragment being
taken from Connally's THIGH, instead of his ARM/WRIST, is explained in
this part of CD5....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=159

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

That [picture of CE842] shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied.
.... Obviously he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four
[fragments], and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments".

There is no way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to

be sure that he could pull off the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE

object, so Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope

contained ONE object also.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which means you must also think that Arlen Specter lied too, right?
Because it was SPECTER, not FRAZIER, who first uttered the word "fragment"
(singular) in connection with the Warren Commission exhibit that was to
soon become CE842.

As a matter of fact, Arlen Specter used the word "fragment" (singular)
FIVE separate times before that same word ("fragment") ever came out of
the mouth of Bob Frazier. Let's look and see (and count):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was
identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "It was identified to me as having come from the arm
of Governor Connally."

SPECTER -- "Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?"

FRAZIER -- "This one does not have a Commission number as yet."

SPECTER -- "May it please the Commission, I would like to have this
fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842."

(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in
evidence.)

SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI
record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you
describe that fragment for us, please?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed

one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece
of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet."

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

Did Specter nudge Frazier before Frazier testified and whisper to him:

"Now remember, Bob, when we get to the part where I want to introduce
Exhibit 842, remember to follow my lead when I say to you FIVE different
times that CE842 consists of just one single fragment. That way, we'll
both be on the same page when it comes to this blatant lie we're both
going to be telling in your Warren Commission testimony. Got it, Bob?
Okay, good."

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

The fact that Arlen Specter and Robert Frazier only refer to ONE single
bullet fragment existing as part of CE842 is, indeed, quite strange.
Because we can see that the "foreign body envelope" that was marked by
Audrey Bell clearly indicates that "fragments" (plural) were placed into
that envelope which later became part of Commission Exhibit 842. And, as
mentioned before, the National Archives color photo of CE842 is obviously
depicting the presence of four separate metal fragments.

But to think that Specter and Frazier (in that order) were lying their
heads off during Frazier's testimony in order to conceal the existence of
additional metal fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's body
is something I do not believe at all.

And one of the reasons we can know that Specter was certainly not on a
mission to "cover up" the existence of additional Connally bullet
fragments is because we have Specter HIMSELF bringing out the information
of MULTIPLE metallic fragments being removed from Connally's right wrist
during his questioning of Parkland Hospital doctor Charles Gregory. Let's
have a gander:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as bits
of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"

DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that there
were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which cast metallic
shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm. Two or three of
these were identified and were recovered and were observed to be metallic
in consistency. These were turned over to appropriate authorities for
further disposition."

So Specter wasn't hiding the fact that more than just one fragment was
retrieved from John Connally's wrist. Specter himself elicited that
information from Dr. Gregory.

For some inexplicable reason, it would seem as though CE842, when it was
first introduced into evidence during Robert Frazier's testimony,
contained only one of the four fragments that were removed from Connally's
body by Dr. Gregory. The other three fragments were evidently not examined
by Bob Frazier of the FBI at all.

But we must also keep in mind that the three smallest fragments from CE842
were also not examined by the HSCA in 1978 either. Those three tiny
fragments were said to be "too small to weigh" [see 7 HSCA 367].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0189a.htm

Do you, Robert Harris, really think that both Specter and Frazier would
feel the need to hide or cover up the existence of three very tiny metal
fragments that the HSCA later said were "too small to weigh"?

How much total weight or mass could those three tiny fragments possibly
amount to? Do you think the (unknown) weight of those small fragments was
enough to tip the scales in favor of "conspiracy" in the JFK
assassination, is that it? And is that why Frazier and Specter didn't want
to reveal the fact that more than one fragment existed in CE842?

If that is (at least in part) what you believe, I beg to differ.

There would have been no good reason for either Specter or Frazier to want
to start lying about the existence of three extremely tiny fragments
removed from Governor Connally's body.

I cannot explain why Robert Frazier seemed to think that CE842 contained
just one single fragment. But, as I just explained, to think it was
something "shady" or "sinister" on the part of Mr. Frazier (or Mr.
Specter) is to believe something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense
either, given the incredibly small size of those other three bullet
fragments in question.


Let me also add....

Bob Frazier's Warren Commission session is not the only time Mr. Frazier
used the word "fragment" (singular) to describe the contents of Commission
Exhibit No. 842. He also used that same word during his testimony at the
Clay Shaw trial in 1969:

QUESTION -- "What other projectiles or portions of the projectiles did you
have?

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In addition to those there were two bullet
fragments, the nose section and base section, recovered by the secret
police and delivered to me at the laboratory. Then there were additional
other fragments, another two fragments from the President's head and one
fragment from the arm of Governor Connally."

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> Question for Robert Harris.....
>
> What about these official November 1963 FBI interviews with Audrey Bell
> and Bobby Nolan, in which we find no reference to any "whole bullet"? Only
> a single "fragment" is mentioned in the two FBI reports linked below.

First of all, you are talking about ONLY FBI documents. That's like
saying OJ was innocent because OJ said he was.

More importantly, the fact that the FBI repeatedly referred to this as a
single fragment, proves they that were lying. There is no way they could
have looked at Bell's envelope or examined the fragments in the
container and made a mistake like that.

It had to have been DELIBERATE.

You might call it an error if we were talking about a few hours after
the assassination. But by the time Frazier testified, he had to have
know that there were multiple fragments in the envelope.

But he was worried that there would be a contradiction. What if they
called Nolan to testify and he made a big deal about there only being
one fragment in the envelope??

That's why he lied.

>
> Now, yes, CE842 does contain more than just a SINGLE metal fragment. I'm
> not denying that fact at all.

Well you could. I mean, around here you can get away with anything, so
long as it supports the LN theory:-)

> But your theory about a WHOLE BULLET being
> handled by Nurse Bell and Officer Nolan suffers a pretty big setback when
> we have a look at these two FBI documents from November 22 and 23, 1963
> [Commission Document No. 5].....
>
> BELL:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=161

But that document is a lie, as Bell herself, confirmed. This is from the
ARRB,

"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."

Fifteen years prior to that, she was interviewed by the FBI. Read carefully.

G: Now, to the best of your present recollection, how many individual
foreign objects were placed into that envelope? Taken from Gov.
Connally's body?

B: Four or five, I am not sure at this particular time.

G: Do you have a recollection as to whether or not those objects were
metalic [sic] objects?

B: Yes, they were metalic [sic]. Grayish in color, as well as I recall.

G: All right, and after you placed them into the foreign body envelope
and sealed that envelope, what did you do with it?

B: I delivered them to the FBI, and he signed for them, this was a
deviation from our procedure, he signed, ah, there was a, took an
inter-office memorandum and wrote on there about my delivering those to
the FBI. I believe Mr. Sorrels, and signed it, this. . . . . . .

G: Now, you believe that it was Mr. Sorrels?

B: I believe so, I recall this name. I recall this name.

G: You recall the name but you're not positive at this point that it
was Sorrels?

B: No, No [sic]. I'm not sure.

She probably remember Sorrels name from Sunday, when he came to the
hospital after Oswald was shot. But she was 100% consistent in both
testimonies that she gave the envelope to plain clothed agents - NOT
Nolan, who was in full dress uniform that day.

>
> NOLAN:
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=162

That document was just another lie.

Nolan would never have told them that the bullet came from Connally's
thigh. Bell's envelope clearly stated that the fragments were from his
"arm".

And he would not have told them it was a "fragment". He was told very
specifically, that it was a whole bullet, exactly as Wade said and
exactly as Connally said it was.

David, have you noticed how consistent my witnesses are? That's because
they're telling the truth. Honest witnesses tend to be that way.

And have you also noticed that the FBI contradicted pretty much every
relevant witness associated with this issue? And that they contradicted
hard evidence, including CE399 which bears neither the initials of
Johnsen or Todd, who marked the original stretcher bullet??

And how consistent every person who originally examined the actual
stretcher bullet was, in refusing to corroborate CE399??

Do you see a pattern here:-)

>
> Footnote----
>
> The discrepancy that exists in the CD5 reports about the fragment being
> taken from Connally's THIGH, instead of his ARM/WRIST, is explained in
> this part of CD5....
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=159

OK, they lied about Nolan, lied about Bell, and then they lied about
Stinson. There is no way Stinson told them that this was a "fragment".
This is what he told Ramparts magazine in 1967,

"The last thing they did, was to remove the bullet from the governor's
thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him."

David, did you see the word "fragment" in that sentence?

So, let's review:

Connally said it was a "bullet".

Wade said it was a "bullet".

Nolan said it was a "bullet".

Stinson said it was a "bullet".

Are you really hoping to convince anyone that all of those men made the
same, identical "mistake"?

But since you brought up Stinson, let's talk about him. It is true, that
he believed a bullet was removed from Connally's thigh. But why would he
have thought such a thing?

I mean, he certainly didn't see a bullet removed, right? So what do you
think happened? Well, let's try this. Let's suppose a nurse came out,
dressed in scrubs, stating that she was holding a "bullet". Remember,
Nolan said he was standing near Stinson, talking with him when she said
that.

Apparently, he missed the "gurney" part, or misunderstood it, presuming
that it must have been removed in surgery. Otherwise, he had no reason
to think that the bullet came from Connally's "thigh".

And BTW, David. Frazier's lie to the WC, was made months after Stinson
made that claim. There was no excuse for him claiming that there was
only a single fragment.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/16/2014 7:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> That [picture of CE842] shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied.
> .... Obviously he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four
> [fragments], and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments".
> There is no way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to
> be sure that he could pull off the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE
> object, so Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope
> contained ONE object also.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Which means you must also think that Arlen Specter lied too, right?
> Because it was SPECTER, not FRAZIER, who first uttered the word "fragment"
> (singular) in connection with the Warren Commission exhibit that was to
> soon become CE842.
>

Maybe he was only talking about the fragment which Frazier tested.
Remember, the larger of the two? Did they ever test the other fragment?

> As a matter of fact, Arlen Specter used the word "fragment" (singular)
> FIVE separate times before that same word ("fragment") ever came out of
> the mouth of Bob Frazier. Let's look and see (and count):
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was
> identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?"
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "It was identified to me as having come from the arm
> of Governor Connally."
>
> SPECTER -- "Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "This one does not have a Commission number as yet."
>
> SPECTER -- "May it please the Commission, I would like to have this
> fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842."
>
> (Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in
> evidence.)
>
> SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI
> record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you
> describe that fragment for us, please?"
>
> FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed
> one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece
> of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet."
>

Ah! There's the clue. "When I first examined it."

It was only one fragment when he first examined it that weekend. Then it
became two. And he did not examine the second fragment. Somebody, not
Frazier, cut the tiny fragment from the .5 grain fragment. Not Guinn. He
swears he didn't do the NAA in 1964.

> -------------
>
> Did Specter nudge Frazier before Frazier testified and whisper to him:
>
> "Now remember, Bob, when we get to the part where I want to introduce
> Exhibit 842, remember to follow my lead when I say to you FIVE different
> times that CE842 consists of just one single fragment. That way, we'll
> both be on the same page when it comes to this blatant lie we're both
> going to be telling in your Warren Commission testimony. Got it, Bob?
> Okay, good."
>

As a matter of fact the WC had a lot of off the record discussions to
tell the witnesses what to say. That's why the sessions where done in
secret.

> -------------
>
> The fact that Arlen Specter and Robert Frazier only refer to ONE single
> bullet fragment existing as part of CE842 is, indeed, quite strange.
> Because we can see that the "foreign body envelope" that was marked by
> Audrey Bell clearly indicates that "fragments" (plural) were placed into
> that envelope which later became part of Commission Exhibit 842. And, as
> mentioned before, the National Archives color photo of CE842 is obviously
> depicting the presence of four separate metal fragments.
>

Show me a photo of CE 842 from 1964.
Frazier did not examine the second fragment. It was only a flake.

> But to think that Specter and Frazier (in that order) were lying their
> heads off during Frazier's testimony in order to conceal the existence of
> additional metal fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's body
> is something I do not believe at all.
>

You cant't ever admit that anyone in the government ever lied about
anything. The moment you do you become a terrorist.

> And one of the reasons we can know that Specter was certainly not on a
> mission to "cover up" the existence of additional Connally bullet
> fragments is because we have Specter HIMSELF bringing out the information
> of MULTIPLE metallic fragments being removed from Connally's right wrist
> during his questioning of Parkland Hospital doctor Charles Gregory. Let's
> have a gander:
>

He doesn't say they were part of CE 842.

> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as bits
> of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
>
> DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that there
> were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which cast metallic
> shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm. Two or three of
> these were identified and were recovered and were observed to be metallic
> in consistency. These were turned over to appropriate authorities for
> further disposition."
>

Two or three? Pretty exact, eh?
Exactly like four or five.

> So Specter wasn't hiding the fact that more than just one fragment was
> retrieved from John Connally's wrist. Specter himself elicited that
> information from Dr. Gregory.
>

Retrieved? Yes removed from Connally? Properly placed into evidence? No.

> For some inexplicable reason, it would seem as though CE842, when it was
> first introduced into evidence during Robert Frazier's testimony,
> contained only one of the four fragments that were removed from Connally's
> body by Dr. Gregory. The other three fragments were evidently not examined
> by Bob Frazier of the FBI at all.
>

No. ALL. All in ONE 2mm fragment.

> But we must also keep in mind that the three smallest fragments from CE842
> were also not examined by the HSCA in 1978 either. Those three tiny
> fragments were said to be "too small to weigh" [see 7 HSCA 367].

Too small for NAA?

>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0189a.htm
>
> Do you, Robert Harris, really think that both Specter and Frazier would
> feel the need to hide or cover up the existence of three very tiny metal
> fragments that the HSCA later said were "too small to weigh"?
>

No, I think the US would cover up anything and everything to avoid a
serious investigation.

> How much total weight or mass could those three tiny fragments possibly
> amount to? Do you think the (unknown) weight of those small fragments was

.18 grains.

> enough to tip the scales in favor of "conspiracy" in the JFK
> assassination, is that it? And is that why Frazier and Specter didn't want

No. Destruction of evidence indicates knowledge of and belief in
conspiracy. The GOAL is to make it impossible to prove conspiracy. If you
have three bullets and one does not match the two known guns, just throw
it away and claim the two known bullets match the two known guns.

> to reveal the fact that more than one fragment existed in CE842?
>

When it was still Q-9 which weighed about .5 grains.

Look at Frazier's log sheet.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

Notice how each piece of evidence is given a number?
C-1 was the first piece of evidence logged in.
Etc.
Everything's fine until we get to C-4 and C-5.
the next three items should be C-6, C-7, and C-8.
Each tiny fragment is listed separately and weighed.
Instead they are all lumped together as Q-14.
Show me Q-6.
Show me Q-7.
Show me Q-8.

> If that is (at least in part) what you believe, I beg to differ.
>
> There would have been no good reason for either Specter or Frazier to want
> to start lying about the existence of three extremely tiny fragments
> removed from Governor Connally's body.
>

Start? In 1964? You mean CONTINUE.

> I cannot explain why Robert Frazier seemed to think that CE842 contained
> just one single fragment. But, as I just explained, to think it was

He didn't say that. He said he tested one fragment.

> something "shady" or "sinister" on the part of Mr. Frazier (or Mr.
> Specter) is to believe something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense
> either, given the incredibly small size of those other three bullet
> fragments in question.
>

Always assume the government is lying.

>
> Let me also add....
>
> Bob Frazier's Warren Commission session is not the only time Mr. Frazier
> used the word "fragment" (singular) to describe the contents of Commission
> Exhibit No. 842. He also used that same word during his testimony at the
> Clay Shaw trial in 1969:
>
> QUESTION -- "What other projectiles or portions of the projectiles did you
> have?
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In addition to those there were two bullet
> fragments, the nose section and base section, recovered by the secret
> police and delivered to me at the laboratory. Then there were additional
> other fragments, another two fragments from the President's head and one
> fragment from the arm of Governor Connally."
>

And what about the other fragment which they scratched out of the memo?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Of course there are 4 fragments in 1978 after Guinn had cut the original

large fragment. .... It only became 4 fragments after Guinn handled
them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If such a thing had happened, why wouldn't Dr. Guinn have said so? Why
would he need to hide that information about *innocently* turning 3
fragments into 4?

Or do you think it was "innocently" done by Guinn? Was he part of the
proverbial and never-ending "cover up" in this case too, Tony? But if so,
how would turning 3 fragments into 4 really make any difference? The
weight of the fragments (in total) would still be the same whether the
total number is 3 or 4 fragments.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

The actual number [of fragments in CE842] was four.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think you're wrong, Bob. Those other three things you think are bullet
fragments aren't fragments at all, IMO. At least two of those things look
like pen (ink) marks of some kind to me.

Just for the record (not that this means much really), but whoever it was
who wrote up the caption for CE842 at the History-Matters website thinks
there's just one "fragment" in that plastic box too....

http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh17.htm

[David Von Pein]

I would love to hear Jean Davison's and John McAdams' opinions regarding
this "fragment" vs. "fragments" vs. "bullet" discrepancy. (Along with John
Corbett's and Bud's opinions too, and other LNers who might be following
this discussion.)

As I've told Bob Harris previously, it's my firm opinion that no whole
bullet fell off of Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland. That event
simply did not happen--period. But I'd love to hear other LNers' thoughts
on this particular matter.

Related Link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-737.html

[OHLeeRedux]

A whole lot of words about nothing.

Oswald, shot, JFK, and, he, shot, Governor, Connally, too.

I will admit that he didn't mean to shoot the governor. When he was asked
if he shot the president, he of course said "No." Then when asked if he
shot Governor Connally, he responded, "I didn't know he had been shot."

One of the few times Oswald told the truth. An innocent man would have
simply said "No."

[Anthony Marsh]

John Hunt sees Frazier as the mastermind. I see all of these people as
routinely confused and incompetent. Including Bell.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> That [picture of CE842] shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied.
> .... Obviously he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four
> [fragments], and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments".
> There is no way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to
> be sure that he could pull off the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE
> object, so Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope
> contained ONE object also.

David, I can't help but notice that you except for this single paragraph,
you snipped my entire post, along with a lot of arguments and important
questions. Usenet netiquette requires that you let readers know when you
delete content from your adversary's messages. You only need to enter,
"<snipped>". Why won't you do that?

More importantly, why won't you address all of the the questions and
arguments I presented? There were only a few.

>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Which means you must also think that Arlen Specter lied too, right?
> Because it was SPECTER, not FRAZIER, who first uttered the word "fragment"
> (singular) in connection with the Warren Commission exhibit that was to
> soon become CE842.

He probably got that from looking at FBI reports, or from talking to
Frazier about it, prior to his testimony. Specter frequently talked to
witnesses before they testified.

Your reasoning is strange, David. You seem to think that one guy can
lie, but if two lie, they both get exonerated.

But as I said before, Specter was probably making the mistake of
trusting FBI reports and what Frazier had previously told him.

>
> -------------
>
> The fact that Arlen Specter and Robert Frazier only refer to ONE single
> bullet fragment existing as part of CE842 is, indeed, quite strange.
> Because we can see that the "foreign body envelope" that was marked by
> Audrey Bell clearly indicates that "fragments" (plural) were placed into
> that envelope which later became part of Commission Exhibit 842. And, as
> mentioned before, the National Archives color photo of CE842 is obviously
> depicting the presence of four separate metal fragments.
>
> But to think that Specter and Frazier (in that order) were lying their
> heads off during Frazier's testimony in order to conceal the existence of
> additional metal fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's body
> is something I do not believe at all.

How many times are you going to repeat this same argument:-)

>
> And one of the reasons we can know that Specter was certainly not on a
> mission to "cover up" the existence of additional Connally bullet
> fragments is because we have Specter HIMSELF bringing out the information
> of MULTIPLE metallic fragments being removed from Connally's right wrist
> during his questioning of Parkland Hospital doctor Charles Gregory. Let's
> have a gander:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as bits
> of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
>
> DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that there
> were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which cast metallic
> shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm. Two or three of
> these were identified and were recovered and were observed to be metallic
> in consistency. These were turned over to appropriate authorities for
> further disposition."

David, you are beating on your own, straw man. I never accused Specter
of being involved in this. He probably thought the same thing you did -
that Frazier's single fragment statement was just a mistake.

But he didn't interview Bell or Nolan, or get the whole story from
Connally. If he had, my hope is that he would have had the integrity to
go after the FBI. Actually, I was a fan of Specter's. He was one of the
last of a dying breed - a moderate Republican.

And David, Frazier's lies are only part of the story. The FBI also lied
about what Bell told them and what Nolan told them. It doesn't matter
what Stinson said, because those FD-302's were supposed to report only
what the interviewed subject said.

>
> So Specter wasn't hiding the fact that more than just one fragment was
> retrieved from John Connally's wrist. Specter himself elicited that
> information from Dr. Gregory.
>
> For some inexplicable reason, it would seem as though CE842, when it was
> first introduced into evidence during Robert Frazier's testimony,
> contained only one of the four fragments that were removed from Connally's
> body by Dr. Gregory.

Bullshit!!

There is no evidence whatsoever, for that assertion.

David, the FBI lied. It is ridiculously obvious that CE399 was not the
bullet that Tomlinson recovered. It is missing the initials of Johnsen
and Todd, and every individual who examined the Tomlinson bullet,
refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Almost immediately after receiving fragments at the labs, that could be
compared with Tomlinson's bullet, they phoned him around 1:30AM to tell
him to "keep your mouth shut" about the bullet.

And there is much, much more. Did you know that they switched out every
one of the fragments that they sent to to the archives, for bogus
replacements? Rob Caprio and I disagree on many things, but on this
issue, he knocked it out of the park, (quoting)

FITHIAN. You have said this whole process that you go through does not
destroy the material, is that correct?

GUINN. That is correct.

FITHIAN. Now, then, did you test exactly the same particles that the
FBI tested in 1964?

GUINN. Well, it turns out, I did not, for reasons I don't know,
because as they did the analysis, they DID NOT destroy the samples
either. [emphases added]

FITHIAN. So?

GUINN. The particular little pieces that they analyzed, I could just
as well have analyzed over again, but the pieces that were brought
from the Archives-which reportedly, according to Mr. Gear--were the
only bullet-lead fragments from this case still present in the
Archives-did not include any of the specific little pieces that the
FBI had analyzed. Presumably those are in existence somewhere, I am
sure nobody threw them out, but where they are I have no idea.

FITHIAN. And the 1964 equipment wouldn't have consumed them either?

GUINN. No. (HSCA, I, pp. 561-562. emphases added)

Thus, we have these improbable circumstances:

a. The FBI tested certain metal fragments with certain identification
labels (CE's/Q's) in 1964.

b. The FBI's tests were not of a kind which would have used up any of
the fragments.

c. The National Archives passed on to Dr. Guinn an entirely different
set of fragments-with the same CE and/or Q numbers, alleging them to
be related to the Kennedy case.

d. The Archives told Dr. Guinn that these were the only bullet-lead
fragments remaining there from the case.

e. HSCA's explanation for this remarkable state of affairs is
contradicted by Dr. Guinn and unsupported by any documentation
whatsoever.

After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn
talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room.
His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among
other things, Dr. Guinn said:

a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived
at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments
different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be
tested:

"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and
put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's
wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look
alike... I have no control over these things."



Robert Harris

<snippage of repetitious arguments>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/17/2014 3:55 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> The actual number [of fragments in CE842] was four.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I think you're wrong, Bob. Those other three things you think are bullet
> fragments aren't fragments at all, IMO. At least two of those things look
> like pen (ink) marks of some kind to me.
>
> Just for the record (not that this means much really), but whoever it was
> who wrote up the caption for CE842 at the History-Matters website thinks
> there's just one "fragment" in that plastic box too....
>

That would probably be Rex. Why don't you call him up and ask him?


> http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh17.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/17/2014 3:54 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Of course there are 4 fragments in 1978 after Guinn had cut the original
> large fragment. .... It only became 4 fragments after Guinn handled
> them.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> If such a thing had happened, why wouldn't Dr. Guinn have said so? Why
> would he need to hide that information about *innocently* turning 3
> fragments into 4?
>

Why should he admit anything?

> Or do you think it was "innocently" done by Guinn? Was he part of the

Yes innocently. It's called sampling. Do you know what an aliquot is?

> proverbial and never-ending "cover up" in this case too, Tony? But if so,

I never said never ending. It is starting to unravel now.
Thanks for your help unraveling it.

> how would turning 3 fragments into 4 really make any difference? The
> weight of the fragments (in total) would still be the same whether the
> total number is 3 or 4 fragments.
>

None of this really makes any difference to you.
You just ASSuME and the facts be damned.
So what if CE399 was planted? At least it was fired from Oswald's rifle.
So what if OJ's glove was planted? At least it was HIS glove.
So what if it didn't fit? At least it matched the other glove.
So what if the blood on his socks had EDTA in the blood, but not on the
sock? Maybe he was washing his blood with detergent.

[David Von Pein]

So, Robert Harris thinks there was a whole NEW BATCH of plotters and
conspirators and cover-uppers working for the HSCA in 1978 who manipulated
and faked the Connally fragments in CE842 for Dr. Vincent P. Guinn's NAA
tests, right Bob?

Is there any end to the "covering up" and the lies in this case, Bob?
Prob'ly not, huh?

DR. GUINN IN 1986:
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/vincent-guinn.html

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

None of this really makes any difference to you.
You just ASSuME and the facts be damned.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Irony Alert! (To borrow .John's recently utilized phrase.)

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

So what if CE399 was planted? At least it was fired from Oswald's rifle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Spoken as if I actually think 399 was "planted". (Nice touch there,
Anthony.)

In actuality, common sense dictates that we turn Tony's silliness around
--- Since CE399 is definitely a bullet from Oswald's rifle, that fact
makes it much much LESS likely that 399 was "planted" (given the OTHER
bullet evidence in the case which ALSO matches LHO's rifle, plus the very
important fact that the FBI didn't even have Oswald's rifle in their
possession until almost midnight on 11/22).

But in a CTer's mind, apparently CORROBORATION among many pieces of
ballistics evidence in this case equals MANIPULATED/PLANTED EVIDENCE (and
apparently, per the CTers, ALL of it was "manipulated" and/or "planted").
Crazy.

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

So what if OJ's glove was planted? At least it was HIS glove.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's right, Tony. Like a good little conspiracy theorist, you'll just
totally ignore those *FOURTEEN" Los Angeles police officers who all said
there was only ONE glove at the Bundy crime scene BEFORE Mark Fuhrman ever
even got to the murder scene.

Like in the JFK case, the O.J. Simpson case (if the CTers are to be
believed) apparently also included a large number of plotters and
cover-uppers in law enforcement who couldn't have cared less that the real
killer got away. All they were concerned about was framing O.J. Simpson
for two murders he never committed.

Now, Tony, be a good little CTer and tell me all about how O.J. was trying
to frame HIMSELF when he said to Lange and Vannatter on 6/13/94 that he
was dripping blood all over his car and property at almost the exact same
time the two victims were being stabbed to death just a short distance
from where Simpson was bleeding.

And don't forget to include Simpson's brilliant explanation of the
razor-sharp cell phone.

[BT George]

DVP Said:

As I've told Bob Harris previously, it's my firm opinion that no whole
bullet fell off of Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland. That event
simply did not happen--period. But I'd love to hear other LNers' thoughts
on this particular matter.

BT George Says:

Dave, I've engaged Harris on this a couple of times recently and each time
he has either never responded to or stopped responding to certain
inconvenient facts I've presented.

It is amusing---but typical of him---that he insists others account for
supposedly co-corroborating statements that came from persons (+ a ghost
writer and anonymous nurse) 30-40 years after the fact or for the use of
"fragments" vs. a "fragment", yet he has no great interest in defending
weaknesses in his own case.


BT George

[mainframetech]

The NAA tests were shown to be debunked. They were not a good
indicator of bullets from the same batch, and Guinn had many flaws.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x/abstract
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf

"Random matches to assassination fragments of bullets from the same box
are not as rare as Dr Guinn testified. Most importantly, our studies and
analyses of individual bullet compositions, bullet lead source
compositions and compositional mixtures in packaged retail boxes show that
Dr Guinn's statements about the uniqueness of individual bullets from the
brand of bullets believed to be used in the assassination are seriously
flawed.

(Spiegelman et al, op. cit., p. 289)"

From: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf


so you can stop using that to draw folks over to your website to rack up
the hit count.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! So he's guilty because he didn't know that Connally was shot?
Remember, Oswald wasn't looking out a window, he was in the lunchroom and
then speaking to Truly and Baker. How would he know that Connally was
shot?

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech
- hide quoted text -

The difference is that he said "No" when asked if he shot the president.
If he was innocent, he would have answered "No" to the question about
shooting Connally. He answered differently because he wasn't shooting at
Connally and did not know that he had accidentally hit him.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> So, Robert Harris thinks there was a whole NEW BATCH of plotters and
> conspirators and cover-uppers working for the HSCA in 1978 who manipulated
> and faked the Connally fragments in CE842 for Dr. Vincent P. Guinn's NAA
> tests, right Bob?

WTH are you talking about??

It was the FBI that turned in the bogus fragments to the National
Archives, not the HSCA.

Why do you continually misrepresent me and then attack your own
fabrications?

Is that why you snipped my entire post?? Were you afraid that readers
would realize that I said nothing even faintly resembling what you
claimed I said?

>
> Is there any end to the "covering up" and the lies in this case, Bob?
> Prob'ly not, huh?

David, you have refused to answer countless questions and arguments I
have presented. May I presume that you did so, because you realized the
answers would prove you wrong?

Is that also why you pretend that I said things I never said?




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:
> DVP Said:
>
> As I've told Bob Harris previously, it's my firm opinion

BT, we all know what your "opinion" will be, long before you post it.

Have you noticed how consistently you guys try to substitute your
"opinions" for the verifiable facts and evidence related to these issues??

> that no whole
> bullet fell off of Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland. That event
> simply did not happen--period. But I'd love to hear other LNers' thoughts
> on this particular matter.

ROFLMAO!!

You already know what their "thoughts" will be, and so does everyone
else. You guys march in lock step, totally oblivious to the evidence
which proves you wrong, over and over again.





Robert Harris

[BT George]

Hey Harris. Taking lessons from the Tony Marsh school of speed reading
and miscomprehension of posts? NONE of what you just bellowed at me about
was written by me, but by DVP.

Strangely, you made this same mistake the last time you were on a tear
about this a few months back, but that time you attributed what *I* said
to Bud and opened up a whole attack against him.

Next time you address someone attempt to read for COMPREHENSION first.
You might *learn* something for a change (perhaps a constitutional, if not
biological absurdity on your part) and you will certainly look less
ridiculous in the process.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Oswald was not in the Lunch Room at the time of the shots.
He was in the Domino Room.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you keep spreading misinformation? Oswald was not in the Lunch
Room then. He was in the Domino Room.

[mainframetech]

Naah. None of that hangs together. He knew by that time that the
president had been shot, because Truly and Baker would have mentioned it,
but they wouldn't necessarily mention that Connally was hit, they might
not even have known. So Oswald wouldn't have known. Why would he say
'No' to the question of why shoot Connally? The obvious answer would be
"I didn't know he had been shot." And that was the truth. Simple.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/18/2014 5:37 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> None of this really makes any difference to you.
> You just ASSuME and the facts be damned.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Irony Alert! (To borrow .John's recently utilized phrase.)
>
>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> So what if CE399 was planted? At least it was fired from Oswald's rifle.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Spoken as if I actually think 399 was "planted". (Nice touch there,
> Anthony.)
>

Thanks. I was making fun of your logic that all the evidence means what
YOU want it to mean even if it was fake.

> In actuality, common sense dictates that we turn Tony's silliness around
> --- Since CE399 is definitely a bullet from Oswald's rifle, that fact
> makes it much much LESS likely that 399 was "planted" (given the OTHER
> bullet evidence in the case which ALSO matches LHO's rifle, plus the very
> important fact that the FBI didn't even have Oswald's rifle in their
> possession until almost midnight on 11/22).
>

No, how are you going to frame Oswald if you don't use his rifle and ammo?
I am not talking about the FBI framing Oswald. Think higher up.
I won't even mention those who could claim that the DPD faked it.

> But in a CTer's mind, apparently CORROBORATION among many pieces of
> ballistics evidence in this case equals MANIPULATED/PLANTED EVIDENCE (and
> apparently, per the CTers, ALL of it was "manipulated" and/or "planted").
> Crazy.
>

I have said before that CE 399 COULD be genuine, but not do ALL the
damage the WC requires of it.
I have never said ALL the evidence is fake. You are thinking of that
other guy.

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> So what if OJ's glove was planted? At least it was HIS glove.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's right, Tony. Like a good little conspiracy theorist, you'll just
> totally ignore those *FOURTEEN" Los Angeles police officers who all said
> there was only ONE glove at the Bundy crime scene BEFORE Mark Fuhrman ever
> even got to the murder scene.
>

Not that glove. The one found at his house. The one Fuhrman took to OJ's
house and threw over the fence.

> Like in the JFK case, the O.J. Simpson case (if the CTers are to be
> believed) apparently also included a large number of plotters and
> cover-uppers in law enforcement who couldn't have cared less that the real
> killer got away. All they were concerned about was framing O.J. Simpson
> for two murders he never committed.
>

Not that many. Why do you guys always rely on Reductio ad Absurdum? We
never claim that Watergate needed a cast of millions.
How many people did the CIA use for the Castro plots? Millions? And
nobody talked? Rosselli talked. What happened to him? Giancana talked.
What happened to him?

> Now, Tony, be a good little CTer and tell me all about how O.J. was trying
> to frame HIMSELF when he said to Lange and Vannatter on 6/13/94 that he
> was dripping blood all over his car and property at almost the exact same
> time the two victims were being stabbed to death just a short distance
> from where Simpson was bleeding.
>

Excuse me? I think you've missed some of the 7,000 messages where I say
that OJ killed Nicole and her friend. They had to frame OJ because they
didn't find enough evidence at the crime scene to convict OJ.

[Anthony Marsh]

Tell us again how one fragment became 4 while in government hands.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2014 7:09 PM, BT George wrote:
> Hey Harris. Taking lessons from the Tony Marsh school of speed reading
> and miscomprehension of posts? NONE of what you just bellowed at me about
> was written by me, but by DVP.
>

Maybe you should learn how to post correctly.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

Oswald was not in the Lunch Room at the time of the shots.

He was in the Domino Room.

No. He was on the sixth floor of the TSBD with his mail order rifle.
Otherwise, JFK would not have been shot.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

- show quoted text -

Naah. None of that hangs together. He knew by that time that the
president had been shot, because Truly and Baker would have mentioned it,
but they wouldn't necessarily mention that Connally was hit, they might
not even have known. So Oswald wouldn't have known. Why would he say
'No' to the question of why shoot Connally? The obvious answer would be
"I didn't know he had been shot." And that was the truth. Simple.

You are just making things up to support your silly conspiracy theory.
Ridiculous.

[BT George]

Tony Marsh said:

Maybe you should learn how to post correctly.

BT George says:

Try it from an IPhone sometimes Tony. It won't let you retain the text
you are replying to. So manually cutting and pasting what you want to
reply to and labeling it "X said" and "Y says" is about as good as it's
going to get.

BT George

[OHLeeRedux]

BT George

And Anthony's abundance of texts always have hundreds of lines of little
arrows in them.

Yeah. That's not at all annoying.

[Anthony Marsh]

If you have a problem, work around it.
You could put the quoted text in BOLD.
Or start and end with >>>.
Or get the newest Iphone which has a USENET APP.

[Anthony Marsh]

Learn how to post correctly.

[Anthony Marsh]

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2014 9:07 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:52:36 AM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> mainframetech
>>
>> - hide quoted text -
>>
>> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:49:43 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>>
>>> A whole lot of words about nothing.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Oswald, shot, JFK, and, he, shot, Governor, Connally, too.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I will admit that he didn't mean to shoot the governor. When he was asked
>>
>>>
>>
>>> if he shot the president, he of course said "No." Then when asked if he
>>
>>>
>>
>>> shot Governor Connally, he responded, "I didn't know he had been shot."
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> One of the few times Oswald told the truth. An innocent man would have
>>
>>>
>>
>>> simply said "No."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL! So he's guilty because he didn't know that Connally was shot?
>>
>> Remember, Oswald wasn't looking out a window, he was in the lunchroom and
>>
>> then speaking to Truly and Baker. How would he know that Connally was
>>
>> shot?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The difference is that he said "No" when asked if he shot the president.
>>
>> If he was innocent, he would have answered "No" to the question about
>>
>> shooting Connally. He answered differently because he wasn't shooting at
>>
>> Connally and did not know that he had accidentally hit him.
>
>
>
> Naah. None of that hangs together. He knew by that time that the
> president had been shot, because Truly and Baker would have mentioned it,

Truly and Baker did not mention it. They had no need to mention it to
Oswald. The Secetary said that the President had been shot.

> but they wouldn't necessarily mention that Connally was hit, they might
> not even have known. So Oswald wouldn't have known. Why would he say
> 'No' to the question of why shoot Connally? The obvious answer would be
> "I didn't know he had been shot." And that was the truth. Simple.
>
> Chris
>
>

Baker couldn't have known who was hit. He heard the shots and parked his
cycle at the corner and ran into the TSBD.

[BT George]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:55:01 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
>
>
> The actual number [of fragments in CE842] was four.
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
>
> I think you're wrong, Bob. Those other three things you think are bullet
>
> fragments aren't fragments at all, IMO. At least two of those things look
>
> like pen (ink) marks of some kind to me.
>
>
>
> Just for the record (not that this means much really), but whoever it was
>
> who wrote up the caption for CE842 at the History-Matters website thinks
>
> there's just one "fragment" in that plastic box too....
>
>
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_wh17.htm


Actually, from a largely blown up image of CE842...

https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/Fragment-Removed-from-Gov.-Connally-s-Wrist

...there are indeed 4 fragments. However, looking at both photos, it is
evident that one fragment is *much* larger than the other 3, which almost
makes me wonder if they were not even noticing the smaller fragments as
they were discussing it.

Nevertheless, to show that there was either confusion on the matter, or
that there is something not fully understood about the discussion, please
note the following statement from Specter just AFTER he had *repeatedly*
used the singular word "fragment" in the questioning about CE842:

"Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Dulles, those questions complete the ones which we have
to ask, sir.

Mr. Frazier, one additional question: Do you have any knowledge through
any source whatsoever of any bullets or bullet fragments found anywhere in
the vicinity of the assassination other than those which you have already
testified to, which were in the car, or the whole bullet from the Connally
stretcher or the *FRAGMENTS* from Governor Connally's wrist?"


...but then in his final CE842 remarks he reverts back to the singular:

"Mr. SPECTER - In the event we have not already had 842 admitted into
evidence, I move, Mr. Dulles, for the admission into evidence of 842 which
was the *FRAGMENT* from Governor Connally's arm."

This is indeed strange, and I am at a loss to understand the anomaly.
However, any kind of "plot" that involves openly entering a
*multi-fragment* package into evidence that is also *LABELED* as such,
while hoping to "cover up" something by discussing it (mostly at least) as
if it were singular fragment, seems worse than strange. In fact, it seems
downright *IDIOTIC*

BT George