Re: Robert Harris & The Saga Of CE842
Robert Harris
David, I believe you are right about the initials, and I want to
congratulate you for seeing what I and thousands of others overlooked. And
yes, it certainly makes sense that Fritz initialed the envelope because
Nolan took it to his office. Nonetheless, there are very obvious signs
that something was erased there and then written over, including fragments
from partially erased characters.
And the biggest problem still remains. Audrey Bell stated under oath
before the HSCA and the ARRB that she did indeed, initial that envelope.
And in fact, we know that no law enforcement people would have accepted it
if she had not.
Where are Bell's initials? I asked you this same question at
jfkassassinationforum.com and you have still not answered.
And do you really believe that Bell, who was a supervisor with years of
experience in that department, would walk out into the hallway and hold up
the envelope, saying "What do I do with this?"?
She was very specific that the people she gave the envelope containing
CE-842 to, were either FBI or Secret Service agents, wearing suits and
that they were not in uniform. And her description of events was totally
different than Nolan's. Most importantly, she knew exactly what was in
that envelope and it contained tiny fragments from the wrist. It makes no
sense at all to think that she would tell Nolan that it was bullet from
Connally's leg.
It makes no sense at all, to believe that Bell gave the envelope
containing the CE842 frags, to Nolan. That contradicts everything she said
and a great deal of what Nolan said.
BTW, would you please be specific about the "unsupportable crap" you
believe I made up, as you claimed in the other forum?
It's not particularly classy to find a relatively small error and then try
to blow that up into total incompetence on my part.
In fact, you have evaded the evidence and analysis in 99% of everything I
have posted in the forums and in my video presentations. I really don't
think you have earned the right to be blowing any victory trumpets.
Robert Harris
In article
<c37ac603-2d00-4729...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a0b2
> 9d1e6fb9f760
>
>
> In September of 2009, conspiracy theorist Robert Harris started the
> forum thread linked above, wherein he was positive that Texas Highway
> Patrol Officer Bobby M. Nolan had not placed his initials on
> Commission Exhibit No. 842 (the "foreign body" envelope containing
> bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist), which is an
> envelope that Nolan received from Parkland Hospital nurse Audrey Bell.
>
> Harris said this in the above-linked thread:
>
> "The [Connally] fragments were labelled as CE842. .... Where do
> you see Nolan's initials [on CE842]? .... There is NO envelope among
> all the records that are available to the public which contain Nolan's
> initials. That envelope was destroyed." -- Robert Harris; September 8,
> 2009
>
> But when eagle-eyed "ShutterBun" discovered the very next day that
> Bobby Nolan's initials were, in fact, on CE842 (but the envelope
> needed to be turned upside-down to read the initials properly), Bob
> Harris was forced to eat a substantial bit of crow concerning this
> issue and was forced to acknowledge that Nolan's initials are, indeed,
> visible on CE842.
>
> Here is ShutterBun's 9/9/09 post concerning the verification of
> Nolan's initials:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/25e6514781981040
>
>
> Well, Robert Harris wasn't bound to accept total defeat regarding this
> CE842 issue. Since he could no longer claim that Nolan's initials were
> not on the envelope in question, Harris decided to look more closely
> at some of the other initials that appear on that piece of evidence.
> And what did Mr. Harris find? He found that Audrey Bell's initials had
> very likely been planted or forged onto CE842 (and somebody else's
> initials had been crudely erased right underneath Bell's initials).
>
> Harris makes this allegation regarding the alleged "forged" initials
> of Audrey Bell in an Internet forum thread he started at John Simkin's
> Education Forum last month, on April 19, 2010 (and he has probably
> made the very same allegation here at the acj and aaj forums too):
>
> "The FBI...altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet
> and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the
> envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the
> bullet from his leg." -- Robert Harris; 4/19/10
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15792
>
>
>
> Well, here on May 16, 2010, eight months after the confirmation of
> Bobby Nolan's initials on the envelope seen in CE842, I decided to
> take another look at Bob Harris' video called "The Scam Of
> CE399" (which was recently made available on Jim DiEugenio's CTKA.net
> website as well).
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce399f/ce399f.mov
>
>
> And then I decided to perform the same simple piece of investigation
> that ShutterBun had performed in September 2009 -- I simply turned
> Commission Exhibit No. 842 upside-down and looked at the initials that
> Harris is claiming are the "forged" initials of nurse Audrey Bell.
>
> And what did I find?
>
> I found that the initials that Harris believes are Bell's are, in
> fact, the initials of Dallas Police Captain J. Will Fritz ("JWF").
> Let's have a look:
>
> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RE
> LATED%20PHOTOS/CE842TheInitialsOfJWFritz.jpg?t=1274000684
>
>
> Here's CE842 as it appears on page 841 of Warren Commission Volume 17:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm
>
>
>
> And to confirm that the "JWF" initials that we see in CE842 are
> consistent with the known handwriting of Captain John Will Fritz of
> the Dallas Police Department, I looked up several different documents
> that contained Fritz' signature, and I confirmed that the "JWF" seen
> in CE842 does, indeed, match the handwriting of Fritz (see the three
> examples linked below; and pay particular attention to the way Captain
> Fritz writes the letter "W", with very sharp points at the bottom of
> each "W"):
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0494-002.gif
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0497-002.gif
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0500-002.gif
>
>
> And, btw, in Robert Harris' very own telephone interview with Bobby
> Nolan, Nolan told Harris that after he received the envelope from
> Nurse Bell at Parkland, he then took the envelope to the Dallas Police
> Department and turned it over to "someone...in Will Fritz' office":
>
> "When I took the bullet down to the police department, I gave it
> to someone there. .... IT WAS IN WILL FRITZ' OFFICE." -- Bobby N.
> Nolan; Via telephone conversation between Nolan and Robert Harris;
> circa 2009 (Emphasis added by DVP)
>
> Therefore, it seems perfectly reasonable to find Fritz' initials
> ("JWF") on that envelope in CE842.
>
> I guess Mr. Harris didn't learn his lesson last September. That lesson
> being this one:
>
> Before accusing people of planting or forging evidence in the JFK
> murder case, be sure to look at all of the evidence UPSIDE-DOWN.
>
> And that really should be an easy rule for conspiracy theorists to
> follow too, because all of their theories about the JFK assassination
> are always upside-down and topsy-turvy anyway.
>
> So, I guess Bob Harris will need to revise his conspiracy theory
> concerning CE842 yet again. And this time I would assume that Harris
> will claim that Captain Fritz' "JWF" initials have been "forged" onto
> the envelope.
>
> Right, Bob?
David Von Pein
>>> "It's not particularly classy to find a relatively small error and then try to blow that up into total incompetence on my part." <<<
LOL. You're a howl, Robert.
You did this very same thing TWICE when talking about the VERY SAME
EXHIBIT, Bob.
At what point will you stop trying to prop up CE842 as being
fraudulent? Will it take a THIRD upside-side set of initials for you
to stop doing that?
Robert Harris
<626d8468-1c77-4e53...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I want to congratulate you for seeing what I and thousands of others
> >>> overlooked." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> Who else in this wide world of ours--except you, Bob Harris--has ever
> implied that Audrey Bell's initials were "forged" onto Commission
> Exhibit No. 842?
David, I can't believe how hard you are trying to distort what I said.
Why do you feel compelled to twist my words to make it appear that I
said others "implied" that her initials were forged?
Neither I, nor thousands of others realized that the initials were
upside down and appeared to be Fritz's. Did you really not get that? If
so, I have to think that you are the only one.
And why are you evading issues that are infinitely more important?
That envelope was clearly altered David. Even you have never disputed
that fact. Look at this image which I brightened and sharpened a bit.
Notice the left over fragments of the characters that were partially
erased and overwritten and other characters that were entirely erased
but still visible when we enhance the image.
http://jfkhistory.com/blowup.png
How do you explain that David?
Why is it more important to you, to post personal insults and call me
names, than to discuss the most significant evidence?
And how do you explain the missing initials by Bell? Not only did she
have to initial the envelope for the authorities, but she herself said
that it was standard procedure to do so. This is how she explained it to
the HSCA,
G: All right, after the objects are placed into the container by
either the doctor of the scrub nurse, what then occurs?
B: On that particular case they were given to me, and I took them in
my office and prepared one of our foreign body envelopes. . .
G: Foreign body envelopes? What is that, would you explain that?
B: We had a foreign body envelope in which we could record the name of
the patient, the hospital identification number, the foreign body with
the description, whether there were any markings on it, who the surgeon
was, and WE SIGNED IT OFF OURSELVES.
Where are her initials, David?
And furthermore, when that envelope was delivered to the DPD, it
obviously, was not labeled as containing multiple fragments. Look
closely at the DPD listing for it.
http://jfkhistory.com/connallyfragment.jpg
Granted, they called it a fragment rather than a bullet. My own
suspicion is that it was mutilated to the extent that is would pass for
either. But either way, there was clearly, only ONE.
BTW, David you have been asserting over and over again, that the Secret
Service agents who refused to sign off on CE399, failed to initial the
bullet that Tomlinson found.
How did you make that discovery, David?
Please be specific.
I certainly make my share of mistakes, my friend. But they are indeed,
*mistakes*.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I can't believe how hard you are trying to distort what I said. Why do you feel compelled to twist my words to make it appear that I said others "implied" that her initials were forged?" <<<
Yes, Robert Harris, you're correct (this time). And that's precisely
why yesterday I deleted my two separate posts that I made at both acj
& aaj that contained that comment about others thinking Bell's
initials were "forged".
Perhaps, Bob, you are unaware that I deleted both of those posts many
hours before you wrote your last post concerning this matter. They
have been deleted off of the Google Groups server anyway. I can't
control all the other servers, however. But, I did delete those two
posts, because I agree with you that the comment wasn't totally
germane to this topic.
>>> "David, you have been asserting over and over again that the Secret Service agents who refused to sign off on CE399 failed to initial the bullet that Tomlinson found. How did you make that discovery, David?" <<<
Simple. Those Secret Service people (Johnsen and Rowley) said in June
1964 that they could not positively identify CE399 as the exact bullet
they each handled on 11/22/63. And that's because their initials
obviously are NOT on that bullet. Otherwise, they would have seen
their individual markings on the bullet (just like FBI agent Elmer
Todd did; Todd saw his mark on CE399 and said so in the FBI report
that can be found in CE2011, at 24 H 412):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
Quite obviously, the Secret Service men who handled the bullet didn't
feel the need to initial the bullet at all. The only people who put
their mark on the bullet were the FBI people.
Naturally, all CTers will claim that this breaks the chain of custody
entirely (by not having Richard Johnsen's or James Rowley's initials
on CE399). But, of course, it doesn't break the chain at all. If
Oswald had stood trial for JFK's murder, the prosecuting attorney
would have merely called each man who handled the bullet to the stand
and asked them if they had received a whole bullet from another man on
November 22.
The answers from these witnesses, quite obviously, would establish the
fact that each man in the chain had, indeed, received a whole bullet
from another man on 11/22/63.
And the fact that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, and Rowley said (in
CE2011) that they could not positively identify CE399 doesn't mean
that CE399 WASN'T the bullet that those four men handled on November
22nd.
And the answer to this is really easy too -- HOW COULD those four men
have said with ironclad 100% certainty that CE399 was the EXACT same
bullet they each handled when they had no identifying marks on the
bullet to show it was the exact bullet?
If any of those men had stated: "Yes, I know that is the exact bullet
I touched on November 22", they would have been silly and
disingenuous. Because that whole bullet--CE399--pretty much looked
like ANY OTHER rifle bullet to those four men. Therefore, there's no
way they could have stamped CE399 as THE EXACT BULLET they touched on
November 22.
But the totality of evidence certainly indicates that CE399 WAS,
indeed, the same bullet those men failed to positively identify as the
stretcher bullet.
However, to a conspiracy theorist who is bent on ignoring the SBT, the
above logic regarding the very obvious reason for why Tomlinson,
Wright, Johnsen, and Rowley couldn't possibly have positively
identified CE399 will also be totally ignored (or misunderstood).
Right, Bob?
Robert Harris
<175b0847-621e-4a9c...@q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, I can't believe how hard you are trying to distort what I said.
> >>> Why do you feel compelled to twist my words to make it appear that I said
> >>> others "implied" that her initials were forged?" <<<
>
> Yes, Robert Harris, you're correct (this time). And that's precisely
> why yesterday I deleted my two separate posts that I made at both acj
> & aaj that contained that comment about others thinking Bell's
> initials were "forged".
>
> Perhaps, Bob, you are unaware that I deleted both of those posts many
> hours before you wrote your last post concerning this matter. They
> have been deleted off of the Google Groups server anyway. I can't
> control all the other servers, however. But, I did delete those two
> posts, because I agree with you that the comment wasn't totally
> germane to this topic.
The problem David, is not that it isn't germaine. The problem is that it
was false and a misrepresentation of what I said.
>
> >>> "David, you have been asserting over and over again that the Secret
> >>> Service agents who refused to sign off on CE399 failed to initial the
> >>> bullet that Tomlinson found. How did you make that discovery, David?" <<<
>
> Simple. Those Secret Service people (Johnsen and Rowley) said in June
> 1964 that they could not positively identify CE399 as the exact bullet
> they each handled on 11/22/63. And that's because their initials
> obviously are NOT on that bullet.
And why is that "obvious" David?
Please be specific?
> Otherwise, they would have seen
> their individual markings on the bullet (just like FBI agent Elmer
> Todd did; Todd saw his mark on CE399 and said so in the FBI report
> that can be found in CE2011, at 24 H 412):
You have no idea what Todd said. You only know what the FBI claimed he
said. The FBI lied about Odum interviewing Wright and Tomlinson and they
lied when they told the WC that they only brought in one bullet from
Parkland to their labs. Their own documents proved that they brought in
TWO.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
Why would you base your entire case on an FBI whose documented policy
was that "the public must be convinced.." that there was no conspiracy??
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
>
> Quite obviously, the Secret Service men who handled the bullet didn't
> feel the need to initial the bullet at all.
That is not "obvious" at all. Oswald was still alive then and they would
have been fanatically meticulous about documenting the chain of
possession. Why do you assume they would be that irresponsible?
> The only people who put
> their mark on the bullet were the FBI people.
Prove it.
>
> Naturally, all CTers will claim that this breaks the chain of custody
> entirely (by not having Richard Johnsen's or James Rowley's initials
> on CE399). But, of course, it doesn't break the chain at all. If
> Oswald had stood trial for JFK's murder, the prosecuting attorney
> would have merely called each man who handled the bullet to the stand
> and asked them if they had received a whole bullet from another man on
> November 22.
LOL!!
Total BS! The fallacy of your claim is that if a piece of evidence like
that is not initialed, then there is NO WAY it could be positively
identified. And for exactly the same reason that you claim the two SS
agents couldn't identify it.
>
> The answers from these witnesses, quite obviously, would establish the
> fact that each man in the chain had, indeed, received a whole bullet
> from another man on 11/22/63.
So, they take the stand and declare that they cannot positively identify
the bullet???
That certainly would be impressive, eh David:-)
>
> And the fact that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, and Rowley said (in
> CE2011) that they could not positively identify CE399 doesn't mean
> that CE399 WASN'T the bullet that those four men handled on November
> 22nd.
Both Odum and Tomlinson said the stretcher bullet was shaped differently
from CE399 and Tomlinson said the bullet did not come from Connally's
stretcher.
It was unanimous David ALL FOUR of them refused to ID CE399.
Live with it.
>
> And the answer to this is really easy too -- HOW COULD those four men
> have said with ironclad 100% certainty that CE399 was the EXACT same
> bullet they each handled when they had no identifying marks on the
> bullet to show it was the exact bullet?
Just don't forget to post your proof that no-one initialed the bullet,
David.
And explain to us why Rowley and Johnsen were not fired for gross
negligence.
>
> If any of those men had stated: "Yes, I know that is the exact bullet
> I touched on November 22", they would have been silly and
> disingenuous. Because that whole bullet--CE399--pretty much looked
> like ANY OTHER rifle bullet to those four men. Therefore, there's no
> way they could have stamped CE399 as THE EXACT BULLET they touched on
> November 22.
Sigh..
>
> But the totality of evidence certainly indicates that CE399 WAS,
> indeed, the same bullet those men failed to positively identify as the
> stretcher bullet.
David THERE IS NO EVIDENCE outside of the FBI to verify the legitimacy
of CE399.
All four men refused to confirm it.
By contrast, Gov. Connally, his top aide Bill Stinson, Dallas DA Henry
Wade, officer Nolan and the nurse who recovered the real bullet ALL
confirmed that it fell from Gonnally's leg and was recovered by the
nurse.
David she SHOWED it to Wade, who said she was holding that bullet in her
hand.
The envelope which supposedly contained WC exhibit CE842 was obviously,
altered, with initials overwritten on partially or totally erased,
previous characters.
Even YOU don't dispute that fact, David.
Based on Bell's testimony to the HSCA and the ARRB, she could not
possibly have been the same nurse who gave the original envelope to
Nolan, which is why her initials are nowhere on it.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "The envelope which supposedly contained WC exhibit CE842 was obviously altered, with initials overwritten on partially or totally erased, previous characters." <<<
Prove it.
Re: The chain of custody of Commission Exhibit No. 399:
Since you don't trust the FBI any further than you can throw them, it
wouldn't matter if Rowley and Johnsen had identified CE399 or not.
We'd still have CTers of your general ilk who would simply claim, "The
FBI lied when they said that Johnsen and Rowley positively identified
CE399 from their markings on the bullet".
This same kind of general distrust of the FBI has led you, Robert
Harris, to believe that the FBI lied in CE2011 when they said that
Elmer Todd said he saw his initials on CE399.
I, however, don't belong to such a group of distrusting disbelievers.
The FBI document, CE2011, says that Todd identified CE399 via his own
initials being seen on the bullet--and I believe that's true.
If the conspiracy theorists of the world want to think that the FBI
lied in CE2011--fine. It won't be the first time a CTer thinks
somebody lied in this case. But, I, OTOH, am always very careful about
who it is I label as a "liar".
You, however, Bob Harris, don't care how many people you have to label
with the L word in order to make your conspiracy fantasy come true in
your mind. If the number of lying scumbags reaches 200, that's just
fine with Robert Harris. Then 200 liars it will be.
=======================
CHAIN-OF-POSSESSION ADDENDUM:
On September 6, 1997, John McAdams said this:
[quote on:]
OK, let's start with where it [CE399] ended up (Frazier and the FBI)
and work backwards. Frazier testified about how he got the bullet from
Elmer Todd (3H428). Both Todd and Frazier had marked their initials on
the bullet (CE 2011).
Todd had gotten the bullet from James Rowley, of the Secret Service.
Rowley had gotten it from an agent, Richard Johnsen. Johnsen filed a
report about getting the bullet (18H798-799), and forwarded a note
along with the bullet (18H800). The note said, in part, " . . . the
attached expended bullet was received by me about 5 minutes prior to
Mrs. Kennedy's departure from the hospital."
The note further named the "person from whom I received this bullet"
as O.P. Wright.
I can't find any WC testimony from O.P. Wright, although CE 2011
records that he passed the bullet along. And then, we have
Tomlinson's WC testimony that he gave the bullet to Wright, and
Johnsen's written statements that he got the bullet from Wright.
Further, Thompson interviewed Wright in 1966. He managed to get
Wright to say that CE 399 didn't look like the bullet that he had
handled, but he never for an instant denied getting the bullet from
Tomlinson and giving it to Johnsen. [SSID, p. 175.]
Translation: CE 399 would have been perfectly admissible. At most,
the Oswald prosecution would have had to call some of these guys to
the stand.
Of course, this "admissibility" business is a red herring anyway.
Evidence can be admissible, and forged, or inadmissible and absolutely
dispositive where *historical* judgments are concerned.
.John
[end quote]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cece399.txt
=======================
ADDENDUM #2:
John McAdams also says this on his website:
"Bullets and other physical evidence need not be marked to be
admissible in trails. This brief [linked below] submitted by the
prosecution in the O.J. Simpson civil trial makes this clear."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/custody.txt
Culled from the above link:
"To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical
evidence at issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests
thereon) admissible, Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of
the trial court that, taking all the circumstances into account
including the ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence
could have been altered, it is reasonably certain that there was no
alteration." People v. Riser. 47 Cal. 2d 566, 580 (1956). Where there
is only "the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper
to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight."
Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano, 57 Cal. App. 3d 490, 493-96
(1976)."
David Von Pein
>>> "David, I have about 1000 questions regarding this issue, but I'll start with a few easy ones about the initials themselves [on CE842; see second link above]. 1. See that strange line that begins way outside of the lower left-hand corner of the letter that is supposed to be a capital J and ends in the upper right-hand corner? Just what exactly is it doing there?" <<<
I haven't the foggiest.
>>> "2. What is that awkward slash that appears to the lower left of the W supposed to signify?" <<<
I haven't the foggiest.
>>> "3. What was Fritz trying to do with that capital L that appears to be tumbling out of the bottom of his F?" <<<
The initials, including the F, are all totally consistent with the
handwriting of John Will Fritz that can be found on other documents
signed by Mr. Fritz, such as this example below (with two other
examples provided earlier in this thread):
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0497-002.gif
>>> "Have you found any examples of such unusual embellishments in other handwriting samples attributed to Captain Fritz?" <<<
No.
But, then again, why would I be expected to find such
"embellishments", which are really not "embellishments" at all. They
are merely random markings on a piece of paper (envelope) which has
some of the initials being placed on the item upside-down, while
others are placed on the item right-side-up.
I was going to postulate the notion that three of the oddball markings
that surround Captain Fritz' initials on CE842 were merely large
"periods" to punctuate each of his three initials (J.W.F.), because
the location of three of those marks are just about in the proper
locations on the envelope that would make such a suggestion a
possibility, similar to the rather large-sized periods that Bobby M.
Nolan utilized when he initialed the very same envelope (B.M.N.),
which are bigger than just the pinpoint type of periods that usually
accompany a person's initials....but I doubt I could convince any of
the conspiracy-seeking individuals in this Internet locality that
those markings are, indeed, "periods". (But maybe Captain FRitz was
nervous that day when he initialed CE842, and all of his punctuation
mushroomed into lines, instead of dots for his periods.) ~grin~
Anyway, the fact obviously remains that J. Will Fritz positively did
place his initials (JWF) on Commission Exhibit No. 842.
If you want to discuss the logicality of some dumbbell at the DPD or
FBI (or wherever) deciding to ERASE someone else's initials on that
envelope, and having that dumbbell/idiot deciding to NOT ERASE ALL OF
THE INITIALS (when the goof certainly COULD have erased all of it),
then I guess we could take a few days to discuss that sub-topic,
Karin.
However, instead of performing that type of humorous exercise, I'd
rather continue to verbally poke Robert Harris in the eye a few more
times for his willingness (even eagerness) to label additional unnamed
members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as "liars" and evidence-
tamperers with regard to Warren Commission Exhibit No. 842.
This quote from the electronic lips of Robert Harris (culled from one
of his posts at The Education Forum on April 19, 2010), will stand
forever as a good example of the level of a conspiracy theorist's
willingness to grab at any straw he can invent, in order to smear the
authorities who handled the evidence connected with John F. Kennedy's
assassination:
"The FBI...altered the evidence envelope that held the bullet
and forged the name of nurse Audrey Bell, to make it appear that the
envelope held the fragments from Connally's wrist, instead of the
bullet from his leg." -- Robert Harris; 04/19/2010
David Von Pein
http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2486.msg46431.html#msg46431
>>> "The erased characters [on CE842] are the problem." <<<
You, Robert Harris, can't prove any initials were "erased". You just
want to believe that.
And even if something was erased, you can't prove that such action was
conspiratorial in nature. Can you, Bob?
>>> "The chain of possession was deliberately altered." <<<
There is absolutely no evidence that there was any SECOND envelope
containing a whole bullet from Connally's leg. That's your overactive
imagination at work again, Bob.
There is ample proof from Dr. Charles Gregory's testimony that no
bullet was found inside Governor Connally's leg (or anywhere else in
his body). If any bullet had fallen out and was picked up by a nurse,
Gregory would certainly have known about it. Don't you think, Bob?
Bottom Line -- There is ONE envelope (marked "bullet fragments") that
was filled out by Audrey Bell. And that ONE envelope has not only
Bell's own handwriting all over it, it also has Bobby Nolan's initials
on it. Those two things are on the SAME ENVELOPE. And there's no
evidence that Bell filled out a SECOND foreign body envelope.
Don't those two things (occurring in tandem on the same envelope)--
Bell's handwriting and Nolan's initials--mean anything significant to
you, Robert Harris? If not, why not?
>>> "We also know for a fact that one of the two bullets the FBI flew in from Parkland, evaporated. To make that work, the initials of that nurse HAD to be gotten rid of." <<<
The things that conspiracy kooks "know for a fact" are meaningless.
Because, as we all know, conspiracy theorists get almost nothing right
when it comes to the JFK case. Most of them (who post on the Internet
anyway) can't even figure out that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and
Tippit.
There positively was no second whole bullet flown to Washington from
Parkland, because no such bullet existed in the first place, and no
CTer can prove it ever did exist.
The discrepancy in the time log for when the FBI's Robert Frazier
received Bullet CE399 was undoubtedly a simple bookkeeping error.
Nothing more.
If it HAD been anything more than a simple, common bookkeeping error,
then WHY ON EARTH WOULDN'T THE EVIL FBI HAVE ERADICATED THAT NOTATION
IN THE LOG ABOUT A SECOND BULLET BEING RECEIVED BY FRAZIER?
Please explain the logic of your bumbling plotters (the FBI), Bob?
They can cover up all kinds of stuff and eliminate all types of
evidence, but they can't erase a "7:30" notation on a piece of paper?
Hoover's boys must have all attended "The Barney Fife And Goober Pyle
School For Cover-Up Agents".