More Proof that the FBI LIed

[Robert Harris]

The following article by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson tells of
their efforts to verify CE-2011, a memo from the FBI to the WC, stating
that Daryl Tomlinson and Parkland supervisor O.P. Wright told FBI agent
Bardwell Odum that CE399 "appeared" to be the same bullet that Tomlinson
found.

But in a previously written, classified Airtel, the FBI had described the
two civilians refusing to verify CE398, with no mention at all of even a
partial confirmation or claim that this bullet was similar to the one from
the stretcher.

Aguilar and Thompson then set out to look for 302s - field reports that
the FBI writes up to document their interviews of witnesses. They
contacted the national archives as well as the FBI, looking for both
Odum's report and Todd's report of his interview with Johnson and Rowley.

None could be found, and the Archives confirmed that there were no missing
numbers in their sequence of reports.

They then decided to contact Odum himself. His reply,

?I didn?t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn?t have any bullet
? I don?t think I ever saw it even.?

The two researchers returned to visit in Oct. of 2002 and showed him the
FBI documents which claimed that he interviewed the two witnesses. He
replied,

"Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that
he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece
of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about
it, he said he would certainly have turned in a '302' report covering
something that important."

Aguilar and Thompson never did find 302 reports for either Odum's alleged
interviews or Todd's. The article can be read here;


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


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<bobharris77-965F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

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

> The following article by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson tells of
> their efforts to verify CE-2011, a memo from the FBI to the WC, stating
> that Daryl Tomlinson and Parkland supervisor O.P. Wright told FBI agent
> Bardwell Odum that CE399 "appeared" to be the same bullet that Tomlinson
> found.
>
> But in a previously written, classified Airtel, the FBI had described the
> two civilians refusing to verify CE398, with no mention at all of even a
> partial confirmation or claim that this bullet was similar to the one from
> the stretcher.
>
> Aguilar and Thompson then set out to look for 302s - field reports that
> the FBI writes up to document their interviews of witnesses. They
> contacted the national archives as well as the FBI, looking for both
> Odum's report and Todd's report of his interview with Johnson and Rowley.
>
> None could be found, and the Archives confirmed that there were no missing
> numbers in their sequence of reports.
>
> They then decided to contact Odum himself. His reply,
>
> ?I didn?t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn?t have any bullet
> ? I don?t think I ever saw it even.?

Sorry about the garbled fonts. The cite should read,

"I didn?t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn?t have any

bullet. I don't think I ever saw it even."




Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

That's not "proof" that the FBI lied. Not even close. Bob Harris is
grasping at straws. (As usual.)

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

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d7a2a8f0-b1aa-480a...@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your
website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis.

Your unsupported assertion that this FBI agent just forgot that he
handled the most important piece of evidence in American history, just
insults everyone's intelligence.



If you have a legitimate rebuttal, just post it here.





Robert Harris

PS - great job doctor mcadams, posting replies by nutters within minutes
of my post, while mine often take 1-2 days:-)

[Anthony Marsh]

And yet DVP claims he has proof that Odum showed the bullet to the
Parkland witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2011 9:09 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <d7a2a8f0-b1aa-480a...@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> That's not "proof" that the FBI lied. Not even close. Bob Harris is
>> grasping at straws. (As usual.)
>>
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399
>
> David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your
> website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis.
>

DVP thinks that he's such an expert and he hadn't even seen the photos
of the bullet you uploaded.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your
website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis."
<<<

I'll do no such thing--ever. If you don't like it--all the better. But the
more anti-conspiracy stuff that can be spread out here in cyberspace--the
more I like it. Because common sense never gets stale. But Robert Harris'
NONsense sure does.

Harris' "analysis" of the JFK case is riddled with silliness and pure
speculation (as all CT theories are, of course). My analysis of the JFK
case, however, is riddled with hard facts and Oswald-Did-It evidence.
Therein lies the difference. And always shall.

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

>>> "Your unsupported assertion that this FBI agent just forgot that he

handled the most important piece of evidence in American history just

insults everyone's intelligence. If you have a legitimate rebuttal, just
post it here." <<<

Already have. CE2011 proves--for all time--that Tomlinson and Wright were
shown CE399 in June of '64...and CE2011 proves for all time that BOTH men
said that 399 looked like the stretcher bullet. Period.

You want to rely on a 37-year-old memory. Fine. I'll instead rely on the
OFFICIAL FBI REPORT dated July 7, 1964.

I also find in rather interest (in a "double standard" kind of way) that
the CTers are quick to run away from any official document that disproves
their claims (like CE2011 does), but when they get ahold of an "official"
document that they think tends to buttress their conspiratorial silliness,
they're eager and very willing to prop up that official piece of paper for
all to see. (The Katzenbach memo comes to mind.)

But, then too, that's why it must be so frustrating to be a JFK conspiracy
theorist -- just when you think you've put together a good theory that has
Oswald off the hook, then something called common sense (or a pesky
official document that MUST be fake, per the CT mindset) comes along and
clogs the works.*

* = The theory of Oswald being set as a lone patsy many weeks/months
before Nov. 22 comes to mind here -- which is a theory believed to be true
by many CTers, with those same CTers also wanting to believe that multiple
gunmen fired at JFK's body from the front and rear.

But the built-in foolishness of believing that those two things could
possibly CO-EXIST in the JFK murder case never seems to bother the staunch
conspiracy-happy crowd one bit. They just ignore the illogic of such a
plot -- just like Oliver Stone did. Amazing indeed.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "And yet DVP claims he has proof that Odum showed the bullet to the
Parkland witnesses." <<<

Of course I have proof -- it's CE2011 (the 7/7/64 FBI report that tells
the world that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson & Wright, with both men
stating that the bullet looked like the stretcher bullet).

Naturally, the 1964 FBI document is supposed to be totally ignored if
you're in the CT club....and we're supposed to rely on a 37-year-old human
memory from 2001 instead.

Only in the CT world would an OFFICIAL FBI DOCUMENT (which talks about
certain very specific things being done--such as an FBI man showing a
bullet to various people, and also what those people said about that
bullet) not be considered solid "proof" of something.

The amazing (and always pathetic) world of CTers continues to astound.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d504d324-1b27-4fbf...@hv4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> >>> "And yet DVP claims he has proof that Odum showed the bullet to the
> Parkland witnesses." <<<
>
> Of course I have proof -- it's CE2011 (the 7/7/64 FBI report that tells
> the world that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson & Wright, with both men
> stating that the bullet looked like the stretcher bullet).

Ok, so you think Odum just forgot about those interviews and then forgot
that he held CE399 in his hand, right?

Do you also think that in 1967, O.P. Wright just forgot that he told the
FBI that the two bullets were similar? Did he forget and somehow suffer
the delusion that the two were shaped much differently?

And did SA Odum also just forget in 1963, to fill out FD-302 forms for
those interviews?

And then you have Hoover just forgetting that Connally was sitting in
front of JFK!

It must be a bummer to be a nutter and have damned near every witness you
encounter suffering memory farts that prove you are wrong.

You'd think the natural randomness of error would toss one your way once
in awhile, wouldn't you:-)



Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK:

"It is an article of faith among conspiracy theorists that
Commission Exhibit No. 399, the so-called magic bullet, was “planted”
by the conspirators to frame Oswald. But conspiracy theorist Dr. Gary
Aguilar, in an article he wrote, found a contradiction in two FBI
reports as to whether the two Parkland Hospital employees who first
saw the bullet (Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet, and O. P.
Wright, his boss to whom he gave it) could later identify it.

"A July 7, 1964, FBI report says that an FBI agent showed
Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 on June 12, 1964. The
report reads that “Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same” bullet
he found on the stretcher and that Wright said it “looks like the
slug”Tomlinson turned over to him. Neither could “positively identify”
the bullet. (CE 2011, 24 H 411–412) But an earlier, June 20, 1964, FBI
Airtel from the special agent-in-charge in Dallas to J. Edgar Hoover
reads that neither Tomlinson nor Wright “can identify bullet” (HSCA
Record 180-10034-10436).

"Since the Airtel was written before the July 7, 1964, report,
Aguilar concludes that the Airtel was the truthful report and that the
July 7, 1964, report was “bogus” in that it claimed that Tomlinson and
Wright thought the bullet they were shown was the same one they saw on
the afternoon of the assassination, when actually, per the June 20
Airtel, Tomlinson and Wright told the FBI the opposite. (Gary Aguilar,
“A Tale of Two Official Stories,” Probe, January–February 2000, pp.14–
15, 24)*

* [Footnote] -- "The same “bogus” July 7, 1964, FBI report (CE
2011) says that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, to whom O. P.
Wright gave the slug, “could not identify this bullet,” and James
Rowley, chief of the U.S. Secret Service to whom Johnsen gave the
slug, also “could not identify this bullet.” (FBI special agent Elmer
Todd, to whom Rowley gave the bullet, was, per the report, able to
identify it “from initials” marked thereon by Todd at the FBI
laboratory.) In an effort to explain why, if the FBI were up to no
good, FBI agents would falsify what Tomlinson and Wright told them,
but not what Johnsen and Rowley told them, Aguilar amusingly writes
that the FBI authors of the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011) probably
thought that “Secret Service agents would have been more likely to
read the FBI reports” than Tomlinson and Wright would.

"But if that is Aguilar’s conclusion, that Commission Exhibit
No. 399 was never identified and authenticated as the magic bullet
that connected Oswald to the assassination, doesn’t that necessarily
knock out the hallowed belief of most of his fellow conspiracy
theorists* that Exhibit No. 399 was a bullet from Oswald’s rifle that
conspirators planted to frame Oswald? (I mean, certainly the
conspirators, trying to frame Oswald, would not have planted a bullet
on the stretcher that was fired from a rifle other than Oswald’s,
would they?) In any event, Aguilar found what he believes to be a
contradiction. That’s one of the most important things all conspiracy
theorists look for, and then they go merrily on in their search for
other apparent contradictions in the vast and inviting literature on
the assassination.

"Per the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011), the FBI agent who
showed Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 (FBI Exhibit
C-1) was Bardwell D. Odum. But interestingly, when assassination
researchers Aguilar and Josiah Thompson visited Odum at his home in
Dallas in late September of 2002, Odum told them he never had that
bullet in his possession and, hence, did not show it to anyone. Unless
the July report is in error as to the name of the agent who showed
Tomlinson the bullet, Odum, almost forty years after the fact, has
simply forgotten.

"Odum said that if he had shown anyone the bullet, he would have
prepared an FBI report (called a “302” after the number of the form,
FD-302) on it. (Letter from Gary Aguilar to author dated October 13,
2004)

"There is another related aspect to Aguilar’s handling of the
two apparently contradictory reports. (I say “apparently” because each
was written by different FBI agents, and the agent writing in the June
Airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet may
have meant no more than the other agent writing in the other report
that they could not “positively” identify the bullet.)

"And, like the previous one, it fits the modus operandi of
virtually all mainstream (as opposed to fringe) conspiracy theorists
like Aguilar, Anthony Summers, Henry Hurt, John Newman, and others.
The moment they spot something contradictory or, in their mind,
suspicious, they make “noises,” without making direct accusations,
that the party or group involved is complicit in the conspiracy.
(Those on the fringe simply flat-out accuse them of being complicit.)

"For instance, here, Aguilar does not expressly accuse the FBI
ofmurdering Kennedy or knowingly covering up for those who did. But
certainly, if FBI agents are falsifying their official reports,
Aguilar wants his readers to infer that they must be somehow involved.
I mean, if that’s not what he’s getting at when he says FBI agents
prepared a bogus report changing what Tomlinson and Wright told them,
then what’s the relevance of what he’s writing about?

"If he was not willing in his article to accuse the FBI of
murdering Kennedy or being an accessory after the fact to Kennedy’s
murder, then “where does his allegation go?” And if it doesn’t go
anywhere, then that means there is an innocent, not sinister,
explanation for the discrepancy.

"Instead, willy-nilly, most mainstream conspiracy theorists
continue only to imply that this person, and this group, and that
person, and that group (they never stop adding to their list as they
scour the assassination library of books, articles, and documents)
were involved somehow in the assassination, but not too frequently do
they flat-out identify those persons or groups."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 544-545 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

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

[Robert Harris]

In article
<5fa53070-5670-4313...@j39g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

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

> >>> "David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your
> website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis."
> <<<
>
> I'll do no such thing--ever. If you don't like it--all the better. But the
> more anti-conspiracy stuff that can be spread out here in cyberspace--the
> more I like it. Because common sense never gets stale. But Robert Harris'
> NONsense sure does.

Ok, don't be bashful David. Tell us specifically about my nonsense and
your analysis of why you disagree with it.

>
> Harris' "analysis" of the JFK case is riddled with silliness and pure
> speculation

Ok, so when do we get to hear your specific complaints??

> (as all CT theories are, of course). My analysis of the JFK
> case, however, is riddled with hard facts and Oswald-Did-It evidence.
> Therein lies the difference. And always shall.

That's nice David.

But when are you going to tell us specifically about my failings and
where I went wrong?

>
> http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

David, I think it's great that you have a website. But you just made
some pretty serious accusations.

When do you intend to back them up - preferably with specific facts and
logic?

>
>
> >>> "Your unsupported assertion that this FBI agent just forgot that he
> handled the most important piece of evidence in American history just
> insults everyone's intelligence. If you have a legitimate rebuttal, just
> post it here." <<<
>
> Already have. CE2011 proves--for all time--that Tomlinson and Wright were
> shown CE399 in June of '64...and CE2011 proves for all time that BOTH men
> said that 399 looked like the stretcher bullet. Period.

I'm afraid it doesn't David. That interview never took place. There was
no FD-302 report filed and Odum stated that he never conducted such
interviews.

And why are you evading the fact that ex police officer O.P. Wright
obviously, did not tell anyone that the stretcher bullet was similar to
CE399. He said they were shaped much differently.

The FBI lied David. I'm genuinely sorry if that makes you unhappy.

>
> You want to rely on a 37-year-old memory. Fine. I'll instead rely on the
> OFFICIAL FBI REPORT dated July 7, 1964.

David, the evidence tells us that the FBI lied. But whether they did nor
not, you cannot use their own unconfirmed statements to exonerate them.

By that reasoning you should believe that Oswald was innocent because he
said he was.

>
> I also find in rather interest (in a "double standard" kind of way) that
> the CTers are quick to run away from any official document that disproves
> their claims (like CE2011 does)

CE2011 does not disprove or prove anything except that the FBI lied.

> but when they get ahold of an "official"
> document that they think tends to buttress their conspiratorial silliness,
> they're eager and very willing to prop up that official piece of paper for
> all to see. (The Katzenbach memo comes to mind.)

David I cannot speak for "CTers". But I can tell you that my method is
quite simple. I go with the evidence and the known facts, which are as
follows,

1. Odum said he did not conduct those interviews or even see CE399.

2. He also said that if he had conducted such interviews, he would have
had to fill out FD-302 forms. But no such reports are in existence.

3. O.P. Wright very obviously, did not tell anyone in the FBI that the
two bullets were similar and was adamant that they were shaped much
differently from one another.

All four of the men who originally handled the stretcher bullet refused
to verify CE399 as the same one that Tomlinson found.

And we know that the FBI lied about other issues related to this. They
lied when Elmer Todd claimed that he verified his own initials, after
failing to get confirmation from the two Secret Service agents. I posted
a graphic recently, which should convince even you that his initials are
not on that bullet.

And they lied about their interview with supervisor Audrey Bell,
claiming that she gave a single fragment to officer Nolan - in total
contradiction with Bell's sworn testimony and CE-842.

Your blind faith in Hoover's FBI is badly misguided and totally
undeserved.

>
> But, then too, that's why it must be so frustrating to be a JFK conspiracy
> theorist -- just when you think you've put together a good theory that has
> Oswald off the hook, then something called common sense (or a pesky
> official document that MUST be fake, per the CT mindset) comes along and
> clogs the works.*

David, I know you have this thing about "CT's" and in all honesty, I
can't blame you. I know you've been abused shamefully on Youtube, the Ed
forum, and ACJ. I experienced the same thing in the nutter forums on the
web (and also in ACJ :-).

But ranting about people like that doesn't get us any closer to an
understanding of this crime. To understand the assassination, you need
to sift through a lot of evidence and apply a LOT of unbiased reasoning
to what you find.

When I did that, I found that MOST of what I call the "old school"
conspiracy analysis was absolute crap. I also, could find no evidence of
involvement by the CIA, even though they were not exactly forthcoming in
releasing information.

But I found other things as well David - about the shots that were fired
that day and about the FBI's flagrant attempts to coverup evidence of
conspiracy.

The error that you and most other "nutters" make is to assume that since
there is a lot of bad reasoning being presented in support of
conspiracy, that it is impossible that there was one.

That's like saying that there was no Watergate conspiracy because
somebody said Nixon was conspiring with aliens from Mars.

Sweeping generalizations and profiling people will not help you David.
The ONLY way you will make any progress in understanding this crime is
get your hands dirty, looking through ALL the evidence you can find and
doing so with zero concern for where the chips fall.






Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2011 8:45 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "And yet DVP claims he has proof that Odum showed the bullet to the
> Parkland witnesses."<<<
>
> Of course I have proof -- it's CE2011 (the 7/7/64 FBI report that tells

> the world that Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson& Wright, with both men

> stating that the bullet looked like the stretcher bullet).
>

That is not proof. Show me the National Archives signout sheet for CE399.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/28/2011 8:45 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>

>>>> "David, please stop sending everyone off on wild goose chases to your
> website, where there is absolutely nothing that disproves my analysis."
> <<<
>
> I'll do no such thing--ever. If you don't like it--all the better. But the
> more anti-conspiracy stuff that can be spread out here in cyberspace--the
> more I like it. Because common sense never gets stale. But Robert Harris'
> NONsense sure does.
>
> Harris' "analysis" of the JFK case is riddled with silliness and pure
> speculation (as all CT theories are, of course). My analysis of the JFK
> case, however, is riddled with hard facts and Oswald-Did-It evidence.
> Therein lies the difference. And always shall.
>
> http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
>
> http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com
>
>
>>>> "Your unsupported assertion that this FBI agent just forgot that he
> handled the most important piece of evidence in American history just
> insults everyone's intelligence. If you have a legitimate rebuttal, just
> post it here."<<<
>
> Already have. CE2011 proves--for all time--that Tomlinson and Wright were
> shown CE399 in June of '64...and CE2011 proves for all time that BOTH men
> said that 399 looked like the stretcher bullet. Period.
>

So your only way out now is to claim that Odum was lying when he said he
didn't show them the bullet. Typical method of the WC defenders to dismiss
evidence which is inconvenient for them.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/29/2011 9:26 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> FROM VINCE BUGLIOSI'S BOOK:
>
> "It is an article of faith among conspiracy theorists that

> Commission Exhibit No. 399, the so-called magic bullet, was ?planted?

> by the conspirators to frame Oswald. But conspiracy theorist Dr. Gary
> Aguilar, in an article he wrote, found a contradiction in two FBI
> reports as to whether the two Parkland Hospital employees who first
> saw the bullet (Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet, and O. P.
> Wright, his boss to whom he gave it) could later identify it.
>
> "A July 7, 1964, FBI report says that an FBI agent showed
> Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 on June 12, 1964. The

> report reads that ?Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same? bullet
> he found on the stretcher and that Wright said it ?looks like the
> slug?Tomlinson turned over to him. Neither could ?positively identify?
> the bullet. (CE 2011, 24 H 411?412) But an earlier, June 20, 1964, FBI

> Airtel from the special agent-in-charge in Dallas to J. Edgar Hoover

> reads that neither Tomlinson nor Wright ?can identify bullet? (HSCA

> Record 180-10034-10436).
>
> "Since the Airtel was written before the July 7, 1964, report,
> Aguilar concludes that the Airtel was the truthful report and that the

> July 7, 1964, report was ?bogus? in that it claimed that Tomlinson and

> Wright thought the bullet they were shown was the same one they saw on
> the afternoon of the assassination, when actually, per the June 20
> Airtel, Tomlinson and Wright told the FBI the opposite. (Gary Aguilar,

> ?A Tale of Two Official Stories,? Probe, January?February 2000, pp.14?
> 15, 24)*
>
> * [Footnote] -- "The same ?bogus? July 7, 1964, FBI report (CE

> 2011) says that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, to whom O. P.

> Wright gave the slug, ?could not identify this bullet,? and James

> Rowley, chief of the U.S. Secret Service to whom Johnsen gave the

> slug, also ?could not identify this bullet.? (FBI special agent Elmer

> Todd, to whom Rowley gave the bullet, was, per the report, able to

> identify it ?from initials? marked thereon by Todd at the FBI

> laboratory.) In an effort to explain why, if the FBI were up to no
> good, FBI agents would falsify what Tomlinson and Wright told them,
> but not what Johnsen and Rowley told them, Aguilar amusingly writes
> that the FBI authors of the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011) probably

> thought that ?Secret Service agents would have been more likely to
> read the FBI reports? than Tomlinson and Wright would.
>
> "But if that is Aguilar?s conclusion, that Commission Exhibit

> No. 399 was never identified and authenticated as the magic bullet

> that connected Oswald to the assassination, doesn?t that necessarily

> knock out the hallowed belief of most of his fellow conspiracy

> theorists* that Exhibit No. 399 was a bullet from Oswald?s rifle that

> conspirators planted to frame Oswald? (I mean, certainly the
> conspirators, trying to frame Oswald, would not have planted a bullet

> on the stretcher that was fired from a rifle other than Oswald?s,

> would they?) In any event, Aguilar found what he believes to be a

> contradiction. That?s one of the most important things all conspiracy

> theorists look for, and then they go merrily on in their search for
> other apparent contradictions in the vast and inviting literature on
> the assassination.
>
> "Per the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011), the FBI agent who
> showed Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 (FBI Exhibit
> C-1) was Bardwell D. Odum. But interestingly, when assassination
> researchers Aguilar and Josiah Thompson visited Odum at his home in
> Dallas in late September of 2002, Odum told them he never had that
> bullet in his possession and, hence, did not show it to anyone. Unless
> the July report is in error as to the name of the agent who showed
> Tomlinson the bullet, Odum, almost forty years after the fact, has
> simply forgotten.
>
> "Odum said that if he had shown anyone the bullet, he would have

> prepared an FBI report (called a ?302? after the number of the form,

> FD-302) on it. (Letter from Gary Aguilar to author dated October 13,
> 2004)
>

> "There is another related aspect to Aguilar?s handling of the
> two apparently contradictory reports. (I say ?apparently? because each

> was written by different FBI agents, and the agent writing in the June
> Airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet may
> have meant no more than the other agent writing in the other report

> that they could not ?positively? identify the bullet.)

>
> "And, like the previous one, it fits the modus operandi of
> virtually all mainstream (as opposed to fringe) conspiracy theorists
> like Aguilar, Anthony Summers, Henry Hurt, John Newman, and others.
> The moment they spot something contradictory or, in their mind,

> suspicious, they make ?noises,? without making direct accusations,

> that the party or group involved is complicit in the conspiracy.
> (Those on the fringe simply flat-out accuse them of being complicit.)
>
> "For instance, here, Aguilar does not expressly accuse the FBI
> ofmurdering Kennedy or knowingly covering up for those who did. But

Once again Bugliosi uses innuendo to make false charges.

The point of pointing out FBI errors is never to accuse them of murder.
Just incompetence and covering up their own incompetence. And to point out
problems with the evidence. But Bugliosi's trick is to label anyone who
questions the beloved FBI a kook.

> certainly, if FBI agents are falsifying their official reports,
> Aguilar wants his readers to infer that they must be somehow involved.

Nonsense. Just covering their asses.

> I mean, if that?s not what he?s getting at when he says FBI agents

> prepared a bogus report changing what Tomlinson and Wright told them,

> then what?s the relevance of what he?s writing about?

>
> "If he was not willing in his article to accuse the FBI of

> murdering Kennedy or being an accessory after the fact to Kennedy?s
> murder, then ?where does his allegation go?? And if it doesn?t go

> anywhere, then that means there is an innocent, not sinister,
> explanation for the discrepancy.
>

False logic. The FBI messing up does not equal plans to murder.

> "Instead, willy-nilly, most mainstream conspiracy theorists
> continue only to imply that this person, and this group, and that
> person, and that group (they never stop adding to their list as they
> scour the assassination library of books, articles, and documents)
> were involved somehow in the assassination, but not too frequently do
> they flat-out identify those persons or groups."
>
> -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 544-545 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
> History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399
>

Propaganda.

[Robert Harris]

This whole thing is about the "planted" bullet theory, which I rejected
in all of my articles and videos.

Why do you have to constantly make up things that I never said and then
attack your own fabrications??

I can't speak for Aguilar but I don't think he has ever claimed CE399
was planted either.

Bugliosi's tactics are dishonest and deliberately misleading.




Robert Harris





In article
<902ff27f-eaf6-4a40...@s10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

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

[Robert Harris]

David, would it help if I asked you easier questions:-)


In article
<bobharris77-DB66...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David, would it help if I asked you easier questions[?]" <<<

Well, it would help if you'd put your imagination in neutral for a
change. But I guess that's asking too much when talking to a CTer.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<cb8ff7d2-f80a-4091...@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

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

David, I'm flattered that you would rather talk about Robert Harris than
evidence related to the assassination but I think we all know the reason
why some people have to substitute ad hominem insults for honest
analysis.

But let's be fair and give you another chance. You only need to post
single syllable replies,

Ok, so you think Odum just forgot about those interviews and then forgot
that he held CE399 in his hand, right?

Do you also think that in 1967, O.P. Wright just forgot that he told the
FBI that the two bullets were similar? Did he forget and somehow suffer
the delusion that the two were shaped much differently?

And did SA Odum also just forget in 1963, to fill out FD-302 forms for
those interviews?

And then you have Hoover just forgetting that Connally was sitting in

front of JFK!?

(back to the present)

David, I think it's pretty unlikely that both the interviewer and the
interviewee forgot about discussing CE399 and confirming that it looked
similar to the stretcher bullet.

And I think it is unlikely that SA Odum conducted those interviews but
just forgot to fill out FD-302 forms.


What do you think?




Robert Harris

[Hank Sienzant]

On Oct 30, 8:14 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <cb8ff7d2-f80a-4091-9226-de9292af6...@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

>  David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "David, would it help if I asked you easier questions[?]" <<<
>
> > Well, it would help if you'd put your imagination in neutral for a
> > change. But I guess that's asking too much when talking to a CTer.
>
> David, I'm flattered that you would rather talk about Robert Harris than
> evidence related to the assassination but I think we all know the reason
> why some people have to substitute ad hominem insults for honest
> analysis.
>
> But let's be fair and give you another chance. You only need to post
> single syllable replies,
>
> Ok, so you think Odum just forgot about those interviews and then forgot
> that he held CE399 in his hand, right?

When was he interviewed about this? I saw somewhere it was 37 years
later? Is that accurate?

How old was Odum at that time - he was born in 1918, so he was about
45 at the time of the assassination. 37 years later, he would be about
82.
Did he suffer from any dementia?
That is a not-uncommon problem with the aging process, you know.
Asking if he just forgot about it, in the absence of evidence that he
was sharp as a whip when interviewed, doesn't resolve the issue.
Where is the interview published? Can I read it in it's entirety?
Did he say "I don't remember" to a lot of questions, like Reagan in
the Iran-Contra hearings?
I remember a lot of people were very critical of the President at that
time.
A few years later it came out that Reagan was suffering from
Alzheimer's, and his numerous "I don't remember" answers were
apparently legit.