(PART 76)


>>> "David, there is NO evidence the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher..." <<<


Sure there is. Connally's stretcher just BEING in that hallway is
circumstantial evidence that CE399 was found on CONNALLY'S stretcher.
When coupled with the fact that the occupant (Ronnie Fuller) of the
ONLY OTHER stretcher that is a candidate of producing Bullet CE399 was
most certainly NOT shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63 (was he?)....well, the stretcher choices get
narrowed down to a pretty small number -- to one -- Connally's.

Plus: There's Darrell Tomlinson himself, who certainly seemed a tad
bit confused regarding the stretcher issue when he said this to the
Warren Commission:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."


In addition, Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his
story--from 1964 to 1988:

1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six separate
times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken
off of the elevator.

1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that the
stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had come
off of the elevator.

1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967 statement by
telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he found came off of
a stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the

IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry the
most weight.

In other words, he simply was "not sure" at all which of those two
stretchers had come off of that elevator on November 22, 1963.

>>> "As a result, it's difficult to figure out where the bullet came from and what wounds it created." <<<

It's not difficult at all....unless you want to believe in something
quite EXTRAordinary in nature, i.e., either a "planted" bullet or a
"switched" bullet.

And the latter option requires most/many CTers to abandon the notion
that ANY bullet could emerge in very good shape after breaking those
bones in John B. Connally

Because isn't it the conventional theory among many conspiracists that
WHATEVER bullet was found on WHATEVER stretcher it was found on,
it was an INTACT, UNFRAGMENTED bullet that certainly wasn't mangled
beyond recognition?

And don't extraordinary accusations and theories require some degree
of associated extraordinary PROOF to back them up and make them take

Or, as Vince Bugliosi is wont to say, is the mere accusation and rumor
enough to substitute for proof of bullet-handling underhandedness?.....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; ...treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

>>> "Dr. [Gary] Aguilar has successfully demonstrated that Bugliosi's book fails to answer some of the questions surrounding this bullet [CE399]." <<<

Bugliosi has answered them just fine. And that's because Vince relies
not only on the other "LHO bullet" evidence to prop up the obviousness
regarding CE399 (and all of the other many things that spell out "Oswald
Shot JFK With Rifle C2766"
), but Vincent also uses ample amounts of
common sense to beat the CTers into the backwoods (where they belong)
with respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, too.

Like this short (but sweet) example:

"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet was found on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)


By the way, regarding the "admissibility" of certain JFK assassination
evidence, Bugliosi has this to say (although, granted, VB doesn't
mention "CE399" in this passage specifically, but it's worth a look
anyway, coming as it does from a seasoned ex-prosecutor who certainly
knows his "Rules of Law"):

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

"The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule.

"The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

>>> "This is the kind of essay [the one written by Dr. Gary Aguilar] Bugliosi would have welcomed, prior to publication, should he have been sincerely interested in writing a great book. Instead he hid out and wrote up a prosecutor's brief. Horribly disappointing." <<<

"Reclaiming History" is not disappointing to a reasonable person who
is tired of wading through the incessant, unsupportable theories being
spouted by conspiracy clowns (and an endless stream of associated
conspiracy books).

But, one's man "reasonable" is another man's "horribly disappointing".


David Von Pein
December 4, 2007
July 19, 2011