(PART 76)


Ray [Marcus] did that interview back in late 1966 for his monograph The Bastard Bullet. Got that: 1966!


Your desperation is in "full blast" mode, Jimbo. And, frankly, I'm having a ball watching you try to wiggle out of this. It's quite entertaining indeed.

Regarding your last hunk of "Got that: 1966!" desperation ---

I know full well when Marcus did his interview with Tomlinson. Good God, Jimbo, I've only mentioned the exact date of the Marcus interview (7/25/66) about 25 times in this Internet discussion alone. Just go back and look at how many times I've mentioned the date.

So, quite obviously, I know the interview was done a long time ago. Which, of course, is even BETTER for my "LN side" in this instance, because it's an interview that was done fairly "early on" following the assassination, just 2 years after Tomlinson talked to the FBI at Parkland in June '64. His memory couldn't have gotten TOO terribly bad in just two years.

It's just too bad that YOU, Jim, didn't pay a little more attention to some of the things that are in that 1966 interview. If you had (assuming you even knew it existed before Dec. 1, 2011, which I have my doubts about), then you would have known full well that Tomlinson told a conspiracy theorist who thinks CE399 is a "Bastard Bullet" that he thought CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet.

But, naturally, that little snippet of the Marcus transcript wouldn't interest a conspiracy theorist like you (or David Lifton or Vince Salandria), would it?

And, as a footnote here, I'll admit that I didn't even know such an interview existed until July of 2011, which is when Jean Davison posted some stuff about it at another newsgroup. And I could have started this Education Forum discussion at that time back in July, but I didn't. I decided to wait until now to do that. And there's no reason for the delay. I don't really know why I didn't start talking about the Marcus interview back in July. But I didn't. But Jean certainly did.

And Jean, btw, KNEW about the interview well before July of this year, because she HAS THE PHYSICAL TRANSCRIPT, and she has had that transcript for some time now. I don't know how long she's had the physical transcript, but she told me the other day that she had dug up an "old thread" on the Internet where she had taken the time to write out some verbatim sections of the Marcus/Tomlinson interview--which she did. And those are the verbatim words that you STILL refuse to believe were uttered by Darrell Tomlinson.

Here's exactly what Jean told me on December 5, 2011:

"I found an old thread in which I quoted parts verbatim, so here it is. I'll still send you the whole thing."

Jean had previously offered to mail me a copy of the Marcus transcript. But after she posted the verbatim portions of the interview found in the post linked above, I told her this:

"Thank you, Jean. That saves me a lot of typing. And you really don't need to go to the trouble of mailing the transcript to me now. You've posted the relevant portions of the interview I was interested in. And I also had a feeling that this topic had probably come up before on these forums (or some other forum somewhere). You've probably had that transcript for years, but things tend to get buried in a sea of thousands of other posts over time. Thanks again for posting those verbatim parts of the Marcus/Tomlinson interview." -- DVP; 12/5/2011

More about Tomlinson, the FBI, and the Marcus interview (and it gets even funnier and more entertaining below, as we watch a conspiracy theorist named DiEugenio unravel before our very eyes):


In the memo [CE2011], it specifically names Bardwell Odum as the agent. Got that? BARDWELL ODUM! How can anyone confuse that name with Gordon Shanklin? I don't think it's possible.


Well, quite frankly, Jimbo, given the variety of crazy things you think happened in the JFK/Tippit murder cases, I can't really see why anyone on Earth would give two cents for your opinions on ANYTHING connected with this case. And, hence, who gives a damn WHAT you consider to be "impossible".

Anyway, we know that BOTH Bardwell Odum and Gordon Shanklin were part of the local Dallas FBI office. So it's certainly possible that the name "Shanklin" was one that was familiar to Darrell Tomlinson by the time he talked to Raymond Marcus in 1966. ("Got that: 1966!")

And, as I said before:

"After seeing the...Tomlinson quote (and also after seeing the part in the Tomlinson/Marcus interview about Tomlinson saying that he had seen CE399 just "one time" after 11/22/63), it seems fairly logical to conclude one of the following things:

1.) CE2011 is incorrect as to the name of the FBI agent who showed Tomlinson a bullet on 6/12/64. (It was really Shanklin and not Bardwell Odum.)

2.) Darrell Tomlinson, in his 1966 interview with Marcus, was incorrect about the name of the FBI agent. (It was really Odum and not Shanklin.)

3.) Perhaps BOTH Odum and Shanklin went to Parkland Hospital on 6/12/64 to interview Tomlinson and O.P. Wright, and only the name of the field agent (Odum) was placed in the 7/7/64 FBI report that appears in CE2011.

Any one of the above three possibilities seems fairly reasonable to me, in light of the Marcus/Tomlinson interview."
-- DVP; 12/9/2011

I also asked previously if O.P. Wright ever denied being shown CE399 by the FBI? Any idea, Jim? Did he expressly deny that ever happening?

But the bottom line is this:

What difference does it make which FBI agent it was that Darrell Tomlinson talked to? The key points are still there (regardless of whether the agent's name was Shanklin, Odum, DiEugenio, or Von Pein) -- with those key points being (for about the 14th time now):

1.) Tomlinson DID say that he was visited AT PARKLAND by an FBI AGENT. (Which perfectly fits with the verbiage found in the 7/7/64 FBI report that Hoover sent to the Warren Commission, which is the report that became "CE2011", a document that DiEugenio is convinced is a complete "fraud".)

2.) Tomlinson WAS ASKED by an FBI agent if CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet that was found by Tomlinson.

3.) And Tomlinson DID TELL the FBI agent that CE399 looked like the same bullet Tomlinson found at Parkland on 11/22/63.

Maybe you'd like to take me up on a previous proposed theory that you could invent from whole cloth regarding this "bullet" issue, Jim. I.E., you can now theorize that Tomlinson really wasn't shown CE399 by the FBI agent. Instead, he was shown the "real" stretcher bullet (you know, the "pointy" one that you really think Tomlinson found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher).

I'll repeat my earlier post on this matter:

"The next theory that I expect to hear from DiEugenio is this one:

Well, yes, Davey, I'll concede that an FBI agent went out to Parkland and showed Tomlinson a "bullet", and I'll concede that Tomlinson told the FBI man that that bullet looked pretty much like the bullet Darrell had taken off a stretcher.

But the reason for that is: The FBI didn't show him CE399 at all. They showed him the POINTY-TIPPED BULLET that Tomlinson REALLY DID find on a stretcher. And that's why Tomlinson was able to say that the bullets looked the same.

After all, since Hoover and his boys were the ones who actually SWITCHED the bullets, then they wouldn't dare go out to Parkland and show Tomlinson a bullet that they knew WASN'T the bullet Tomlinson actually saw on 11/22. [End CTer Simulation.]

Would you like to try that theory out for size, Jim D.?

Anyway, I'm sure Jimbo is working on some kind of new twist that will somehow still make the FBI out to be liars regarding the Tomlinson matter. Wait and see."
-- DVP; 12/7/2011 (original post here)

[NOTE -- For some unknown reason, the entire original Education Forum thread from which this blog post was culled has now been deleted by the moderators at The Education Forum, so there are a bunch of dead links in this post. Sorry about that, but that deletion was beyond my control. -- DVP]


Secondly, in that essay, Gary [Aguilar] did something that DVP nor Jean Davison ever do. He actually went to talk to Odum at his house. Odum said that he never showed any bullet to any Parkland Hospital employee. Period.


And exactly HOW does that erase Tomlinson's verbatim words to Marcus, which have Tomlinson admitting that he WAS shown a bullet AT PARKLAND by an FBI AGENT?

You should also do a little research on "human memory", Jimbo. Your newest favorite person to spit on (Jean Davison) posted some interesting stuff recently about how "memories can change" over time. And they DO change. Look it up.


So the above construction by DVP is nothing but a fiction. It happened in his head. Not in the real world. Odum never showed any bullet to a Parkland Hospital employee.


You can't prove that as a fact, Jimbo. And you know you can't.

The very fact that a huge chunk of the "Tomlinson" portion of CE2011 has now been proven TRUE via the transcript of the Tomlinson/Marcus interview is very good evidence that would make a REASONABLE person realize that the WHOLE CE2011 DOCUMENT IS TRUE AND ACCURATE -- even the part about the FBI agent being Bardwell Odum.

And, yes, as I stated before, I do still think it was probably Odum who interviewed Tomlinson at Parkland. But I'll also flatly admit that I could be wrong about that, and perhaps (as Vince Bugliosi also points out in his book too) the name of the agent is incorrect in CE2011. And, as I said, I think another reasonable possibility (given Tomlinson's remarks to Marcus) is that perhaps BOTH Odum and Shanklin interviewed Tomlinson, and only the name of the "field" agent (Odum) was put in the report which later became Commission Exhibit 2011.


Therefore, CE 2011 is a fraud.


It's amazing that Jimmy can utter the above allegation, even though a VAST MAJORITY of that document (CE2011) has been PROVEN TO BE TRUE AND ACCURATE via Darrell Tomlinson's own words.

The ONLY thing that MIGHT be incorrect is the name of the FBI agent who went to Parkland on 6/12/64 to interview Tomlinson and Wright. Everything else in CE2011 fits like a glove when compared with the things Darrell Tomlinson HIMSELF told Raymond Marcus in July 1966.

Jim, you're a dreamer. (And a hoot, to boot.)


DVP is desperate to replace Shanklin with Odum. So he can get this on the official record. But he cannot. Since Odum is in the memo. So he edits out certain things to create that (false) impression.


Yeah, sure, Jim. That's why I previously said that I (personally) still think that it probably WAS Odum who interviewed Tomlinson, and not Shanklin.

And I made such a statement not just in THIS post I'm writing now, but also in a post I wrote three days ago. But I guess Jim doesn't read very carefully. Otherwise he would have seen this post I made on December 7th:

"The agent who visited Tomlinson & Wright at Parkland on 6/12/64 probably wasn't Gordon Shanklin. It was probably just exactly who the FBI said it was in its July 1964 report (seen in CE2011) -- Bardwell Odum." -- DVP; 12/7/2011 (original post is here, which, btw, is a post that was last edited three days ago, on Dec. 7 at 2:50 AM EST)


Now, if Tomlinson was interviewed by Shanklin, it is clearly off the record. Because as Gary [Aguilar] showed in his essay, he asked for every field interview on this subject. There was none like the one Tomlinson says happened.


So, you're back to calling Darrell Tomlinson a liar now? Is that where you want to go with this? Or maybe Marcus is a liar too? Which is it?

The sum total of Jim DiEugenio's latest forum posts concerning this matter is this:

Darrell Tomlinson never saw CE399 at Parkland on 11/22/63. And the bullet Tomlinson really found that day was a pointy-tipped bullet which looked nothing like CE399, but Tomlinson went ahead and told the FBI that CE399 looked the same as the stretcher bullet anyway....and, on top of that lie, Tomlinson also told independent researcher Raymond Marcus, a non-Government person, that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet too.

Tell me, Jim, was the FBI still pulling Darrell Tomlinson's strings in July of 1966 when Darrell voluntarily told Ray Marcus that CE399 resembled the stretcher bullet?

Just how much "pull" did the FBI have when it came to Tomlinson's statements? And for HOW LONG after the assassination was Tomlinson supposed to be subservient to his FBI masters? Forever? Just until 1970 perhaps? Or until the "Mystery Deaths" squad decided it was time to bump him off because he knew too much?


The Shanklin interview, I believe, is best seen as an extension of these efforts to get him [Tomlinson] to walk back what he saw, i.e., the FBI midnight call, the Specter going over (which Tomlinson always resented), and the CBS imbroglio.

I cannot say this was all coordinated. But there are touching points: the FBI worked as the chief investigative arm of the WC, Specter would get reports on witnesses by the FBI before he interviewed them, and McCloy worked as a consultant for CBS on their 1967 special. So the Shanklin episode fits into this subterfuge effort against Tomlinson.


What a massive pile of horse manure the above is.

And yet, incredibly, Jimbo accused ME of making up stuff the other day. And today we're treated to the above crap from DiEugenio's lips, which is nothing BUT "made up" theorizing from start to finish.

Jim apparently has no shame. And he also evidently doesn't care how deep into the Conspiracy Pool Of Nonsense he has to dive in order to keep from facing the obvious truth about the stretcher bullet. This is the truth that Jimbo wants to avoid:

RAYMOND MARCUS -- "As far as you could tell, did it [the bullet that the FBI showed you] look like the same one to you?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."


CE 399 was not the original projectile, and whatever that projectile was, it was not on JFK's gurney.


Huh? JFK's gurney? Who has ever claimed that (since about 1965 anyway)? You've made that same mistake twice today. You surely meant to say "Connally's gurney", right Jimbo? Because, of course, the bullet couldn't have been found by Tomlinson on JFK's stretcher, since Kennedy's stretcher was never in that area of the hospital prior to the time when Tomlinson found the bullet.


So here is the key point, which DVP is trying hard to avoid: If this happened, why is there no FBI memo on it?


What do you think THIS is, Jim? A figment of everybody's imagination perhaps?

What I just linked there is Page 1 of the multi-page FBI report known as CE2011. It's a report issued by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI to the Warren Commission, dated July 7, 1964. And it's a report that has the official FBI logo and letterhead plainly marked on Page 1.

Now, it's true that CE2011 is not an "FD-302" report, which are the individual reports filed by the FBI field agents. But CE2011 IS an official FBI report. To say it isn't would be just silly.

You, Jim, think there should be FD-302s for each and every interview we see in CE2011 (and there are a bunch of them too--probably dozens). Now, have you seen the FD-302s for EACH of the many FBI interviews that are included in CE2011? Of course you haven't. Nor have I.

So, does this mean that EVERY FBI interview we find printed up in CE2011 is a "fraud" and a "lie"? Is that what you want to suggest, Jim?

I suggested in another post that perhaps (in this particular instance) CE2011 actually serves as the "FD-302" reports for those many interviews. Do I know that for a fact? No, I don't. But it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, especially when factoring in Darrell Tomlinson's interview with Mr. Marcus.

But you go right ahead and think that CE2011 is a "fraud", Jimbo. Or is it JUST the "Tomlinson" and "Wright" and "Todd" portions of that document that are fraudulent, Jim? And are the remainder of the dozens of FBI interviews that appear in that same document true and accurate (which are dozens of interviews that you've ALSO never seen any "FD-302" reports for)? Just curious.

So, in a nutshell, this is what Jim DiEugenio is saying:

Since nobody has been able to find an official FD-302 form for the interview that CE2011 says occurred between Bardwell Odum and Darrell Tomlinson, this has to mean that the interview could not possibly have taken place at all (even though an official FBI document [the 7/7/64 report from Hoover to the WC; aka CE2011] DOES exist that says the interview DID take place.

This, it seems to me, is akin to the kind of oddball logic that conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio have been utilizing when talking about Lee Oswald's revolver and the murder of Officer Tippit.


Jim has suggested that since we don't have the proper documents to verify when and where Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered via mail-order in March of 1963, and since we also don't know where and when Oswald purchased his bullets to go in that gun, this therefore has to mean that Lee Oswald could not POSSIBLY have taken possession of the revolver that Seaport Traders mailed to his Post Office box in March of '63.

But such bizarre thinking is just flat-out ludicrous and ridiculous.

There is ample documentation to show that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and took possession of Revolver V510210 (the Tippit murder weapon). And, likewise, there is ample documentation to show that an FBI agent did visit Parkland Hospital in June 1964 and did talk with Darrell Tomlinson, with Tomlinson telling the FBI agent that CE399 did look like the stretcher bullet. (With the Marcus transcript being the thing that seals the deal on that one.)

DAVID LIFTON ADDED THESE COMMENTS [which, for sheer spite it would seem, are now gone forever from The Education Forum's database, so nobody will ever be able to read Lifton's full post there. ~sigh~ & ~shrug~]


Thank you, David Lifton, for your last post.

BTW, the day after Kennedy's funeral was the 26th of November, not the 25th.

Re: David Lifton's remarks concerning Tomlinson, Shanklin, and CE399:

It is interesting, indeed, that (if true) Tomlinson met with Shanklin and was shown the bullet as early as November 26, 1963 (per David Lifton's post linked above), which totally conflicts with a key part of Tomlinson's interview with Ray Marcus. This part specifically:

MARCUS -- "Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?"

TOMLINSON -- "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in."

I'm pretty sure that David Lifton's latest post will have Jim DiEugenio doing handsprings and cartwheels, because now Jimmy can claim (all over again) that CE2011 is a total "fraud" (although it's fairly obvious that Mr. Lifton himself does not think it's a fraudulent document at all), and DiEugenio can also claim that the "one time" Tomlinson was ever shown CE399 after 11/22 was on 11/26/63 by Shanklin, and not by Odum on 6/12/64.

But if Jim D. wants to go down that road, it still wouldn't make much (logical) sense from even the FBI's point-of-view....because if the FBI already had a statement from Darrell Tomlinson's own lips on 11/26/63 to the effect that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet (via an interview with Gordon Shanklin), then why in the world would they have any need to just MAKE UP a second (false) statement about Tomlinson telling a different FBI agent (Odum) the exact same thing about the bullet on 6/12/64? That's kind of silly on its face.


Mr. Lifton brought up a good point regarding Odum, when he said:

"I find it highly improbable—really, almost inconceivable—that if the Warren Commission had called FBI agent Odum as a witness, his response would have been to reply that no, the FBI report just submitted over Hoover’s signature (and naming him [Odum]) was wrong and that he had not gone out to Parkland Hospital, even though the FBI report says that he did. (Indeed, that sounds absurd). Far more probable is that, with the passage of time, Odum's memory has eroded; alternatively, it's also possible he is just being obtuse, and (when interviewed by Aguilar, and for whatever reason) decided to create a fuss by denying what his own FBI report states." -- David S. Lifton; 12/10/2011

Of course, the above explanation concerning Bardwell D. Odum doesn't straighten out Tomlinson's contention that he was shown CE399 just "one time" after November 22nd. Because if BOTH Shanklin and Odum went out to Parkland on the two previously-discussed dates in Nov. '63 and again in June '64, then Tomlinson would have been shown the bullet TWICE, not just "one time".

Did Tomlinson just FORGET the second time he was shown the bullet by Bardwell Odum? That's possible, I suppose, but the June '64 incident would have been CLOSER to the time of the 7/25/66 Marcus interview than was any 11/26/63 showing of the bullet to Darrell by Shanklin.

Question for David Lifton:

Does the Marcus transcript specifically say that Tomlinson pinpointed November 26 (the day after JFK's funeral) as the precise date he was shown the bullet by Shanklin? You implied previously that such a definitive date does show up in the Marcus transcript. But from these excerpts provided by Jean Davison, there's no mention of any date.

Re: Tomlinson being told to "Shut up" about the bullet:

I think the logical answer to that is something I wrote about in another post recently:

"It's possible, I suppose, that the authorities might have called up Tomlinson and asked him to keep what he knew about the stretcher bullet under his hat, so to speak, until Oswald's trial. After all, on the night of Nov. 22nd, Oswald was still alive, and he had just officially been charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on 11/22/63. Thus, everyone at that time expected him to go to trial. And perhaps the FBI didn't want Tomlinson to say very much to anyone about the specific evidence in the case until the trial. But that type of situation, if it did occur, would certainly not be an indication of an FBI "cover-up" or of a conspiracy of any kind. [James] DiEugenio, as always, fails to evaluate ANY possible "non-conspiratorial" explanations for ANYTHING in this case. Everything ALWAYS leads to conspiracy, per Jimbo. Always." -- DVP


Concerning the possibility of Darrell Tomlinson being shown Bullet CE399 as early as Tuesday, November 26, 1963 (just four days after JFK's assassination), I'm wondering if David Lifton (or anyone else) can point me to any official documents that show the date when Bullet CE399 (aka the FBI's "Exhibit C1") was returned to Dallas by the FBI in Washington, D.C.?

We know that the stretcher bullet was sent to the FBI in Washington on 11/22/63. This information can be found in HSCA Volume 7 (page 356):

"At approximately 1:55 p.m. on November 22, a virtually intact bullet was found on a stretcher in the emergency area of Parkland Memorial Hospital by Nathan Burgess Pool, an employee of Otis Elevator Co., and D.C. Tomlinson, power plant engineer of Parkland Hospital. Tomlinson handed the bullet to a Secret Service agent standing by the door to the emergency entrance. The bullet was delivered to the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., that same day. The Warren Commission eventually designated this bullet Commission exhibit 399 (CE 399), and concluded that it had caused all of Governor Connally's wounds after passing through the President's neck." -- 7 HSCA 356

Such a document concerning the transfer of the evidence back to Dallas from Washington might very well be located at the Dallas Municipal Archives website HERE. But the labelling of the many "boxes" of digital material is rather minimal, and thusly finding a specific document becomes quite tedious and time consuming. (I'm looking though.)

Anyway, my point of asking this is: If it could be proven that the CE399/C1 bullet was still in Washington on 11/26/63, then obviously nobody from the Dallas FBI office could have gone to Parkland to show Darrell Tomlinson that exact bullet on that exact date.

I do believe that at least some of the physical evidence pertaining to the assassination was returned to Dallas from Washington as early as Sunday, November 24, 1963, around the time when Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby. However, whether or not CE399 was one of the pieces of evidence that made it back to Dallas by November 24 is something I am unsure of.

More Misc. Addendums Concerning The Tomlinson/Marcus Interview:

On Saturday, December 10, 2011, I received a copy of the Marcus/Tomlinson transcript in the mail from Jean Davison. (Evidently Jean decided to go ahead and mail me a copy anyway, even though in this online message to her, I told her not to bother sending me a copy, due to the fact that she, herself, had already posted some of the relevant verbatim excerpts from the transcript on the Internet. But I want to thank Jean very much for sending me a copy.)

Here's an excerpt from Page 7 of the nine-page Marcus/Tomlinson transcript that answers a previous question that I asked David Lifton:

RAY MARCUS -- "I think you mentioned about how long after that Shanklin called you in, but I forgot ---- about how long later was that, that Shanklin and Wright called you in?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I believe it was the following week; it was about the middle of the week, is about the best that I can remember now."

So, there's no specific "November 26" date mentioned by Tomlinson in the interview, with Darrell instead saying that his interview with Shanklin probably occurred "about the middle of the week" following President Kennedy's assassination. Which would mean it was likely either November 26, November 27, or November 28 (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday).

I think it's also possible that Darrell Tomlinson was conflating the two separate interviews he had at Parkland Hospital with FBI agents Shanklin and Odum, and he incorrectly merged the two interviews together in his mind when he spoke with Raymond Marcus two years later.

In other words, he's remembering the fact that Gordon Shanklin was out at the hospital shortly after the assassination (with Shanklin NOT showing Tomlinson any bullet), and he also is recalling the "one time" that he WAS shown a bullet by an FBI man (Odum), and he merged those two things together, even though they occurred separately (and seven months apart).

Yes, that's just a guess on my part, but such conflation on Tomlinson's part during the Marcus interview would, indeed, be consistent with the other portions of his conversation with Marcus -- e.g., he was shown a bullet only "one time"; and his reference to Shanklin interviewing him "the following week [after the assassination]...about the middle of the week".


He [Tomlinson] says it was only shown to him one time. This then further dictates that CE 2011 is a fraud. And if this is accurate, what are we to make of the 6/24 [sic] Air Tel? What did they show him then? Nothing?


As I mentioned (speculated) previously, the June 20th Airtel is almost certainly referring to Tomlinson's 6/12 interview with Odum. They're only eight days apart. Why would they have found a need to interview him twice in 8 days (and regarding the same thing too)?

And my guess is that the reason they needed to show Tomlinson CE399 on June 12 (at the request of the WC) is because, if Tomlinson is correct about Shanklin coming to Parkland in late Nov. '63, Tomlinson did not actually see the bullet during the Shanklin visit in November. Tomlinson said he was only shown a bullet by the FBI "one time", and that one time was almost certainly on June 12th, when Odum showed it to him. Tomlinson merely conflated the Shanklin and Odum visits.

Because if the FBI (Shanklin) had ALREADY gotten the information out of Tomlinson in November about CE399 looking the same as the stretcher bullet, then there would have been no real need to show him the same bullet again seven months later.

And the same goes for O.P. Wright. If he had already been shown the bullet in November, then there's no real need to take the bullet out to Parkland again in June to show it to him.

More about the 6/20/64 FBI Airtel:

The two-page Airtel (pictured above) is not at all inconsistent or vastly different from what we find in CE2011. The Airtel simply doesn't put in the part about Tomlinson saying the bullet "looked the same".

Another clue, IMO, is on Page 2 of the Airtel, where it talks about the need to show the CE399/C1 bullet to the Secret Service men (Johnsen/Rowley) to see if they, perhaps, can "identify" it.

This was four days before Todd showed the bullet to both Rowley & Johnsen, so the timing of the Airtel (June 20) dovetails perfectly with other details we find in CE2011, including the fact that both the Airtel and CE2011 mention that this "identification" work on the evidence is being done at the request of the Warren Commission's letter to the FBI dated May 20, 1964. Again, a perfect match between the Airtel and CE2011.

The Airtel is, therefore, almost certainly referring to Odum's interview with Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12th. And both of those men (Tomlinson and Wright) are mentioned in the 6/20 Airtel. So the Airtel is very likely not referring to any second (or separate) interview with either Tomlinson or Wright by FBI personnel.


It seems quite obvious that the FBI (in the June 20th Airtel message) is trying very hard to get a POSITIVE identification of CE399/C1 out of SOMEBODY who came into contact with that bullet on November 22, 1963. This seems fairly obvious on Page 2 of the Airtel, where it strongly suggests that the bullet be shown "immediately" to Secret Service agent Johnsen and SS Chief Rowley, in order to see if those men can "identify" it. And if they can't, the Airtel then suggests that the bullet be positively identified (for the record, obviously) by the first man who actually marked CE399 -- FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd.

So the terminology seen in the 6/20 Airtel -- "neither Tomlinson nor Wright can identify bullet" -- seems to be referring to ONLY a lack of a "positive" identification by those two men. And the FBI wanted to see if they could obtain a POSITIVE identification from somebody who handled the bullet on the day of the assassination.

Therefore, the language we see in the 6/20 Airtel (i.e., the MEANING of the words in the Airtel) is not inconsistent with the verbiage we find in Commission Exhibit No. 2011 at all.


One question, Davey:

Are you all there?

There was no Odum interview as described in CE 2011. Period.

It did not happen, and this is proven in Aguilar's article in The Assassinations. ....

The rest of this post is more DVP mind reading.

If Tomlinson is to be taken at his word, he was only shown whatever bullet he was shown once. It could not have been with Odum, since Odum never showed anyone a bullet. It had to have been either with Shanklin, or what is referred to in the 6/20 Air Tel. Now the 6/20 Air Tel says that neither Wright nor Tomlinson identified the bullet. This is why the Odum memorandum was then faked.

It is absolute nonsense that Tomlinson could confuse the two names, the two people, and times. ....

But if the only time it was shown to him was for the 6/20 Air Tel, then there is no Tomlinson confirmation.

Or else Tomlinson was wrong about how many times he was shown a bullet. Which, considering how muddled he came to be, is a distinct possibility.


There definitely WAS a June 12th interview with Tomlinson by the FBI. And CE2011 proves it. And Tomlinson, on that date, said 399 looked like the stretcher bullet.

You actually want to believe that the FBI just MADE UP everything we see in CE2011 [aka Commission Document No. 1258], Jim? And they just made up the part about a specific agent (Odum) going to Parkland to show both Tomlinson and Wright the bullet?

Was J. Edgar expecting Odum to just not give a damn that his name was being used in such a fraudulent fashion? Or was Odum supposed to just go along and not rock the boat?

But he did rock it in 2001 [or 2002], didn't he, when he said he never went to Parkland at all? Of course, the simple answer to that is--he had forgotten about that event occurring some 37 [or 38] years previously.

If the FBI was going to just INVENT a phony visit to Parkland, they wouldn't have mentioned a SPECIFIC AGENT'S name in CE2011.

And I'd sure like to get Josiah Thompson to answer my previous question:

Did O.P. Wright ever deny being shown CE399 by the FBI?

[EDIT: See this post. Eureka! That link actually works.]


Further, the 6/20 Air Tel contradicts what is in CE 2011 with Odum.


The June 20th Airtel is almost certainly referring to the June 12th Odum interview. That seems fairly obvious just by looking at the dates.

And the June 20 Airtel does not specifically contradict the June 12 Odum interview. Because Tomlinson never positively IDed the bullet in EITHER instance (although, as mentioned, it's very likely the same thing -- the June 20 Airtel is most likely the June 12 interview).


Further, we do not know what Shanklin showed Tomlinson for the reasons I stated above: there is no description or CE 399 rubric used in the Marcus interview. A fact you and Jean did not originally detail.


Do you really think that Ray Marcus thought Tomlinson was talking about being shown a bullet other than CE399?

It looks like my prediction from December 7, 2011, has come true.


It doesn't matter to Von Pein that the witness could not positively identify the bullet as the one he handled, all that matters to him is that he said it looked like it.


How could Darrell Tomlinson "positively" I.D. it, Gil? He didn't put any mark on it. And CE399 wasn't damaged very badly (as we all know). Therefore, under those circumstances, the most he could possibly say (as far as "identification" is concerned) is that 399 generally looked like the bullet he found on a stretcher -- which is what Tomlinson DID say on 6/12/64.

And Odum's 2001 denial is not a good enough reason (IMO) to toss CE2011 in the trash can. I certainly do NOT think the FBI just went around writing up false/fake reports about things they only WISH would have happened, but never did. That's kind of nutty thinking, if you ask me. (Particularly when there is a SPECIFIC AGENT'S NAME written right in the report--twice! Once in the paragraph of CE2011 regarding Darrell Tomlinson; and again in the section concerning Odum's interview with O.P. Wright.)

And, IMO, such underhanded things never once occurred regarding the FBI (or anybody else) in this case.

CE2011 is an official FBI document, whether any CTer wants to accept it or not. Naturally, they won't accept it. But a conspiracy theorist thinking that virtually everything that points (even remotely) to Lee Oswald's guilt has been faked/planted/switched/manufactured is something I've become accustomed to over the last several years. In fact, I now expect the Anybody-But-Oz CTers to travel down the road marked "It's All Fake". They've got to. Because if they don't--their patsy's guilty. Simple as that.


As I've asked before, has anyone seen any of the FD-302 forms for ANY of the other dozens of FBI interviews that are also represented in the document known as CE2011? I never have. Has anyone?

Does that therefore mean that if we can't locate FD-302s for any of those various interviews, we have to trash ALL of those interviews in CE2011? Including this one here, which says that G.M. Doughty of the DPD identified his mark on the bullet shell he received from witness Barbara Davis at the scene of Tippit's murder?

And should we also scrap this interview that Odum did with J.M. Poe on July 6, 1964, wherein Poe said he marked the two bullet shells he handled at the Tippit scene? But it's hard to believe that CTers would want to think THIS "Poe" part of CE2011 is a fraud, because it's always the contention of CTers that Poe really did mark the shells, even though he hedged on that point in front of the Warren Commission. So the FBI must be telling the truth about this then, even though Poe's initials don't seem to be on the two shells in evidence today.

Point being: Even when the evidence doesn't always mesh together neatly and cleanly, the FBI is on the record saying so, such as the Poe example above.

And I doubt that any large investigation like the JFK/Tippit investigations ever has 100% of its evidence and testimony and reports come together in a perfect, neat package, free of any errors and/or discrepancies.

Conspiracy theorists, in short, expect too much from the FBI and all other "human beings" connected with this case.

But, as Vince Bugliosi has said in the past, incompetence is everywhere. And the JFK investigation was certainly no exception. CTers, however, normally believe that a discrepancy or inconsistent statement or a report without an official "FD-302" attached to it MUST mean "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up".

And the level of deception and fakery and witness arm-twisting that many conspiracy theorists think actually did occur in the Kennedy case (covering multiple law agencies, including the DPD and the FBI) is off the charts when compared to any other case in history. It's so bad in the JFK case, per some conspiracists, that they will simply label pretty much EVERYTHING that was done by the FBI and Dallas Police Department as a "lie" or a piece of "manufactured" evidence.

Take Jim DiEugenio's nonsensical theory about Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, for example. Jimbo thinks that BOTH of those witnesses lied many different times when they each said they saw Oswald carrying a large bag on the morning of November 22. Jim thinks the DPD "forced" BOTH Frazier and Randle to just invent a story about the large paper bag.

That's the kind of unsupportable hogwash that some conspiracy theorists have resorted to in order to take that rifle out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on 11/22/63.

But Larry Sturdivan summed it up really well:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of Keystone Kops, with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"


And when you say every agent's name is the same...


Huh? When did I ever say that? This makes no sense at all.


...well I hope you are not including Odum are you? I mean please Davey. He never showed any bullet to anyone.


Sure he did. He took 399 to Parkland on 6/12/64 and showed it to Tomlinson and Wright.

Odum's memory had obviously failed him by the year 2001. Simple as that.

And I still want to know if Wright ever DENIED being shown CE399 by the FBI?


And also, whoever did write the memo never saw CE 399 right? Since Todd's initials are not on it.


Yes, they are. They just cannot be discerned in the NARA photos. In fact, as anyone can easily see, the OTHER initials on CE399 are also very hard to discern in those NARA photos. I can't make out ANY of the initials (Frazier's, Killion's, or Cunningham's).

And there's no way you can look at these pictures (linked below) and tell me with a straight face that you CAN positively make out the specific markings of all three of those FBI agents (Frazier, Killion, Cunningham). If you say you CAN do that by looking at these photos, you're not being honest:

MaryFerrell.org/NARA Photo/CE399


It [CE2011] is [a] blind memo. In more ways than one. Not anything like a 302.


Bullshit. The SUBSTANCE of CE2011 is IDENTICAL to what we find in an FD-302 report. There is NO substantial difference at all. And you know it.


Give it up, will you.


Not a chance. Because I like watching you dig yourself a deeper hole with each passing day regarding all the shit you think was "fake" and "fraudulent".

And the disgusting "grunting pigs" comment that you recently made concerning the very honorable men who sat on the Warren Commission just shows how low-class you truly are.

I wish Arlen Specter would sue your ass for $20-million. And Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle should probably sue your sorry ass for defamation too.

But before the lawsuits begin, perhaps you can dig up even ONE FD-302 for any interview seen in CE2011. Any chance you can do that, Jimbo?

And, remember, in order for you to have a "case", you've really got to come up with proof that FD-302s were made out for EACH AND EVERY "NON-PHONY" interview that is represented in CE2011 -- and there are dozens of them in there too; you surely don't want to embarrass yourself even further by claiming that ALL of those interviews are "frauds", do you, Jimmy?

Good luck finding all of those FD-302s to prove your case. I definitely tried...and I found this many -- Zero.


CE 2011...is a puzzling report in that it is written as a summary with no signatures on it.


But FD-302s don't include signatures either. Just typewritten names of the agents. Like this example.


Lifton is oh so trusting of those FBI reports. Even though they have been proven to be false on many, many points. But I guess he doesn't have a book if he doubts them.


I don't know why you'd suggest this, Jimmy. Lifton doesn't believe CE399 was really fired at JFK any more than you do. He believes in a theory that's even more stupid than most of yours -- DSL thinks all of the shots came from the FRONT of Kennedy's car.

Therefore, quite obviously, Lifton cannot be a person who thinks 399 is legit. He merely thinks that Odum DID talk to Tomlinson on June 12. But he certainly also thinks CE399 is as phony as a 399-dollar bill.


God, what utter nonsense.

Show me the typewritten names of the agents in those opening pages of CE 2011.

This report [CE2011] contains two provable lies. That Odum showed the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson, and that Todd's initials are on the bullet.

Geez Davy, might that not be one reason it's a blind memo?

And does this not corroborate what Tomlinson said in the Marcus interview? That the only guy who showed him the bullet was Shanklin.


Show me a signature on this FD-302 form, Jimbo. There aren't any at all. Only the typewritten names of the FBI agents--just exactly like CE2011. No difference in that "signature" regard whatsoever.

The agents' names aren't shown on Page 1 of CE2011. But...so what? Who cares? The individual agents' names ARE mentioned in each of the individual paragraphs (referring to each separate interview) inside CE2011.

(It's yet another new zenith of goofy-ism reached by Jimbo Di.)


This is just cheap double talk on Davey's part.

He is caught redhanded again and will not admit it.

Unlike his example, there are no agents named as signing the report in CE 2011.


And there are no written signatures on any FD-302s either. Just the same as CE2011.

Anybody could have typed in the agents' names at the bottom of any FD-302. And I wonder why you're not suggesting that many FD-302s have been "faked" in just that way, because there are no "signatures" on them at all. Unless you consider a typewriter to be a "signature".


Why are you so concerned about signatures being on Page 1 of CE2011, Jimbo? Even if there were signatures on Page 1, you'd undoubtedly claim they were forged.

Good gravy, this is a man (DiEugenio) who isn't even convinced of a man's guilt when the arrested person is caught with the murder weapon in his own hands within 35 minutes of the murder being committed!

So it's fairly obvious that since Jimbo has gone THAT far off the deep end, we can't realistically expect him to accept CE2011 as a valid and legitimate document--even if Bardwell D. Odum's handwritten signature was adorning each and every page of that FBI report.


Davey, you are now descending into absurdity.


I must have been listening to your inane ramblings for too long then.

BTW, why didn't the FBI merely "fake" some nice-looking FD-302s for the interviews we see in CE2011? Any idea why they didn't fake more stuff to make the fake CE2011 look more "legit" to crackerjack CTers like James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California?


CE 2011 has none of these identifying marks on it. Because there is no writer attributed and no date on it. Therefore it is not traceable.


The only differences between the contents of CE2011 and an individual FD-302 form are the "File Number" that appears at the lower-right of the FD-302 form, and the "Date Dictated" line that appears on each FD-302. Big deal.

Otherwise, every substantial thing that is contained in an FD-302 is also present in the individual paragraphs in CE2011, including:

1.) The date of each interview -- (present in CE2011 and present in an FD-302 report).

2.) The name of the FBI agent who did the interview -- (present in CE2011 and present in an FD-302).

3.) The location of the interview -- (present in most instances in CE2011 and also present in most instances in an FD-302). This item isn't important anyway. But it is there in most of the interviews seen in CE2011.

4.) A brief synopsis of each interview -- (present in CE2011 and present in each FD-302 report).

So, as always, the conspiracy theorists are making huge boiling volcanos out of minor wet-weather springs, because--in substance--CE2011 serves exactly the same purpose and conveys the EXACT same information as an FD-302 report conveys. They are, therefore, essentially identical.


I mean as far as a legal document, I don't even think it would be admitted in court.


You're deranged.


An FD302 is filled out by the interviewing agent...


So where, then, are the FD-302s for all of the other FIFTY-NINE (that's 59!) interviews the FBI did for CE2011 (not counting Odum's 6/12/64 interview with Tomlinson)?

(Yes, I counted them. There are 60 interviews total.)

Have you ever seen ANY of those sixty FD-302s, Bob Harris? I sure haven't. And you surely don't think ALL of the other 59 interviews in CE2011 are phony, do you?


Those [FD-302] reports were critical.



The 302s would merely repeat the exact same information we find in CE2011.

Plus, none of the FD-302 reports have a signature (in ink) on them. Therefore, any of those reports could easily be faked or forged too, right? After all, it is an "FBI" form. And the CTers are claiming that it was the "FBI" which was doing a lot of forgery and fakery in the JFK case, right?

Therefore, how hard would it have been for the FBI to grab a handful of blank FD-302 forms and just start typing in the fake reports that they want America to believe? Simple.

And such "FD-302 fakery" is probably what CTers would be claiming today if any FD-302s did surface to confirm that Odum did interview Tomlinson and Wright on 6/12/64. Is there any doubt that that is what many CTers would claim (particularly in light of what Bardwell D. Odum told Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar in 2001 or 2002)?


Date: 12/24/2011 10:46:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

So folks want to know about "missing" initials on CE399? The evidence is pretty straightforward, beginning with CD7, p 288, which reports receipt of the bullet from Rowley the night of the assassination and that both Frazier and Todd then etched their initials on the nose of the bullet. There is no evidence, or reason to suspect, that this did not happen.

Then, four months later on March 31, Frazier testified that the same bullet no longer had everyone's initials because a stain obscured part of it and some of the nose had been scraped off by the FBI lab for testing (3H428).

Todd then confirmed on June 24 that his initials were on the bullet "upon receipt" the night of the assassination; that later report, summarized on July 7, confirms that Todd identified the bullet by his initials.

Since Todd marked the bullet on 11/22, he certainly knew where to look and, more importantly, what to look for on June 24. The observation today that his initials, at least on available photographs, cannot be found is meaningless since later viewers may be having some of the same identification difficulties as Frazier did back in 1964.

Gary Mack


The only thing that Gary gets wrong in the above e-mail is when he stated this (which is not true):

"On March 31, Frazier testified that the same bullet no longer had everyone's initials because a stain obscured part of it and some of the nose had been scraped off by the FBI lab for testing."

Robert Frazier never said any such thing in his WC testimony at 3H428. Frazier said this:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "The bullet [CE399] is in the same condition as it was when you received it?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners. There is a discoloration at the nose caused apparently by mounting this bullet in some material which stained it, which was not present when received, and one more thing on the nose is a small dent or scraped area. At this area the spectographic examiner removed a small quantity of metal for analysis."

In that testimony shown above, Frazier doesn't say that some of the other examiners' initials were no longer visible on the bullet. In fact, he implied just the opposite when he said this to Mr. Eisenberg --- "...except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners" --- which would imply that Frazier could definitely see his own initials and the initials of the other FBI agents who marked the bullet.

I think Gary Mack has misinterpreted what Frazier meant, because 3H428 definitely does not say anything about some initials not being visible anymore.

But the rest of Mr. Mack's 12/24/11 e-mail is very interesting and illuminating. And I should have utilized Page 288 of Commission Document No. 7 a long time ago when discussing the topic of Elmer Todd's initials being on Bullet 399, because that is an official FD-302 report filled out by FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd on the day of the assassination, which clearly states that Todd put his initials into the nose of the bullet that he received from James Rowley:

"Initials of both SA Todd and Frazier were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7; p.288

Yes, there's a time discrepancy between the 8:50 PM time shown in Todd's report above and the time marked down by Bob Frazier in the FBI lab. But that is quite obviously just an honest mistake made by one of those two FBI agents. Because it's quite clear that James Rowley only gave ONE BULLET to Elmer Todd on November 22, 1963, and it's just as clear that Todd only gave ONE BULLET (not two) to Robert Frazier on that same date.


Date: 12/24/2011 8:57:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


You are the one reading Frazier's testimony incorrectly. He says the bullet is in the same condition EXCEPT FOR the initials...


Exactly, Gary. Which means Frazier COULD see the initials when he testified on 3/31/64.

When he said "except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners", he was referring to the fact that the bullet now had some initials on it, which (of course) were not there when he received the bullet in the FBI lab on 11/22.

But he never said that "the same bullet no longer had everyone's initials" (which is what you said to me in your earlier e-mail).

David Von Pein
December 2011