(PART 1105)


And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?


#1 (Wade) -- District Attorney Henry Wade never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know it, Bob. He was talking about FRAGMENTS. If the word "bullet" was used to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during the President's autopsy. (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on June 30, 2005; listen to him say it here. And yes, I know I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)

#2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. And even HE admitted that very fact to YOU, didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)? Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER OPENED THE ENVELOPE that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz? Therefore, how can he know for certain WHAT was inside that envelope (CE842)?

#3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's observations concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob. Frankly, I just plain forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson supposedly see an extra whole bullet too?

#4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and plainly marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is Audrey Bell's own handwriting. She said she positively recognized her own writing on that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated that she did not handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on 11/22/63. So your theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone. Naturally, you have other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that any hanky-panky was going on with any "erased" initials on CE842. And I think Mike Williams did a fairly decent job of debunking your "erased initials" theory many months ago at another forum.

Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an extra "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963.

And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates that the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that was in any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B.Connally was CE399. And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was planted or used as a substitute for any other bullet. CTers can pretend that they've "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but even Bob Harris knows that nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony. Let's face it -- the CTers of the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be fraudulent. Therefore, in their eyes, it is.

But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS INTACT -- and it always has been intact. None of those men ever said anything that breaks that consistent chain. Each man received a whole bullet from the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF POSSESSION for the stretcher bullet.

Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's initials on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain. But, as John McAdams has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply is not so. The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the evidence. There are other ways to establish the chain of possession, and that's been done by the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if they did, in fact, receive a bullet from the previous person in the chain. And that chain is, indeed, intact. Whether the conspiracy theorists like it or not.

And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it [see CD7 and CE2011]. And, no, I'm not willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the words we find in CE2011. And my recent battles with Jim DiEugenio regarding Darrell Tomlinson and his role in CE2011 [HERE and HERE] should prove something to at least a few CTers -- that being: the FBI did not lie about Tomlinson when the FBI said in CE2011 that Tomlinson said that CE399 resembled the stretcher bullet. And even Robert Harris has now acknowledged the fact that the FBI did not lie about that.

Therefore, why should anyone really think that CE2011 contains ANY lies at all (including the section in that document which reveals that Elmer Todd positively identified his own initials on Bullet CE399)?

The initials that are visible on CE399 (even via the NARA's high-quality color photos) are very difficult to discern (IMO). I can hardly make out anyone's initials on that bullet. I can see some faint markings, but they ARE hard to see. That's a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a way where his initials are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob Frazier's or Cunningham's or Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as deeply into the surface of the bullet as those other men did. Who can know for sure?

But one thing I do know (because this fact exists in the written record of this case) -- On June 24, 1964, Elmer Todd said he SAW HIS OWN INITIALS on CE399. And before you're willing to claim that the "Todd" portion of CE2011 is a complete lie, Bob, you might want to think about what you were forced to admit on December 9, 2011 -- you admitted on that date that the FBI actually told the TRUTH about Darrell Tomlinson. That admission should make you pause at least for a few extra seconds before you make any further claims of FBI misconduct concerning that SAME document known as Commission Exhibit #2011.

David Von Pein
December 11, 2011