GARRY PUFFER SAID:
1. CE399...could not be identified by the first four people who handled the hospital bullet.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But the conspiracy mongers will forever just totally ignore (or deem as phony) Commission Exhibit No. 2011 [available for everybody to read HERE], in which we have BOTH Darrell Tomlinson and O.P Wright saying that the bullet they were each shown by the FBI in June of 1964 appeared to be the same bullet they each saw on November 22.
But, naturally, since the above document is directly from an FBI report, I'm supposed to merely flush it down the nearest toilet and pretend the FBI just MADE UP the parts about Tomlinson and Wright saying that the CE399/C1 bullet pretty much looked like the bullet that each of those two men handled on 11/22/63. After all, J. Edgar would never ever tell the truth about ANYTHING relating to the JFK case, would he Garry?
As for Richard Johnsen and James Rowley not being able to positively I.D. the bullet, that fact is miles away from proving that CE399 was a planted or substituted missile. [See my next response for a continuation...]
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
2. No chain of custody can be established, partly due to conflicting times of exchange.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
While the chain of custody for CE399 could certainly be a whole lot better and firm (no question about it), what we DO have (as CE2011 above demonstrates) is ONE bullet being transferred from one person to another, with each person in the "chain" verifying they received ONE bullet from the previous person in that chain (again, see CE2011) -- from Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier.
And in addition to CE2011 (which, as mentioned, all CTers will always totally ignore), there are also various written documents that help to establish (at least in part) a fairly decent chain of possession for Bullet CE399, as I talk about at the link below....
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
3. The supposed bullet was found on a stretcher having no connection to the JFK shooting.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're obviously referring to Darrell Tomlinson's 1988 flip-flop regarding which of the two stretchers he found the bullet on. In '88 for PBS-TV, Tomlinson decided he would completely change his mind about which stretcher it was found on. But in 1967 during a CBS interview, Tomlinson said just the opposite, claiming the bullet he found positively and without doubt came from the stretcher he had taken off of the Parkland elevator shortly after John Connally had gone up to the second floor for surgery. Here is Tomlinson's famous flip-flop (featuring both interviews):
But BY FAR the best and almost certainly the most ACCURATE testimony given by Darrell C. Tomlinson is the testimony he gave to the Warren Commission in 1964, in which he uttered the words "I am not sure" at least a half-a-dozen times when talking about which of the two stretchers in question he had taken off of the elevator.
But, again, the conspiracists will forever IGNORE (or deem as "coerced") Tomlinson's constant "I'm not sure" remarks to the Warren Commission--which was three years before his 1967 CBS interview, and 24 years prior to Tomlinson's complete flip-flop that he performed in 1988.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
4. O. P. Wright stated CE399 could NOT be the bullet found.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, evidently Mr. Wright did, indeed, say to Josiah Thompson that the bullet he saw on November 22 had a "pointy" tip on it, which does not match the rounded nose of CE399.
But let's have a look at what he told the FBI on June 12, 1964 (via CE2011 again, which CTers will say is nothing but a great big fat lie, of course)....
"On June 12, 1964, O. P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum that Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle slug, shown to him at the time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent of the Secret Service. .... He advised he could not positively identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found on November 22, 1963."
To repeat (for emphasis)....
"O. P. WRIGHT ADVISED THAT EXHIBIT C1 [which was renamed CE399 by the WC] LOOKS LIKE THE SLUG FOUND AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL."
Let me also add this important point....
In July 1966, Darrell Tomlinson said the following to conspiracy theorist Raymond Marcus:
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."
------------
THE COMPLETE MARCUS/TOMLINSON INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview.html
LOTS MORE ABOUT MARCUS, TOMLINSON, AND CE399 HERE:
JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
I guess "appears to be" works if a positive identification can't be made. I can hear it now: "It was months later. Of course they couldn't be sure. One bullet looks pretty much like another. But they said the bullet appeared to be the same one. That's about as good an identification as you're going to get from a layman. These guys had no experience telling one bullet from another."
Sorry, David, I'm not going to bother with the rest of what you have. I'm just going to assume it's as good as this document. Not sure why you want to waste people's time playing games like this.
Please note that I neither ignored the document nor said it was phony. I do believe the two men told the FBI they couldn't identify the bullet as the same one, which is what I claimed.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Garry Puffer is losing steam fast. His last pathetic response is a good indication of that fact.
He's just "not going to bother" with the other parts of my previous post. After all, it's just DVP talking his usual LN nonsense that even HE himself doesn't believe. Right, Garry? (I love that one too -- Puffer claiming to KNOW what I believe and what I don't. His crystal ball is working overtime.)
And even Puffer's answer to the Tomlinson/Wright topic is quite half-baked and half-hearted.
I, of course, know full well that Tomlinson and Wright said they could not "positively identify" CE399. I've talked about their lack of a "positive" identification dozens of times in my past articles and forum posts. But then too, how is a person supposed to be able to positively identify a bullet that they never marked? One whole copper bullet looks pretty much like any other.
(And btw, in my previous post above this one, I *did* post the verbatim quote from CE2011 regarding O.P. Wright saying he could not "positively" I.D. the bullet, which is the very same thing Tomlinson says in CE2011 too. But Garry couldn't be "bothered" to read that far down my post, I guess.)
Which brings up a question that I have asked in the past---
Why would the FBI, upon showing CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, think that either man could possibly make an ironclad positive identification of that bullet? The FBI knew that neither man marked it, so the best the Feds could possibly get out of Darrell & O.P. is just what they did get, which were statements by each man stating that (in a general way) the bullet they were shown in '64 looked about the same as the bullet they each saw on the day of the assassination.
But it's my guess that the FBI was just trying to cover all the proper "chain of possession" bases regarding the handling of Bullet CE399, even though by taking just a quick look at the relatively unmarked condition of that bullet, it should have been fairly obvious to the FBI agents that there was nothing in the way of a significant protrusion on the bullet's surface and no major mangling or scarring of the bullet that would cause any witness who didn't mark it themselves to exclaim:
"Yeah, that's exactly the same bullet I saw at Parkland on November 22! I can tell by this piece of metal that is sticking out from the top of the bullet right here!"
No "obvious" type of damage or protrusions existed on CE399, so the FBI probably couldn't expect any type of comments to be made by Tomlinson or Wright such as the ones simulated above. But the FBI boys thought they'd try to get SOME kind of identification out of those witnesses anyway.
David Von Pein
May 23-24, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]
