Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Gary Murr

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gary Murr

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fergus, Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

11,378 profile views
  1. Inside Inside the Target Car:

    George: I don't recall David indicating/stating that the note page "History of Evidence" was actually written on November 22, 1963. In truth this particular page is one torn from one of SA Robert Frazier's lab notebooks, a listing prepared by Frazier in conjunction with his multiple testimony sessions before the Warren Commission. If you read this page completely you will note that Frazier indicates just when specific pieces of evidence were initially obtained by the FBI lab, returned to Dallas, and then returned again back to the FBI. As far as consistency is concerned, having handled and/or read several thousand original documents [which this page most certainly is] produced by members of the FBI, in particular handwritten notes and notebooks of various FBI lab employees, I can say with confidence that all of the writing/printing on this note page is the work of Robert Frazier. And the "conflict" of "notes" right and left is the point David was trying to make - how can the same piece of evidence [Q1, C1, or as it will become known, CE399] be introduced by members of the FBI theoretically into evidence one hour apart? While I would agree that mistakes are made, innocent or otherwise, the concept that everything produced by the FBI et al - "evidence" if you will - is somehow "faked and manufactured" is repetitively annoying and can only lead the CT community down tunnels with no light at the other end. If I might ask you a question: Have you ever been to the archives to personally see, handle, or read any of the materials that you at times have questioned? FWIW
  2. Gary, the evidence is that it was addressed to him. As you stated yourself, The answer I contend is on the memorandum itself - the individual and entity to whom Audrey Bell originally and "normally" addressed the document and envelope - "Lt. Alexander, Crime Lab." Just because the memorandum was addressed to Lt. Alexander does not, in my opinion, constitute proof of reception of this same document by Lt. Alexander and importantly the accompanying metallic residue. As Audrey Bell herself indicated, normal procedure would leave one with the assumption that acquisition of the document [and evidence] would have occurred had normal procedural routines been followed through to fruition. But "normal procedure" did not rule this particular day and what should have occurred procedurally did not occur - was short-circuited through the process of intervention on the part of Bob Nolan. So I ask the question once again: What proof do you have that Lt. Alexander ever had possession of this specific document? Do you see anything on this document that confirms Alexander ever saw, handled, or read the document? Are his initials on this document - anywhere? Whose initials are on the document?
  3. Bob: What evidence do you have that Lt. Alexander ever had possession of what you continue to maintain is a "bogus" receipt, duly prepared by Audrey Bell and signed, in turn, by Robert Nolan? Have you ever seen, or can you produce, another receipt from what in your opinion must be "thousands" that passed through the office from Lt. Alexander?
  4. Part 2 - I hope When one acquires a copy of this file you find that there is no pagination involved, though the pages do run roughly chronological beginning from the point of the admittance of Kennedy and Connally to PMH. You will find a copy of the Audrey Bell memorandum in this file - either version. As I further indicated in my writing, there is no indication, and as far as I can tell remains no indication that anyone from the ARRB staff were either aware of this document nor were ever able to find this document either prior to or after their interview with Audrey Bell on March 20, 1997, including Doug Horne who was involved in this process. I think one of the keys in understanding the "confusion" as to whom precisely Audrey Bell may have given the "fragment" evidence envelope in question is to be found in a statement you introduced earlier in this exchange, Bob, when you accurately referenced the following from Audrey Bell herself, her answer to the question posed of her by the HSCA staffer concerning distribution of the envelope: B: I delivered them to the FBI, and he signed for them, this was a deviation from our procedure, he signed, ah, there was a, took an inter-office memorandum and wrote on there about my delivering those to the FBI." I have underlined what to me is the important phrase in this answer - Bell indicating that her delivery of the envelope "to the FBI" [something that is unquestionably false] - represented a "deviation" from normal procedure. What then was or should have been normal procedure? The answer I contend is on the memorandum itself - the individual and entity to whom Audrey Bell originally and "normally" addressed the document and envelope - "Lt. Alexander, Crime Lab." Mrs. Bell did not intend or direct this memo and materials to C. J. Price; she did not intend or label intent to turn this material over to any Federal agent, FBI or otherwise. What she did intend to do was follow normal procedure - send the potential evidentiary material, in this case a bullet fragment or fragments if you like, to the "Crime Lab" at PMH. One of the misconceptions that have arisen as a result of any attempt to follow the matter of the paraffin tests is the assumption that Lt. Alexander was a member of the Dallas Police Department. Whether this is precisely true or not is difficult to assess from the surviving record. The first individual to be deposed in Dallas on April 7, 1964, was that fellow officer named by J. B. Hicks as his partner of paraffin paraphernalia, Sergeant W. E. Barnes. Sergeant Barnes was questioned by the other half of that dynamic duo of Commission staff indifference, David Belin. The following exchange, again and quoting from my Connally work, occurred near the end of the Belin – Barnes testimony session: Mr. Belin. What did you do? (again, in the office of Capt. Fritz) Mr. Barnes. We got our equipment and got the paraffin melted, and while it was being prepared, we told him we would have to make a paraffin cast of his hands. Mr. Belin. What did he say to that? [i.e. Oswald] Mr. Barnes. It was okay with him. Mr. Belin. Did he say anything as to any other comments he had about the paraffin tests? Mr. Barnes. None other than he stated to me, “What are you trying to do, prove that I fired a gun?” And I said, “I am not trying to prove that you fired a gun. We have the test to make, and the chemical people at the lab, at the city-county laboratory will determine the rest of it. Mr. Belin. What is the purpose of a paraffin test? Mr. Barnes. The purpose is to find out if there is any nitrates on your hands. Mr. Belin. Officer, how many years have you personally made paraffin tests? Mr. Barnes. Since 1956. Mr. Belin. What is the procedure by which you determine whether or not there are any nitrates on one’s hands? Mr. Barnes. The analyses are made at Parkland Hospital by their personnel. Mr. Belin. Do they analyze the wax? Mr. Barnes. They analyze the wax that I remove from his hands after the casts are made… Mr. Belin. What did you do then? Mr. Barnes. I initialed the cast, sealed them, and placed them in our locked evidence room. Mr. Belin. Where did they go after that? Mr. Barnes. They go to our city-county laboratory for analysis. Mr. Belin. Where is that city-county laboratory? Mr. Barnes. At Parkland Hospital. Mr. Belin. Do you know when they went there? Mr. Barnes. The following morning. Mr. Belin. Did you get the results from this analysis at all? Mr. Barnes. The results were obtained by our bureau. I didn’t get the results. (*108) Perhaps Mr. Belin should have been more interested in just who had done the actually testing – the “chemical people” at Parkland - than in priming Mr. Barnes with more leading questions. It would have been nice if Belin had found and questioned Lt. Alexander about other matters, such as what he may or may not have known about the fragment or fragments removed from the right distal radius of Governor Connally. And although Belin would also question the one individual from the Dallas Police Department who “directed” officers Barnes and Hicks to undertake the paraffin tests in the first place, Lt. J. C. Day, Belin did not introduce the Parkland Hospital lab results into evidence, even though Day had them in his possession during his April 22, 1964 testimony session with Belin in Washington, D. C. (*109) In scouring the surviving records of the Dallas Police Department, transferred to the Dallas Municipal Archives in 1989, we once again find scant mention of Lt. Alexander. However, what little we can find indicates that his initials were “F.T” but that is where the trail ends.(*110) As it turns out Lt. Alexander was not involved in the actual processing of the various Oswald paraffin casts. That task fell to fellow DCCCIL Lab employee, Louie Anderson. Anderson’s involvement in this matter was brought to the attention of the Commission, through the auspices of attorney, author, and general pain in the Commission’s craw, Mark Lane, but neither the Commission nor Lane’s chief inquisitor, General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, appeared overtly interested in acquiring the Anderson documentation nor in speaking with Anderson directly.(*111) All of Andersons work, rough notes and finished reports, are currently available for perusal at the Dallas Municipal Archives, scattered throughout the surviving files deposited there by the Dallas Police Department.
  5. Bob et al: Part 1 I have decided to place my answer to Bob's question in another thread regarding the Audrey Bell - Robert Nolan receipt document in this thread in the main to indicate to all that the document in question is not only not "worthless" but genuine and available at NARA. I tried to post this earlier in the other thread, with no luck. However, I believe that the issue was my answer was too long. Therefore I am trying again and hope by breaking my answer into multiple parts that it will finally be available for everyone to read. What follows is my answer, "Part 1", verbatim as constructed earlier this date. I have spent some time today going through my files as well as my three volume writing on the wounding of John Connally in an effort to find the specific reference/"hiding place" for the document in question. In so doing, and having found the reference, I have to make a correction to statements I made [from memory and while on the road] a few days ago. The document is actually a part of the records of the HSCA. In my defense, I have not really done much work on the Connally wounding for well over a decade, spending the majority of my free time on another assassination related project, the true history of the 6.5mm MC ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company. Nonetheless, the following [below and hereafter highlighted in blue] is from Chapter 31, Volume 3, of my Connally work and gives background as to just how the HSCA acquired materials which do include the Audrey Bell memo/receipt note: Cliff Fenton, an ex-New York city homicide detective, was appointed Chief Investigator of the HSCA in March of 1977.(*6) On July 15, 1977 – and through the process of subpoena – “Mr. C.J. Price, Administrator, Parkland Memorial Hospital…” was petitioned to turn over “…all documentary and tangible material pertaining to the treatment of President John F. Kennedy and former Governor John Connally on and after November 22, 1963…” Three days later, July 18, 1977, Fenton and HSCA staff member Donald Purdy served Parkland Memorial Assistant Administrator Robert Clark this subpoena and by way of letter dated July 22, 1977, specifically indicated that the HSCA were particularly interested in acquiring “…medical records, photos, any and all documents pertaining to ex-Governor John Connally’s admission on November 22, 1963.”(*7) On that same date, and by way of letter of transmittal, Mr. Clark complied and on July 27, 1977 the HSCA received, among other things, the Governor’s medical record, as requested, - all 119 pages of it.(*8) Although HSCA staff routing slip # 001894 is attached to the Parkland Memorial Hospital record thus acquired and properly identified, there is no indication from the slip that any of this material was re-directed specifically to anyone of the eight HSCA staff members listed on this same routing slip, nor to one of the five major “teams” which comprised the organizational structure of the HSCA’s investigative process and who were likewise listed on this slip. There is simply no written or initialized acknowledgement of receipt by any of these individuals. The specific HSCA reference number and location where this documentation can be found is: HSCA: Record Number: 180-10096-10351: Numbered Files: Agency File Number: 001894. Box 39. There is a slight corollary to this medical documentation and again from footnote number 8 from the above quotation I wrote the following: 8. HSCA: Record Number: 180-10096-10351: Agency File Number: 001894. It is rather curious that the HSCA has, as part of its records, two “different” versions of the Governor’s theoretical complete medical history of his stay at Parkland Memorial Hospital. The “second” version, that possessing the higher HSCA record number, comprises some eleven more total pages than its predecessor, listed as being 130 pages in length. Though allegedly larger in documentation than the Fenton/Moriarity version, this second rendering actually contains nine fewer pages of pertinent medical data prepared by various Parkland Memorial Hospital personnel. Included in this listing of fewer pages is; analysis of X-rays taken of the Governor on November 27, December 2, and December 4, all prepared by radiologist Jack Reynolds, as well as post-operative shift notations prepared by the nursing staff responsible for the Governor convalescing care, specifically nurses notes for the dates November 26, 27, 29, 30, and December 1, 2, 3. However, what is different in the second version is the inclusion of three disjointed pages from Secret Service prepared files constructed in January and February, 1964, files previously discussed in this writing; photo static copies of the front and back of the “Foreign Body Envelope” which originally was thought to have contained the fragment or fragments removed by Dr. Gregory from the Governor’s right distal radius, and; a single page from an FBI report dated 11/29/63, a report filed by FBI-SA Vincent Drain describing Drain’s acquisition of X-rays of the Governor’s thigh wound and the analysis of these same X-rays by Dr. Reynolds as discussed within the body of this chapter.
  6. Unfortunately there were difficulties in transposition with my lengthy answer in this post. I have deleted the entire content and will re-post my answer either later today or early tomorrow morning. I am not at home at the present and thus do not have access to my original answer and script. Administration was kind enough to try and fix the situation, but things did not work out properly. My apologies Gary
  7. Hello Robert: I thank you for your message and question contained therein. I am on the road - work related - this week but will return home this weekend. I will look up the specific reference for you and pass it along. I understand your skepticism, but the document is genuine. Again because I do not have my files in front of me, and I have had a copy of this document for almost twenty years, I [understandably] cannot remember the specifics of the reference indexing. It is buried somewhere among the 300,000+ pages of documents I possess. I also have had to take a step away from the subject matter, indeed all JFK assassination research, for an extended period of time, health related issues that have nothing to do with our current discussion. I can tell you this much about this document; it is found in files obtained by the ARRB. Indeed they had the same copy I possess before their contact with Audrey Bell. Now given the amount of paperwork they did acquire it is not overtly surprising to me that they/members of their staff were not aware of just where this singular piece of paper was among the thousands and thousands of pages they either possessed or continued to stream into their possession. It is hidden among one of the larger ARRB files and if one was not looking specifically for the document, nor was aware of its particular importance, it could have been easily overlooked. I believe in your prior message you asked something about why the document I have does not possess "colour" writing [?] as indicated by Bell. The answer to that is simply because the copy I have, and the copy at NARA, is a photocopy of the original and is thus reproduced only in black and white. And as a matter of interest, the original is not at NARA. If you look closely in the top right hand corner of the document, and I apologize for the quality but it is the best that is available from the files, you can just make out the name "Audrey Bell" beneath which is the signature/initials of C. J. Price of Parkland Hospital, something I believe Audrey Bell did mention in her testimony - again this is off the top of my head as I am no where near my files. In closing I would like to make a few comments. I must admit I was surprised, and continue to be surprised, that when I first posted a copy of this document that no one commented on the fact that in Audrey Bell indicated, in her own handwriting, that she placed a bullet "fragment", singular, in the evidence envelope - not multiple fragments. Question for you: Since Audrey Bell appears to have both handled this evidence and prepared this same evidence envelope, was she mistaken? If as she indicates she put but a singular fragment in the envelope, an envelope that has been at/with NARA since 1965, how do we reconcile; [a] her later attestations of multiple fragments, which when I compare her drawings of these same fragments to those apparent fragments seen on X-rays taken of Connally's radial wound site appear to be both "too" large and "too" many in number - unless one wants to contend that these and potentially all X-rays taken by members of the Parkland Hospital staff are fakes, a rabbit hole I am not about to crawl into; and multiple fragments as they now exist in evidence at NARA? Have you ever entertained the thought that perhaps not all fragments recovered from the Connally radial wound site were turned over to authorities, Texas, Federal, or otherwise, on the afternoon of November 22nd and that Audrey Bell may indeed have been only given one fragment or allowed to pass along only one fragment to whomever? I, like you, have studied in my past the wounding of John Connally - extensively. I spent the better part of my spare time over a 12 year span doing nothing but studying and gathering evidence that pertains to the Connally wounding. In other words, I also have "been following this issue for a long time." I believe I am one of a very few number of researchers who were allowed access to the clothing worn by John Connally, access that allowed me to take photographs and measurements of all garments and their intendant apertures. Now access such as this and accumulation of documentation does not make one an "expert," a noun I am loath to use. Indeed when one comes across someone who professes to be an "expert" on a specific subject matter one might be wise to turn around and run in the other direction. And finally, my father was "Mr. Murr"; my name is Gary. FWIW
  8. New Book from Larry Hancock

    Really, Larry - where do you find the time? [Large grin ] Congratulations once again, my friend. Look forward to seeing you in Dallas later this year. Gary
  9. And David of course the real "kicker" in all of this is that as far as I know, no witness was ever given access to the FBI's "minute detail" models of the Dealey Plaza area in an effort to "assist...[their] recollections." Indeed once the model was moved by the FBI into it's VFW Building resting place the exhibit was kept under lock and key and access was controlled by Rankin's secretary, Julia Eide. Anyone who wished access to these exhibits, and others in this room, they had to acquire permission and then sign in and out on a secretarial pad that Eide controlled. If you have not seen/read this document, you should. It details just who visited this room, who they were with, and their length of stay within the room with the exhibits. As I contend in unpublished writings, I am convinced that over the weekend of March 13 - 15, 1964, the planning for the "reconstruction" that was to take place in Dallas in May was drawn up by Melvin Eisenberg and others in this room and working directly with/from the FBI model of Dealey Plaza. In fact, that was the only instance in which the key to this room was allowed to be kept for an extended stay, Eisenberg acquiring the key on Friday and not returning it to Eide until Monday morning. And he was not in the room alone. In every other instance the key was signed out and in on the same day as acquired. FWIW Gary
  10. Ron: No I am not "talking about official FBI records about this ammunition." What I am talking about is the true historical record of the construction and distribution of this ammunition after it was manufactured in 1954 by the Western Cartridge Company. There was no "official" FBI record of this ammunition prior to the evening of November 22, 1963, for the simple reason that they had never heard of the ammunition up to that point in time - no "sly" involved. Part of this may have been because up to this same point in time this ammunition had not been involved in the commission of a crime, at least not a crime known to the FBI. And as far as my ten year research on this ammunition was able to discover, outside of the use of this military ammunition during times of war, I know of no crime committed within the continental U. S. that involved this same ammunition. What I am basing my conclusion of the FBI personnel's search for any of this ammunition is the rough work notes prepared by Jay Cochran, Robert Frazier and others in the employ of the FBI lab once they were confronted with the actual bullet and shell casings themselves. Because of their efforts one eventually is able to conclude that they did discover more about the actual pre November 11, 1963 history of this ammunition than they ever revealed to members of the Warren Commission staff. Whether this same history it is directly pertinent to the assassination event itself is debatable. But what it does show is that this ammunition was never manufactured as a result of a request on behalf of the CIA and thereafter hidden behind an order placed by the U. S. Marines, as "reported" via memorandum by Cochran and the FBI. What you do discover, once you know the true history, is that the ammunition was scheduled for manufacture and distribution to its true client by the end of 1952. The how and why of the delay of this same contractual agreement, resulting in the two year delay in its completion, is a story for another time. The point that should not be lost here is that the ammunition was and is basically "rare," making its eventual theoretical "choice" as the ballistic implement of "discovery" of death all the more intriguing.
  11. Unfortunately the answer is not that "easy." As my lengthy research into this subject matter revealed, until the events of November 22, 1963 occurred, no one in the employ of the FBI, and in particular any employee of the FBI lab, had ever heard or seen this ammunition - no one. The vaunted FBI lab had none of this ammunition in their vast collection of ammunition maintained for comparative purposes - not one round. It was not until the precise identification of the WCC ammunition was obtained that the lab sent individual employees scurrying in an attempt to find any of this ammunition, initially acquiring a small quantity of same from private individuals/citizens in the greater New York/Baltimore area who were contacted via telephone by members of the FBI lab while they waited on the arrival of evidence from Dallas. The FBI did not receive full boxes of 20 rounds of this ammunition until at least 36 to 48 hours after the assassination event itself. And while it is true that this ammunition was obtainable at scattered locations throughout the state of Texas, and in particular in the Fort Worth - Dallas area, there is nothing to confirm any FBI employee's purchase of this same ammunition from any of these locations, particularly an agent who was, at minimum, 6' 4" tall. The entire concept advanced by Robert Frazier during his testimony session of March 31, 1964 that this ammunition was readily obtainable and in substantial quantities is a misnomer and the FBI never possessed large quantities of this ammunition at anytime during their investigation into the assassination.
  12. And as many researchers here are probably already aware, J. Doyle Williams was also the FBI "stand-in" for John Connally during the May 23 - 24, 1964 Warren Commission reconstruction in Dallas. Williams was actually taller than Connally by some3+", which also had the potential to present further problems during this same reconstruction. And with all do respect to my good friend and fellow researcher, Vince Palamara, I find it highly unlikely that Williams would have "planted" what was to become CE 399. The first question that would have to be asked, if this were true, is from where did Williams get the spent 6.5mm WCC bullet that is a theoretical match to CE C2766? Gary
  13. If I might, allow me to attempt to get this thread back on track before it wobbles too far away from the content as originally constructed by its creator, Alberto Miatello. As someone who has more than a passing interest in matters of “evidence” that pertain to the wounding of John Connally I admit that when I first saw the title of this particular thread I was intrigued. But the more I read the initial narrative constructed by Alberto, as well as the responses to his posting, the more I had, in the words of Pink Floyd, “the urge to defecate.” To a large extent the eventual use of the word “morons” is applicable, but just not to the staff of Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963. There are of course morons, and then there are genuine morons, individuals devoid of any true sense of research beyond the fringe efforts of reading and believing “evidence” relating to the wounding of John Connally that is demonstrably false. Therefore, let us take a look at just what Mr. Miatello, an apparent true believer in the research efforts of Robert Harris, advances in his statements that are at the core of the hypothetical nuances he attempts to advance throughout this, his thread. To wit: “It was Connally himself who totally debunked this hypothesis, when he wrote in his book “In History Shadow” (1994)– black on white – …” Putting aside the fact that the actual title of the book is “In History’s Shadow,” – David Von Pein is correct [sorry to ruin your day, David, but I have to agree with you on this one] John Connally actually wrote very little of this his “American Odyssey.” This task fell to ghost-writer, Mickey Herskowitz. Herskowitz is also responsible for the equally dreadful 2003 volume “written” by Nellie Connally, “From Love Field.” It is to be noted that by the time Herskowitz got around to helping Nellie with her painfully inaccurate rendering of the events of November 22, 1963, that a decision apparently had been made not to repeat the ludicrously fanciful account of the “most curious discovery…” of the “metal object” quietly [?] falling to a floor in Parkland Hospital. This of course must represent the “TRUE bullet” that apparently wounded John Connally, the central brick in the yellow-brick road fairy-tale that this hypothesis represents. And it is also to be noted that in her handwritten notes constructed by Nellie Connally after the assassination event, notes in turn that are the basis for “From Love Field”, Mrs. Connally never mentions the discovery of this “TRUE bullet,” even though according to Mr. Miatello the Governor actually witnessed this same bullet “falling from his thigh…” Speaking of which… “…Connally saw the TRUE bullet falling from his thigh at around 12:38-12:40 of Nov. 22, 1963, moments before the surgical intervention by Dr. Gregory on 2nd floor of Parkland Hospital. And he recalls that a nurse IMMEDIATELY collected it, and then she put the bullet in a brown envelope…” Unfortunately Dr. Charles Gregory’s “surgical intervention”, and I assume here that what Mr. Miatello is referring to is Dr. Gregory’s actual surgical repair to the Governor’s right distal radius, did not begin “moments before…” a time frame “around 12:38 – 12:40…”. Rather this operative procedure did not begin until 4:00 p.m. CST [1600 hours as dictated by Dr. Gregory] and ended some 50 minutes later at 4:50 p.m., CST. Perhaps Alberto can point me to a citation/document/testimony wherein John Connally states that he actually “saw” this bullet falling from his thigh, as he lay prone on his back in trauma room # 2, and while he is at it can also indicate to me documentation supporting the contention that John Connally recalled a nurse “immediately” gathering up this same “TRUE bullet” and witnessed it being “put in a brown envelope.” You do know, Alberto that these same evidence envelopes were not kept in trauma room # 2 – just trying to help you out here. As for the further contention that “the bullet falling from Connally’s thigh was seen at around 12:38 – 12:40 p.m. at 2nd floor of Parkland…” is, of course, an impossibility. John Connally was not taken up to OR # 5 on the second floor until at least 12:50 p.m. and most probably even later than that. Dr. Alfred Giesecke did not begin his anesthetic implementation until 1:00 p.m. And he nor none of those who were actually present in OR #5 throughout the entirety of the three operative procedures John Connally endured ever mentioned, via any medium, the discovery/arrival of the “TRUE bullet” in this same operating theatre, let alone witnessed it being placed “immediately…in an envelope” of any description, in particular as John Connally was being removed from his stretcher onto the operating table in OR # 5. You do also know, Alberto, that when John Connally was removed from his stretcher in OR # 5, second floor, PMH, that he was naked, not wearing any clothing. It had been removed in trauma room # 2 – just trying to help you out here – again. There was one and only one evidence envelope prepared as a result of metallic residue removed from the right distal radius of John Connally. This same envelope was prepared by Nurse Audrey Bell in her office, not in OR # 5, and she turned this envelope over to Robert N. “Bobby” Nolan, a member of the Texas Highway Patrol. In this current thread regarding the “TRUE bullet” recovered by a phantom nurse Alberto contends, as he did in a prior thread he constructed that dealt with CE 399, Audrey Bell handed officer Nolan a “bullet” in a small brown envelope and identified this same object [apparently unknown to Nolan because the envelope was sealed] as a bullet and did so in the presence of Connally aide, William Stinson. This fanciful tale is based upon an interview Robert Harris had with Nolan in 2010. According to this same fanciful narrative, and I paraphrase, false documentation was thereafter generated to change this encounter to reflect that Nurse Bell gave Nolan fragments from the Governor’s wrist and the bullet and its envelope was made to disappear. The crowning jewel in this Harris – Miatello tale is that even in this deception the bungling “morons” involved in this scheme screwed up. Why? Because Nurse Bell claimed she turned the brown envelope represented as CE 842 over to a “civilian”, possibly “an FBI or maybe a Secret Service agent.” Nurse Bell, in turn, could not be “mistaken” on this point because, in the words of Robert Harris, “Patrolman Bob Nolan was wearing an uniform…” and Bell remembers the individual who received this envelope as a “civilian wearing no uniform.” As I indicated previously, there are morons and then there are morons. And there are also morons who never do research. In March of 2002 I contacted the Executive Director of the Texas DPS [Department of Public Safety] Historical Museum and Research Center, Austin, Texas. I asked this individual one specific question: Did all members of the Texas Highway Patrol always wear a uniform, in particular the typical uniform one would associate with a member of the Texas Highway Patrol, i.e. the customary State Trooper’s obligatory style hat and some form of visible badge? The answer was yes, but with a notable exception. Certain officers of the DPS/Texas Highway Patrol identified as Texas State “Troopers” were in 1963 dressed as “plain clothed officers,” a practice that continues to this very day. This same information was confirmed for me in February of 2003 by researcher Steve Thomas, whose contact with a retired Dallas police detective confirmed that he was familiar with plain clothed officers of the Texas Department of Public Safety. Robert Harris and his disciples like to use Audrey Bell’s interview with the ARRB as proof of deception and disappearance of evidence. Harris claims that Audrey Bell “was always stubborn in denying any kind of delivery by her to Bob Nolan…and of course she cannot be mistaken on this point” the why of which I explored in the paragraph above - she gave her envelope to a citizen not a patrolman theoretically “wearing an uniform.” This, however, was Douglas Horne’s conclusion drawn from the March 20, 1997 ARRB interview of Bell: “She independently recalled filling out a receipt on 11/22/63 for the fragments on half-page sized paper with red lettering in the letterhead, which was signed for by one of two men in civilian clothes (whom she thought were Federal agents) who accepted the fragments. She said she personally delivered the original of this receipt to Parkland Hospital Administrator, Jack Price. (ARRB staff promised to try to locate this document, and promised that if located, we would mail her a photocopy for verification purposes.)” As I have written regarding this Horne conclusion in my Connally manuscript: “The use of the noun “thought” in conjunction with Ms. Bell and the “two men in civilian clothes…” may just possibly represent an indication that Audrey Bell was willing to concede, some 34 years after the event took place, that her assumption that any individual who approached her dressed in “civilian” clothing had to have necessarily been a “Federal agent” is and was potentially wrong. The key, of course, should be found on the “receipt…signed for by one of the two men in civilian clothes...”. If you have the receipt, or a copy of the receipt, then the signature of the “one” individual who signed for the fragments will be present on this same receipt – if Audrey Bell’s recollections are correct.” Robert Harris and his followers, including apparently Alberto Miatello, believe this receipt “disappeared”, further proof if you will of intentional destruction of evidence. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The Bell - Nolan receipt does exist – I have had a copy of it since 1999. And it was signed by only one “civilian” and precisely where Audrey Bell left room on this particular PMH letterhead for this same civilian to verify that he had “received” that which she had given him – Bob Nolan. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA5R7J9M0SFVl9JcGNNR3BxTDQ/view?usp=sharing FWIW
  14. Sherry Fiester Has Passed Away

    This is indeed sad news ... RIP, Sherry.