Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      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
Sign in to follow this  
David Von Pein

The Secret Service And CE399

Recommended Posts

On September 23, 2012, I sent an e-mail to former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, co-author of the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail". I sent the same e-mail message to former Secret Service agent Clint Hill as well (by way of Lisa McCubbin; I didn't have an e-mail address for Mr. Hill, so I asked Lisa if she could possibly forward my message to him).

The e-mail I sent contained questions I had concerning the policy that the Secret Service had for its agents marking evidence in 1963. I received a very strange reply from Mr. Blaine today (September 27).

The link below includes my original e-mail to Gerald Blaine, plus all answers I received and all follow-up correspondence concerning the issues raised. I will be updating the page linked below when (and if) I get more replies from Mr. Blaine and/or Clint Hill:

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service And CE399

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me that none of the SS agents marked the bullet. Initials do not start appearing on the bullet until the bullet is transferred into FBI custody. Todd,Frazier,Killion and Cunningham were FBI Agents. Rowley and Johnsen were SS agents.

Transfer of custody of CE399(Q1) from SS to FBI

Envelope contains initials of Frazier,Killion and Cunningham and signature of Todd.

fig1.jpg

CD7.png

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399

Date: 9/27/2012 (10:08:14 P.M. EDT)

From: Gerald Blaine

To: David Von Pein

----------------------------------

Dave,

Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck with Clint what he remembers.

It is very unusual for WHD [White House Detail] agents to get involved in investigative work, but Dick went to Cal and studied Criminal Justice so he should have known the rules of evidence.

James Rowley once worked for the FBI and he too should have understood the rules. I have no doubt that it was the bullet that came from the stretcher.

Jerry

==============================

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399

Date: 9/27/2012 (11:26:29 P.M. EDT)

From: David Von Pein

To: Gerald Blaine

----------------------------------

Hi again Jerry,

Thanks for your latest reply.

There was, indeed, an envelope involved with the transfer of Bullet CE399 as it went from the possession of the Secret Service to the FBI lab in Washington on 11/22/63. That "envelope" fact is confirmed in Commission Document No. 7 (which I linked in an earlier mail I sent you).

So, if Richard Johnsen marked the envelope, rather than the bullet itself, it would certainly explain why he said he could not "positively identify" the bullet that was later shown to him by Elmer Todd of the FBI in June of 1964. Because in such a circumstance, Johnsen wouldn't have placed his initials on the bullet itself, but instead would have marked only the container (envelope) that Johnsen put the bullet into.

However, if Dick Johnsen (and possibly James Rowley too) had marked the evidence envelope containing the bullet, I'm wondering why the FBI (in CE2011) didn't mention something about Johnsen and/or Rowley marking that envelope in the text of the report we find in CE2011?

Do you think Johnsen and Rowley, in the intervening sevens months between November 1963 and June 1964, had just forgotten about marking the envelope? And therefore they never even mentioned it in June when the FBI showed them the bullet? Or is it possible that they did mention marking the envelope, but the FBI just failed to note that important fact in CE2011?

From the way it stands in the official record of CE2011, we are unquestionably left with the impression (to the delight of many conspiracy theorists around the globe) that neither Johnsen nor Rowley could complete any kind of chain of possession or chain of custody for Bullet CE399 at all. Is that the way it appears to you by reading CE2011, Jerry?

In addition, do you have any more information you can supply me regarding your previous statement about Richard Johnsen himself being the person who handed the bullet over to the FBI on 11/22/63 (instead of it being James Rowley)?

The official documents clearly indicate that it was Rowley, and not Johnsen, who gave the bullet (and envelope) to FBI agent Elmer Todd on the night of the assassination.

If you acquire any additional information about this matter, please drop me a line.

I thank you very much, Jerry, for the answers you have given me today. I greatly appreciate it.

And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact (for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts on the Internet in the past several years.

Regards,

David Von Pein

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself

No David, it doesn't sound like that at all. It sounds like he marked the bullet the same way everybody else marked bullets in 1963. They initialed them. Why do you need to embellish what these witnesses say? The FBI's first opportunity to test the stretcher bullet against fragments that were large enough to be evaluated, arrived at their labs just after 11 PM. Roughly 90 minutes after that, Tomlinson was awakened by a phone call from the FBI, demanding that he "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet. Obviously, they did not match, which is undoubtedly why everyone who originally handled the stretcher bullet refused to confirm that is the same as CE399. And as I told you before, the most likely reason why the SS agents refused to verify CE399 was that it didn't bear their initials.

Neither did it bear the initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who lied when he claimed that his initials were on CE399. As you know very well, they are nowhere on that bullet.

As Connally himself stated, the actual bullet that wounded him, fell from his gurney to the floor, where it was recovered by a nurse, just prior to his surgery. DA Wade encountered that nurse after the surgery and as Wade stated, she was holding the bullet in her hand and told him it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police ASAP.

The nurse did exactly as she was told and put it into an envelope which she gave to officer Bobby Nolan. Nolan, who I interviewed, stated that the nurse told him the bullet came from Connally's gurney - exactly as she told Wade. He then delivered it to the DPD the following morning, where it was undoubtedly, scarfed up by the FBI.

The FBI tried to coverup the bullet by claiming that it was the envelope into which nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell placed tiny fragments from Connally's wrist. But not surprisingly, Bell adamantly denied their claim that she gave her envelope to Nolan and that it contained only a single fragment, which is not surprising since her envelope was clearly labelled, "fragments" (plural).

There is much more about this in my article on the subject which can be found here:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Harris,

Maybe you'd better learn to quote people better. The quote regarding "Dick Johnsen" that you seem to think came from my mouth actually was written by Gerald Blaine, as I clearly indicated in my previous post. It was Blaine who said that Johnsen probably marked the envelope, and the reason he said that is because of the additional info I supplied Mr. Blaine in a prior e-mail conversation I had with him, which is fully revealed HERE.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Harris,

Maybe you'd better learn to quote people better. The quote regarding "Dick Johnsen" that you seem to think came from my mouth actually was written by Gerald Blaine, as I clearly indicated in my previous post. It was Blaine who said that Johnsen probably marked the envelope, and the reason he said that is because of the additional info I supplied Mr. Blaine in a prior e-mail conversation I had with him, which is fully revealed HERE.

Yes David, the "additional info" you provided, consisted of FBI documents - the same FBI that lied about Odum interviewing the two civilians, lied about agent Todd identifying his initials on the bullet and lied about their interview with Audrey Bell. If you don't mind, I think I'll go with Johnson's statement that he marked the bullet and not the envelope.

BTW, how do you explain the statements by Gov. Connally, DA Wade, officer Nolan and the nurse who recovered the bullet, which clearly demonstrate that the actual bullet that wounded Connally, fell from his gurney on the second floor and was picked up by that nurse, and given to Nolan?

You never seem to want to talk about that. Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Nolan/Wade/Connally, etc.:

As you well know, Mr. Harris, I've tackled your theories re that matter in past years. But apparently every conspiracy theory becomes shiny new and baby fresh once again after it lies around for a few years, as per the CTer norm.

Perhaps you'd like to resurrect your theory about Nurse Audrey Bell's initials being planted on CE842 once again. You still have a video online that suggests that very thing, even though we both know the "forgery" is really Will Fritz' initials turned upside-down. Why is that theory still be peddled in your video for the unknowing public to lap up, Bob?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

Hunt says in his article, plain as day, that he utilized photos of CE399--not the bullet itself:

"I was able to track the entire surface of the bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos."

And if anybody can clearly see ANY initials from those photos (good as they are from NARA), then they've got mighty good eyes.

Yes, I can see some marks and scratches in the NARA color photos, of course. But making out the specific letters of the FBI agents is not an easy task, despite what John Hunt said. (IMHO)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact (for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts on the Internet in the past several years.

David... there is not a single argument against what you wrote... The bullet Elmer Todd hands to Frazier, C1, and marked by both men at the FBI lab (not a single mark is on that bullet PRIOR to Todd/Frazier) is indeed the bullet marked as CE399... Marking an envelope supposedly containing evidence DOES NOT AUTHENTICATE THAT EVIDENCE, it only authenticates the envelope.

Problem is it is not the bullet that started out in Dallas...

Take one step before Rowley....

Rowley - "Could not identify the bullet as the one Johnsen gave him....AND GAVE TO TODD"

the man who gave Todd the bullet that he give to Frazier that becomes CE399..

Agent Johnsen - "Could not identify as the bullet from Wright (to Todd)"

The bullet Wright gets from Tomlinson?

"Could not identify as the bullet found 11/22/63" (from Tomlinson to Wright)

The bullet Tomlinson picks up and give to Wright?

"Could not identify as the bullet found and given to Wright"

So yes DVP... C1 that Todd GETS FROM ROWLEY, becomes CE399 and cannot be identified by any other person who handled it...

As we read the evidence in this letter... it is easy to see that Rowley handed Todd a different bullet than he got from Johnsen... So where is the bullet Johnsen gave Rowley?

C1/CE399 came into existence as the bullet in evidence in the handing of it over to Todd then to FBI...

Please show us the chain of custody that brings C1/CE399 BACK to the floor/stretcher in Parkland hosptial... THEN you've actually accomplished something...

CE399 being in DC ain't no big deal... get it to Dallas.

DJ

post-1587-0-35927100-1348850479_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can positively id a bullet like that unless they put a mark on it. That bullet, to the layman, did not have any identifying characteristics and if the lead scraping occurred before they got a chance to look at it a second time they might not have thought it was the "pristine" bullet they remembered on the day they found it. And if the bullet had the discoloration stain from testing they would not be able to positively id it.

A pristine bullet does not have any identifying characteristics with which they can distinguish it from another pristine bullet. The bullet was not pristine, but to the original finders of the bullet it looked pristine and that is how they would remember it.

After the FBI did their tests the bullet did not look as pristine as it looked the day it was found.

Anyone who did not put their mark on the bullet could not positively id the bullet.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pristine bullet does not have any identifying characteristics with which they can distinguish it from another pristine bullet.

Bullsh!t Mike....

The bullet Tomlinson saw was pointed... CE399 is not...

Are you saying these PRISTINE BULLETS cannot be identified from each other?

post-1587-0-84766100-1348864057_thumb.jpg

post-1587-0-07059500-1348864163_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marking an envelope supposedly containing evidence DOES NOT AUTHENTICATE THAT EVIDENCE, it only authenticates the envelope.

Bullxxxx. Marking the envelope is tantamount to marking the piece of evidence itself.

http://projects.nfstc.org/property_crimes/Crime_Scene_Procedures_III.pdf

By your standard of evidence identification, then, anything that is TOO SMALL to be physically marked can never be authenticated in any way whatsoever -- such as the tiny fragment(s) from Connally's wrist in CE842, in which the ENVELOPE holding the evidence was marked and not the tiny pieces of metal.

Do you want to call Jim Leavelle a xxxx too, David? .....

"[J.M.] Poe did not mark them [the Tippit bullet shells]. There was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept there until trial. I have run hundreds through that way with no trouble and have never been contested on it." -- James R. Leavelle (In the book "With Malice" by Dale K. Myers; Pp. 263 and 265)

Furthermore, the photo that exists of the Q1/CE399 envelope (taken by John Hunt in July 2004), although it doesn't show Jim Rowley's initials (maybe those initials are on the other side of the envelope, along with Richard Johnsen's--who knows), is confirming that Rowley had this envelope on Nov. 22, with the "Q1/CE399" bullet in it, and Rowley gave it Todd. The writing we find on this envelope written by Elmer Todd is exactly the same as having ROWLEY'S own mark on it too. And anyone saying otherwise is just plain goofy:

CE399-Envelope.png

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Nolan/Wade/Connally, etc.:

As you well know, Mr. Harris, I've tackled your theories re that matter in past years. But apparently every conspiracy theory becomes shiny new and baby fresh once again after it lies around for a few years, as per the CTer norm.

Perhaps you'd like to resurrect your theory about Nurse Audrey Bell's initials being planted on CE842 once again. You still have a video online that suggests that very thing, even though we both know the "forgery" is really Will Fritz' initials turned upside-down. Why is that theory still be peddled in your video for the unknowing public to lap up, Bob?

David, we have no idea what was or was not forged on that envelope. What we do know is that significant portions of it were erased, partially erased, and written over. You responded to that by posting a high contrast scan of the original photo in which much of the detail was not visible and then proclaimed the issue debunked. That was not only wrong, but flatly dishonest.

But why are you trying to change the subject? I asked why you refused to talk about the statements by Wade, Nolan and Connally. And for that matter, why won't you talk about Bell's denial of the FBI's claim that her envelope only contained a single object and that she gave it to officer Nolan. She was in fact, adamant that she gave it to plain clothed agents who unlike Nolan, were not in uniform.

You need to stop evading the important issues, David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, we have no idea what was or was not forged on that envelope [CE842]. What we do know is that significant portions of it were erased, partially erased, and written over. You responded to that by posting a high contrast scan of the original photo in which much of the detail was not visible and then proclaimed the issue debunked. That was not only wrong, but flatly dishonest.

You can't possibly be serious about resurrecting this "Fake CE842" nonsense again, can you Bob? Particularly after your "fake Bell initials" theory went sliding down the toilet when I merely turned the exhibit upside-down and found that the initials you think are forgeries are in reality Captain Fritz' "JWF" initials:

CE842-The-Initials-Of-J-W-Fritz.jpg

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f5f97b3215f2f151

And a color scan of CE842 doesn't show a hint of erasure marks. I guess this scan by John Hunt must be a forgery too, eh Bob?....

image004.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×