David Von Pein

49 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

Alexander must have known that this thing was phony, which is why he refused to send it to Will Fritz.

You have no idea whether Fritz saw the memo or not. So stop pretending you do know.

Quote

All of the evidence DPD processed was catalogued and listed along with descriptions. That "receipt" is nowhere to be found.

But the "description" of the event (Nolan getting fragments from Bell) WAS indeed "catalogued" by the DPD. And we can all see it for ourselves in CE2003, at 24 H 260 (which is a document mentioned to Bob several times previously, but Bob prefers to believe this is yet another fake document; but this one in CE2003 is a DPD inventory of items, not an FBI list; so I guess Bob needs to implicate Fritz and the DPD in this part of the "Bell/Nolan cover-up" as well).....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0139b.htm

As the documents build up (and there's at least two now that verify that Nolan received fragment(s) from Nurse Bell), I need to ask Bob the same question I asked some of the members of this forum in a discussion pertaining to Oswald's Postal Money Order....

"How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? .... At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the document make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?" -- DVP; January 2016

Quote

Pretending that I form my conclusions based on some mythical need is hugely insulting, and you KNOW that is pure BS.

You've now got TWO very good reasons to abandon your theory about Audrey Bell never giving any evidence to Bobby Nolan----those two things being: the hospital memo unearthed by Gary Murr and the DPD inventory sheet in CE2003.

But you still won't give up the notion that Bell never gave anything at all to Nolan, will you Bob? You will instead continue to rely on the decades-old memory of various people to promote your theory, instead of accepting those two pieces of HARD EVIDENCE which totally destroy your theory.

35 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

Why is it that Lt. Alexander of the DPD never turned over this supposed receipt to either the PD or the FBI? It would have been critical to maintaining the chain of custody, yet he kept it in his office instead of doing what he had done a thousand times before, when this kind of thing was sent to him.

Assuming he didn't have Alzheimer's, what is the most likely explanation?

That's right, he didn't pass it along because he knew it was bogus.

How do you know precisely what Alexander did with it? And how do you know it wasn't seen by other members of the DPD or FBI?

Maybe somebody made a copy of it, and all that remains now is the copy that Gary Murr dug up for himself in the late 1990s.

In any event, that document positively has the handwriting of THREE different people on it, including Nolan's and Bell's writing. I guess you think the FBI (or somebody) forged BOTH Nolan's and Bell's signatures on that document, right? You must think their signatures are forgeries, since you're now saying you think the memo is "bogus".

What a surprise! Bob Harris thinks something is fake! But it's not too much of a shocker that Bob is now calling the hospital memo a "bogus" document. Because if he were to admit the truth---that Nurse Bell gave the bullet fragments to Officer Nolan after all---Mr. Harris would have to abandon one of his most treasured theories that he's put decades into promoting. And I doubt we'll ever see that happen.

IN DECEMBER 2011, ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments.


IN DECEMBER 2011, DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to everything connected with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer.

And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT "conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of United States Presidents.

In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their pockets, etc.
 

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1104.html

FYI....

Here's the relevant "falling bullet" page from John Connally's book....

8 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

From John Connally's autobiography entitled "In History's shadow"

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh. ...

That's the problem, Ray. It's in Connally's book (which apparently was only published after he died), but Connally never ONCE mentioned this incident in any of his public interviews (which seems kind of odd---wouldn't you agree?---since Connally was never shy about expressing his displeasure with the SBT), plus he provided this WC testimony, which totally contradicts his book....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?"

JOHN B. CONNALLY -- "No."

10 hours ago, Robert Harris said:

...the statements of Wade, Nolan and the nurse who recovered that bullet settles the matter.

It doesn't "settle" the matter at all. Far from it, in fact.

Why?

Because the bullet that you, Bob Harris, thinks exists is NOWHERE IN EVIDENCE.

The things Bob Harris refers to as being "settled" are really anything but (including Bob's "Z285" theory).

Robert Harris said:

...Nolan heard the same thing and BOTH of their statements matched perfectly with what Connally said.

The problem for you there is ----- John Connally NEVER said anything about any hearing any whole bullet falling from his stretcher in ANY of the many interviews he gave after the assassination. How can you possibly explain that, Bob? Was Connally part of the cover-up too? (Which would be an odd claim, given the fact that Connally was always adamant about his belief that the SBT was a pile of crap.)

IN JULY 2014, ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

The FBI also claimed that Bell said the envelope she processed only held a single fragment. But they lied about that, just as they lied claiming that she passed the envelope to Nolan. In fact, Bell flatly denied saying either of those things.

The FBI's problem was that they needed to convert Nolan's envelope, which held the bullet (singular) that fell from Connally's gurney and was recovered by a different nurse. In fact, the envelope appeared in DPD records as containing just one fragment. Pretty strange, considering that CE-842 clearly described multiple fragments, eh?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The official November 1963 FBI interviews with Audrey Bell and Bobby Nolan, which Robert Harris thinks are filled with lies created by the FBI, do not contain any reference to any "whole bullet". Only a single "fragment" is mentioned in the two FBI reports linked below.

Now, yes, CE842 does contain more than just a SINGLE metal fragment. I'm not denying that fact at all. But Bob Harris' theory about a WHOLE BULLET being handled by an unknown nurse (not Audrey Bell) and Officer Nolan suffers a pretty big setback when we have a look at these two FBI documents from November 22 and 23, 1963 [Commission Document No. 5].....

AUDREY BELL:
CD5, Page 155

BOBBY NOLAN:
CD5, Page 156

Footnote----

The error that exists in the FBI reports concerning the fragment being taken from Connally's THIGH, instead of his ARM/WRIST, is explained in this part of CD5.


ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

That [picture of CE842] shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied. .... Obviously he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four [fragments], and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments". There is no way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to be sure that he could pull off the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE object, so Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope contained ONE object also.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Which means you must also think that Arlen Specter lied too, right? Because it was SPECTER, not FRAZIER, who first uttered the word "fragment" (singular) in connection with the Warren Commission exhibit that was to soon become CE842.

As a matter of fact, Arlen Specter used the word "fragment" (singular) FIVE separate times before that same word ("fragment") ever came out of the mouth of Bob Frazier. Let's look and see--and count (emphasis added by DVP):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor Connally."

SPECTER -- "Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?"

FRAZIER -- "This one does not have a Commission number as yet."

SPECTER -- "May it please the Commission, I would like to have this fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842."

(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet."

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

Did Specter nudge Frazier before Frazier testified and whisper to him:

"Now remember, Bob, when we get to the part where I want to introduce Exhibit 842, remember to follow my lead when I say to you FIVE different times that CE842 consists of just one single fragment. That way, we'll both be on the same page when it comes to this blatant lie we're both going to be telling in your Warren Commission testimony. Got it, Bob? Okay, good."

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

The fact that Arlen Specter and Robert Frazier only refer to ONE single bullet fragment existing as part of CE842 is, indeed, quite strange. Because we can see that the "foreign body envelope" that was marked by Audrey Bell clearly indicates that "fragments" (plural) were placed into that envelope which later became part of Commission Exhibit 842, which is an envelope that was ALSO initialled by Robert Frazier of the FBI. His "RF" initials are plainly visible on the front of the envelope. And...the National Archives color photo of CE842 is obviously depicting the presence of four separate metal fragments....

But to think that Specter and Frazier (in that order) were lying their heads off during Frazier's testimony in order to conceal the existence of additional metal fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's body is something I do not believe at all.

And one of the reasons we can know that Specter was certainly not on a mission to "cover up" the existence of additional Connally bullet fragments is because we have Specter HIMSELF bringing out the information of MULTIPLE metallic fragments being removed from Connally's right wrist during his questioning of Parkland Hospital doctor Charles Gregory. Let's have a gander:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"

DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm. Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to appropriate authorities for further disposition."

So Specter wasn't hiding the fact that more than just one fragment was retrieved from John Connally's wrist. Specter himself elicited that information from Dr. Gregory.

For some inexplicable reason, it would seem as though CE842, when it was first introduced into evidence during Robert Frazier's testimony, contained only one of the four fragments that were removed from Connally's body by Dr. Gregory. The other three fragments were evidently not examined by Bob Frazier of the FBI at all.

But we must also keep in mind that the three smallest fragments from CE842 were also not examined by the HSCA in 1978 either. Those three tiny fragments were said to be "too small to weigh" [see 7 HSCA 367].

Do you, Robert Harris, really think that both Specter and Frazier would feel the need to hide or cover up the existence of three very tiny metal fragments that the HSCA later said were "too small to weigh"?

How much total weight or mass could those three tiny fragments possibly amount to? Do you think the (unknown) weight of those small fragments was enough to tip the scales in favor of "conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, is that it? And is that why Frazier and Specter didn't want to reveal the fact that more than one fragment existed in CE842?

If that is (at least in part) what you believe, I beg to differ.

There would have been no good reason for either Specter or Frazier to want to start lying about the existence of three extremely tiny fragments removed from Governor Connally's body.

I cannot explain why Robert Frazier seemed to think that CE842 contained just one single fragment. But, as I just explained, to think it was something "shady" or "sinister" on the part of Mr. Frazier (or Mr. Specter) is to believe something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, given the incredibly small size of those other three bullet fragments in question.

Let me also add....

Bob Frazier's Warren Commission session is not the only time Mr. Frazier used the word "fragment" (singular) to describe the contents of Commission Exhibit No. 842. He also used that same word during his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969:

QUESTION -- "What other projectiles or portions of the projectiles did you have?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In addition to those there were two bullet fragments, the nose section and base section, recovered by the secret police and delivered to me at the laboratory. Then there were additional other fragments, another two fragments from the President's head and one fragment from the arm of Governor Connally."

David Von Pein
July 16, 2014

12 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

Hey! Don't underestimate David.

He learned about evidence writing reviews of Hanna-Barbera cartoons on Amazon!

Life isn't all JFK, Bob. A tiny bit of diversity is permitted, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Debate something, David.

Yeah, I've never done that before, have I?

1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

Take your findings elsewhere.

Take your attitude elsewhere.

Bob Harris said:

"Nicely matching" what??

The B in "Bob", that's what. Which is exactly what I said before. So why are you asking?

Bob Harris said:

You seem to have no concept of evidence.

Since the above quote comes from a man who prefers to believe a mountain of evidence is fraudulent in the JFK case, I find the irony thick and delicious.

CTers are habitual wolf cryers when it comes to declaring evidence "fake". It's become a rather ridiculous and patently transparent excuse for dismissing dozens of pieces of evidence that a CTer doesn't like. (Another recent example of that trait is illustrated at the link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1247.html

27 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

...this receipt has yet to be corroborated by the NA, and you have made absolutely no attempt to verify it.

It practically verifies itself. It's got Bobby Nolan's handwritten signature on it, perfectly matching the unique "B" that we also find in CE842 (when we turn Exhibit 842 upside down, that is).

The hospital memo also has Audrey Bell's signature on it too. Maybe we can get a handwriting expert in here to see if Bell's signature on the hospital memo matches any of the writing on CE842, which I believe has at least some of Bell's handwriting on it (but it looks like more than just Bell wrote some of the words we find on that envelope).

And the hospital memo also matches the information seen in CE2003 (at 24 H 260), which says that BELL gave fragments (plural this time) to NOLAN.

That makes two documents that corroborate each other about Bell giving fragments (or a "fragment"), but not a whole BULLET, to Bob Nolan.

All fake, Bob? Including the nicely-matching signature of Nolan himself on the hospital memo/receipt?

Let's now wave Bye-Bye to Robert Harris' theory about Audrey Bell never giving ANY envelope to Highway Patrolman Bobby Nolan.

Please also take note of the signature of "Bob Nolan" in the Dallas County Hospital memorandum that Gary Murr dug up in the 1990s, and note the similarity in the "B" and the "N" in that signature when compared to Nolan's initials that he placed on the envelope that became CE842. Did somebody fake Bobby Nolan's handwriting on the hospital memo, Mr. Harris?

------

What are the odds that Bob Harris will admit he was wrong all these years when he has insisted that "it was NOT Audrey Bell, a seasoned emergency room supervisor, who gave him [Bobby Nolan] that envelope" [quote from Robert Harris on August 4, 2011]? Not much of a chance at all, I wager.

2 hours ago, Robert Harris said:

...this mythical receipt...

...someone wants us to think this was an HSCA item...

More fake stuff, eh Bob?

There's no end to it, is there?

And the notation about BELL giving NOLAN some FRAGMENTS in CE2003 (24H260) is fake too, right Bob?

Quote

Try googling the text in that vertical line. You will find a mountain of information, NONE OF WHICH mentions this interview.

What "interview" are you talking about? It's just a receipt/memo.

Bob Harris' "Nolan/Wade/Bell" bullet theory debunked (plus there's CE2003 as well, which verifies further that Nurse Bell gave Officer Nolan FRAGMENTS and not a WHOLE BULLET)....

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,14474.0.html

Thanks, Robert. But I'll stick with my "ridiculous argument" just the same. Such as this one....

"Nolan didn't "deliver" any whole bullet to the DPD. And you [Robert Harris] have absolutely no evidence to back up such a claim. If Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be part of the official evidence in this case today. And, of course, no such additional "whole bullet" (other than CE399) exists in the record, does it Bob? Now Bob will pretend the "whole Nolan bullet" was swept under the rug by the evil DPD (and/or the wicked FBI). Won't you, Bob? Bob probably should have learned a lesson from Jim Sibert and Francis O'Neill about how BULLET FRAGMENTS can get turned erroneously into WHOLE MISSILES." -- DVP; July 5, 2014

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Robert+Harris+Connally+Wade+Stinson+Bell+Nolan+Bullet

35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey David, how can you blame me for taking the thread of topic? My post was a response to your off-topic post (which was factually incorrect).

But if you trace back the links, you'll see that my brief response about the File Locator Number (which was not "factually incorrect" at all, IMO) was in response to one of Dave Healy's useless rants, and I then went right back "on topic" (i.e., back to the silly DVP Bashfest started by Jim Hargrove) on Page 4.

So I didn't STAY "off topic". I merely made a short remark aimed at Healy.

But, let's face facts---almost all threads go "off topic" (at least somewhat), right? It's as certain as death, taxes, and a stupid Trump tweet.

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

DVP is a master at throwing topics off track, like this very thread you are reading.

Dead wrong, Mr. Clark. It was Sandy Larsen who started to take this absurd DVP Bashfest thread off-topic (see Page 4)....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/?do=findComment&comment=326213

But I then brought the DVP Bashfest thread right back on-topic in my very next post (also on Page 4).

Thanks for the plug, Michael. (I can't figure out, though, why on Earth you'd want to bump this old thread in order to advertise some of my site links. ???? It's a strange world indeed.) ~shrug~ (But thanks anyway.)

Allow me to reciprocate (in a fashion)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Education+Forum

Sandy,

By "invent", I mean you've decided to ignore the ONLY thing in the autopsy photo(s) which looks anything remotely like a bullet hole (the red spot), and you have, instead, MADE UP FROM NOTHINGNESS (at least as far as looking at the Red Spot Picture is concerned) another "bullet hole" in the EOP of the picture---which, of course, is not visible AT ALL.

That's what I meant.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey:

What I said was the following, which, as you always do, you left out:

The probative evidence for directionality, and the number of bullets that hit the skull would be the autopsy, not the Z film.

What a laugh! Like Jim DiEugenio actually BELIEVES anything in the autopsy report. You think the whole autopsy was a farce (just like you think EVERYTHING about the "official" case was a farce and a fraud and a lie).

So why did you even bother mentioning the autopsy in your above post? You certainly don't actually believe what the autopsy says, right? The autopsy says that JFK was struck twice and only from BEHIND. You think that's a complete lie.

And please don't pretend that I have ONLY relied on the Zapruder Film for my opinions about JFK's head wounds---because I have not done that at all, Jimmy. Here's a conversation I had on March 24, 2007:

A YOUNG CONSPIRACY BUFF (STUDENT) SAID:

[After watching the Zapruder Film], out of 35 students in my classroom, 35 said the [head] shot came from the front; 0 said the shot came from the rear.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, heck yes, they all thought that from JUST focusing on the "back and to the left" reaction of JFK on the Z-Film. Cripes, who WOULDN'T?

But out of those 35 classmates of yours, how many have ANY idea what the autopsy report says regarding JFK's head wounds? And how many have ever read the Warren Commission testimony of one James J. Humes, the lead autopsist? Any of them do those things? (I'm doubting they have.)

The "back and to the left" motion of President Kennedy's head is definitive proof of NOTHING with respect to the precise direction from which the bullet came.

The Zapruder Film is ONE PIECE of evidence to look at and evaluate, sure. But why would anybody simply stop after watching the Z-Film, toss up their hands, and say "That's it! He was shot from the front! Let's have lunch!"?

That's silly.

Read the autopsy report and the doctors' statements. Put the pieces TOGETHER. Don't leave them isolated (like most conspiracy theorists seem to want to do).

And there are the autopsy photos too....which tell us this:

There was only ONE entry hole in JFK's head -- and it was IN THE REAR of Kennedy's head. Hence, there is no way POSSIBLE that the head shot came from the FRONT.

2007 Source Link:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/VblF3RCRNis/7VxR3eaMZjIJ

I don't think Jackie retrieved anything off the trunk, but even if she did, it's yet another SO WHAT? / WHO CARES? situation that CTers try to make out to be so utterly important. And the reason it's a non-issue (and proves nothing re: directionality of the head shot) is because JFK's head obviously DID go backward violently after Oswald's bullet hit JFK from the REAR --- and nobody's denying the backward movement of the head. Who COULD be stupid enough to DENY that backward movement? It's on the Z-Film for all to see.

So, since the head did move violently backward after the shot, why couldn't a piece of skull or brain tissue have been thrown onto the trunk for Jackie to pick up? Obviously, such a scenario (with Oswald as the lone gunman) is very very possible (although it probably didn't happen).

So, Sandy, you think that the ONLY THING that even slightly resembles a bullet hole (the "Cowlick" entry wound, of course) is really a "curl of hair" (a bloody "curl", evidently?)....and you've decided to, instead, invent a hole in the EOP portion of the autopsy photos (probably with the imaginative assistance of Patrick J. Speer).

Um. . .  okay, whatever you say, Sandy.