David Von Pein

FYI: More Follow-Ups: USPS MANAGER JIMMY ORR SAID: David, True that I have managed a USPS cancellation unit for more years now than I care to remember and it is true that my remarks were made in good faith. In the very beginning I was accustomed to the exact equipment that would have been used in Dallas in 1963, and I had folks in my unit who were 'veterans' of that postal era. None of the above precludes the possibility that my reasoning might be erroneous. I firmly believe that I am right, but I will do a little investigating of my own now and get back to you as soon as possible. Just a further note: My hometown of Greenville [south Carolina] has zip codes that were established when zip first came into existence in the 1960's. The codes denote sub-stations in Greenville. Station A, Station B, Parkplace, Federal Station, Berea Branch, etc. When the carriers assigned to each of these stations return in the afternoon, everything is consolidated and trucked to the Sectional Center Facility, or SCF, as it was known for most of my years and those previous to my tenure. In this facility (such as in downtown Dallas) the whole was 'cancelled' in one large workfloor space and trayed for manual or machine distribution. It is extremely unlikely to me that this particular mailpiece could have ever been traced back to a certain municipal or surburban area of Dallas once it was dropped in the mailbox. By contrast, as much as things have changed, I think they still tend to stay the same; somewhat. I have four automated advanced facer canceller machines running to date in Greenville, and by the postal indicia stamp killer bars, I cannot tell you where in Greenville the piece was mailed from, but I can tell you which one of my machines cancelled the stamp. It is my professional opinion that the number 12 designates either a mechanized flyer or perhaps even the more advanced mechanical canceller, the Mark II. There is nothing logical to me that would assign the number to a point of origination or to a particular postal operator. It just doesn't make any sense to me. However, as I said, we are onto something here, and I will investigate it further, for my own peace of mind.

DAVID VON PEIN ADDED: Hi again Jimmy [Orr], I'd like to get a clarification if I could about this statement you made earlier. You said: "There would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963. ... I have been with USPS for 29 years now. Nothing on a postmark other than city, state, and zip code has EVER indicated an origination." I'm curious to know how you know for a fact that "there would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963"? Since you started working for the USPS in 1983, which was years after Zip Codes came into existence, it's obvious that you would have never seen any postmark with a "Postal Zone" code attached to it in these last 29 years. I'll also point you to the following quote from a Mr. A.J. Savakis of the "Machine Cancel Society": "It [the "12" on Oswald's envelope] could be a postal zone OR a machine number OR a dial given to a specific postal worker to work a machine OR represents a special tour of processing mail at a special point OR any other representation decided by the Dallas postal authorities. I can't rule it out." So, Mr. Savakis seems to think that the "12" in the 1963 Dallas postmark could be a postal zone after all. I'm just trying to pin down a definitive answer on this matter, if that's possible to do. But, as you can see, there are some disagreements--even among people who belong to organizations specializing in all things relating to postmarks. Any further observations or information you can provide would be, as always, appreciated. Thanks. DVP

On October 15, 2012, while attempting to acquire still more information about the "12" in the postmark on Oswald's envelope, I sought the opinion of a man with whom I recently became "friends" at Facebook, Jimmy Orr, who not only has a great interest in the JFK assassination, but who is also, coincidentally, a supervisor for the United States Postal Service. Here is my conversation with Mr. Orr: Hi Jimmy, I just noticed that you are a Manager/Supervisor at the U.S. Postal Service, which is an occupation that comes in mighty handy when discussing the topic at the link provided in this post. And since you're also interested in the JFK assassination, you would be the perfect person to add your USPS expertise to this topic. I've had several people from the "Post Mark Collectors Club" and the "Machine Cancel Society" chime in with their views, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer (yet). Here's the discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html David Von Pein October 15, 2012 ================================ JIMMY ORR SAID: At first glance, David . . . the postmark seems to be of a Model G flyer, of which we still use one in Greenville [south Carolina] to this day. An electric machine, it probably dates to the 1930's, but is still useful to cancel heavy, non-automation pieces. There would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963, as there are absolutely none to date on this equipment. The number 12, most assuredly, would have indicated a machine number at the processing plant in Dallas. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been with USPS for 29 years now. Nothing on a postmark other than city, state, and zip code has EVER indicated an origination. [The] MPO [Main Post Office] in Dallas would have typically had a large workroom area with multiple flyer machines in 1963. It is also quite probable that they had as many as twelve mechanized Mark II cancellation machines. The dies would be nearly identical and would merely indicate the machine number. I believe, firmly, that no conclusion can be drawn about the origin of the letter within the Dallas community by observing the postmark. Also David, the time of 10:30 [which is also stamped on Commission Exhibit 773] would indicate the 'clearance' time for delivery. Anything before 10:30 would constitute next day service. That which was received later would not. There would have been ABSOLUTELY no changing of the dies to reflect what time the letter was received . . . with the letter volume of 1963 as compared to today's internet generation . . . the notion is ludicrous . . . cancellations in Dallas at the time were probably upwards of 300,000 letters per day. ============================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you very much, Jimmy. The information you have provided is very helpful indeed. And doubly so, considering it comes from a 29-year veteran of the United States Postal Service. I very much appreciate your valuable assistance on this matter.

Connally's chest X-rays (CE681 and 682): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0182b.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0183a.htm

Lee, Why are you harping on the Price Exhibit when you've got WRIGHT ON FILM telling you what happened?? You really think Wright was lying his ass off to CBS-TV in '67? And we've got Darrell Tomlinson telling us (via Ray Marcus) that he (Darrell) gave the bullet to Wright. And we've got Richard Johnsen's report in CE1024, verifying he got a bullet from WRIGHT. Given the above three things that PROVE forever that OP Wright handled a bullet on Nov. 22, I couldn't care less about what Wright wrote in the Price document. And that's because we don't NEED the Price Exhibit to answer this question (which is an inquiry that only one person on the planet thinks is up in the air): Did O.P. Wright handle a bullet at Parkland on 11/22/63? Are you done with your silliness on this Wright subject now, Farley? Or do you want to make yourself look more foolish than you already have (if that's possible)?

My latest response to James "LHO Didn't Fire A Shot At Anybody" DiEugenio can be found at the link below: DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 79)

And why don't you try evaluating the sum total of the evidence--just for once. Richard Johnsen told us (via CE1024) that he got a bullet from O.P. Wright. And Darrell Tomlinson told Raymond Marcus in 1966 that he gave a bullet to O.P. Wright [page 3 of transcript of telephone call between Marcus & Tomlinson, July 25, 1966; seen below). Given these facts (provided by TWO OTHER PEOPLE), anyone who suggests that O.P. Wright never saw ANY bullet at Parkland on Nov. 22 is just plain cuckoo. Complete Transcript: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

For Pete sake, Lee, where on Earth can you possibly go with the theory that has O.P. Wright never even handling (or seeing) any bullet at all at Parkland on 11/22/63? Geez, didn't Wright TELL Josiah Thompson in 1966 about seeing a bullet?* Wright said it was a "pointy" missile (of course, as we all know, he was wrong about that part), but you really want to purport that Wright saw NO BULLET at all at Parkland? Good grief, how silly. You're as bad as Jimmy "Buell & Linnie Mae Made Up The Paper Bag Story" DiEugenio. Also: O.P. Wright's 1966 remark to Josiah Thompson (about the stretcher bullet being a "pointed" bullet) is one of the conspiracy-proving lynchpins in the whole case for most theorists, which means that if Wright never really saw ANY bullet at all on 11/22/63, it means that there's one less CTer (Lee Farley) who can now utilize the "pointy bullet" argument in defense of the theory that the stretcher bullets were switched. Because Farley now wants to say that Wright never saw ANY bullet at all--"pointy" or otherwise. Which would mean, of course, that Wright was lying through his teeth during his interview with Tink Thompson in 1966.* It's very odd that a CTer would want to travel down that road. But Lee Farley has just done it. * It also means that O.P. Wright was lying through his teeth some more--on national television--when he was interviewed by CBS News in 1967 for the CBS special "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report". Sixteen minutes into Part 4 of that four-part program, Wright discusses at some length about how he saw and took possession of the stretcher bullet on Nov. 22. Wright even says he "picked up the bullet and put it in my pocket". I've reached an interesting conclusion recently.... Time is the worst thing in the world when it comes to the outrageous theories concocted by JFK conspiracy theorists. What I mean by that is: Give a JFK conspiracy theorist enough time, and then just sit back and watch the additional theories start to flow like a river from their computers, sans a stitch of supportable evidence to back them up. Two good examples of this type of behavior have been exhibited just today in this very thread: 1.) David Josephs accused James Rowley of possibly playing fast and loose with the bullets at the White House on the night of the assassination. (Up until today, I had never once heard any CTer accuse Rowley HIMSELF of being part of any conspiracy plot or cover-up.) 2.) Lee Farley now seems to like the silly idea of O.P. Wright never having seen (or handled) ANY BULLET AT ALL at Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22nd. What will more time bring? One can only imagine.

Richard Johnsen TOLD US that he got the bullet from O.P. Wright at Parkland, via Johnsen's typewritten note that he wrote at the White House on 11/22:

In your "switched bullet" scenario which has Chief Rowley being the main criminal, please tell me just exactly how and when the United States Secret Service gained possession of Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in order to perpetrate this grand fraud and switcheroo of the bullets? Did James Rowley just happen to have an expended bullet from Oswald's gun sitting in a cabinet drawer in his office in Washington prior to 9:00 PM EST on the evening of 11/22/63? The fact is.... The silly cloak-and-dagger scenario that has the FBI or Secret Service performing a convenient "switch" of the bullets on November 22 has always been a flimsy and wholly unprovable tale served up by desperate conspiracists in their persistent efforts to paint Oswald as an innocent patsy. We know that Oswald's rifle remained in Dallas until approx. 11:45 PM CST on the night of JFK's assassination. And we also know that the stretcher bullet was transported from Dallas to Washington aboard Air Force One by SS agent Richard E. Johnsen, with that AF1 flight departing Dallas Love Field at 2:47 PM CST. So what I want to know is how it was even remotely possible for the FBI (or, as David Josephs suggested above, the Secret Service, led by Chief Jim Rowley) to have even had any opportunity to "switch" any bullets prior to midnight on 11/22/63? Obviously, there was no such bullet-switching opportunity, because Oswald's rifle wasn't even in Washington until (at the earliest) about 3:30 or 4:00 AM EST on November 23rd. Therefore, nobody in Washington could have had a chance to fire any bullets through Rifle C2766 (in order to start framing Lee Oswald with them) until early in the morning of 11/23/63. David J. will probably now simply say that CE399 was obtained by the FBI at a LATER time and then inserted into the official record of the case. But that's not what Mr. Josephs claimed above, because above he speculated that Rowley of the SS was possibly "perpetrating a crime by replacing THAT BULLET with what becomes CE399". Ergo, Rowley, who was in Washington, would have had to have had access to Oswald's Carcano rifle prior to 9:00 PM EST on November 22 (when we know the gun was still in Dallas).

Pot...meet Pa Kettle. Reminder: Jim D. is a person who seriously thinks that Jim Garrison was right re the JFK case. And Jimbo's also a person who is deluded enough to actually think that BOTH Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag that each of those witnesses said they saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63. Talk about "empty bombast...sound and fury signifying nothing". Jim and all other conspiracy theorists have a patent on such bombast. Another LNer at another forum asked a good question a few months back when he asked: What have the JFK conspiracy theorists really accomplished? Anything of significance whatsoever? (Other than "bombast" and speculative theorizing that never ends?) Food for thought as the 50th approaches.

Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399. Get real. Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399. Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 and CE2011). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself. Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period.

A much better idea would be for Bob Harris to take a lengthy course in: "Not Everybody Was Lying In The JFK Case." Hilarious. Does the above Bob Harris rule therefore mean that I and my fellow LNers are "off the hook" (so to speak) when it comes to police officials saying things in their OWN REPORTS that I don't think are correct? Such as Seymour Weitzman's original affidavit where he calls the rifle a 7.65 Mauser? (After all, how can I possibly know for certain if Weitzman was, indeed, telling the truth when he said "Mauser" there? Maybe he was lying. How can I know? And how can Bob Harris know either, especially when looking at his quote above?) And does this also mean that the conspiracy kooks of the world will shut up about the lack of an FD-302 report for Odum's 6/12/64 interviews with Tomlinson and Wright? Or do you have a different set of rules for any reports written by Bardwell Odum vs. the reports written by Elmer Todd? IOW--even if an FD-302 for Odum's 6/12 interview WAS unearthed, why would any CTer accept that report as the TRUTH, in light of these words spoken by Robert Harris?: "You don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth." Yes, they are. You just can't see them in the NARA photos. Plus: Haven't you ever wondered WHY the evil FBI (including Elmer Todd, who you pretty much compared to a murderer named O.J. Simpson in your despicable comparison above) didn't just scratch the initials "ELT" into the nose of CE399 after they planted that bullet into the official evidence pile connected to the JFK case? Why DIDN'T those evil bastards--who would stop at nothing, it seems, to frame Oswald--perform that easy task of scrawling Todd's initials into that bullet (and Rowley's and Johnsen's too, for that matter)? Per the conspiracy clowns, Hoover's boys would go so far as to create a totally false document seen in CE2011, wherein they just MADE UP an interview conducted by Bardwell Odum (which could blow up in their lying faces at any time thereafter), but they wouldn't merely scratch some initials into a bullet that is a complete and total fraud to begin with?? They were dastardly enough to fake the bullet itself by placing it into the official record of the case, but they evidently weren't dastardly enough to scribble some initials into that same fake bullet? What was that you said a minute ago about "critical thinking", Mr. Harris?

I guess CTers must have totally forgotten (or deem as fake too) Elmer Todd's FBI report which is seen in Commission Document No. 7, which is a report that was written by Todd himself on the night of the assassination, wherein he says that he etched his initials into the nose of the stretcher bullet. So we've not only got CE2011 (from June/July '64) to confirm that Todd marked the bullet, we've got a report written by Todd himself on 11/22/63 which says the exact same thing (that Todd marked the bullet): In point of fact, there is, indeed, a complete chain of possession (chain of custody) for Bullet CE399 when all of the various documents and testimony are assembled and reasonably and sensibly evaluated: From Tomlinson/Wright to Richard Johnsen (via Johnsen's typed note on White House stationery, which was stapled to the envelope that Johnsen put the bullet into; a copy of Johnsen's note appears in CE1024, at 18 H 800). From Johnsen to Rowley (via CE2011, which verifies that Johnsen gave the bullet to Rowley). From Rowley to Todd (via CD7 [Todd's 11/22/63 FD-302 report] and via the envelope which has the very key words written at the bottom by Elmer Todd, with Todd saying he had received the envelope and its contents from Rowley). From Todd to Frazier (via Frazier's initials on the bullet and via CD7 and via Frazier's testimony). It's not nearly strong enough of a chain to please CTers (naturally), but it is a chain nonetheless.

Jimmy must have inhaled too much L.A. smog today or something, because anybody can go back to our original discussions and see that Jimmy is the one trying to impersonate Houdini here--not me. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-43.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-47.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html Oh, good! Jim has decided to make some xxxx up (again). What a surprise. The words "kept a drawer" never came out of my mouth. Those are Jimbo's words--not mine. And I love watching the fish squirm, as he actually tries to assert that this situation (quoting Jim D.): "You were proposing an ongoing business relationship in which the USPS continuously collected funds for REA...which they turned over on a regular basis." ....is somehow entirely different from this scenario (quoting the USPS website): "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer." Talk about a classic "potato/po-tah-to" argument. I love it. You should have just kept silent about this matter, Jimbo. Because now everybody can see that you've not only got both feet in your mouth--you've got an arm or two in there too. -------------- BONUS "COMMON SENSE" ADDENDUM: "When thinking about all the complicated stuff that the "patsy-framers" would have had to fake and create out of whole cloth to make it look as though Patsy Oswald had really purchased the two guns in March '63 via mail-order, there's an additional level of fakery that DiEugenio & Co. must think the plotters engaged in regarding the revolver order: the REA skullduggery. Because if the same rules and regulations for "C.O.D." mail and packages were in place in March '63 as they were in 2003, it would mean that the "plotters" who wanted desperately to make it look like Oswald had purchased a mail-order revolver from Seaport Traders could have faked the paper trail without using REA as the package delivery service at all. They could have had Seaport deliver the gun to P.O. Box 2915 via the regular U.S. Post Office delivery, instead of using REA, even though a COD payment was due on the gun. Which brings up another point -- If the whole paper trail for the revolver was completely phony, why in the world did the plotters want to have Oswald paying for the gun via COD? Why not just fake it to make it look like Oswald had paid for the entire purchase price when he ordered it, just like the Patsy Framers supposedly did with LHO's Carcano purchase? The mysterious plotters didn't have Oswald paying COD for the rifle. Why did they do that with the revolver? The COD angle adds yet another level of needless complexity into such "fakery", because "they" need Oswald to make two payments instead of just one." -- DVP; December 2011

Oh, how quickly Jimbo forgets: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html The link above provides the proof that I discovered on December 1, 2011 (via the USPS website), which indicates that the U.S. Post Office DOES, indeed, act as a "fiduciary", as Jim loves to say, when it comes to COD mail -- at least via the 2003 information that I found online. The rules re COD mail could possibly have been different in circa 1963, that's true. But the main point is: I proved that the U.S. Post Office did perform a service regarding COD mail that Jim DiEugenio was absolutely positive was a loony idea -- i.e., the Post Office would collect money from people who received COD mail, and then the Post Office would forward that money to the appropriate party on behalf of the person who made the payment. "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer." http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm And there's nothing in that Post Office regulation cited above that would indicate that they would NOT do the same thing for a "private company". In fact, the USPS regulation I cited above expressly indicates that "Any mailer" can send COD mail to a customer and then have the USPS send them the money. So maybe Jimbo should stop pretending that he isn't aware of that USPS regulation. If he did that, perhaps his feet wouldn't so often find themselves located in his huge mouth. ========================= ADDENDUM FROM 2011 (WORTH A REPLAY A YEAR LATER): DAVID VON PEIN SAID ON 12/1/2011: And I also decided to bring forth that USPS.com webpage about COD mail policies for another reason (which, I'll admit, I cannot confirm with 100% certainty; but I have a strong feeling I'm right in what I'm about to say about you; feel free to admit it if you like, but I doubt you will): I'm guessing that you, Mr. DiEugenio, were of the opinion (before this morning; 12/1/11) that the US Post Office never forwarded cash to "mailers" (or sellers), regardless of who they were. You didn't think the USPS did that for COD mail PERIOD, did you Jim? JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: You have the BA of a pitcher in the National League. A weak hitting one at that. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I'll remind you that Bob Gibson batted .303 in 1970 for the Cardinals. You, however, Jim, consistently swing the lumber below the Mendoza line. From the absurd theories you actually have the gonads to still endorse here in the 21st century (LHO being innocent of BOTH the JFK & Tippit murders; there possibly being NO SHOOTERS AT ALL on the sixth floor; Buell Frazier just MAKING UP the paper bag story; and Jim Garrison's nonsensical New Orleans plot to name just a handful of the bizarre things you have endorsed), it's a wonder that Mr. Stengel still lets you sit on the bench at all. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=195&p=239764entry239764

Already done it, Bob. Many times. You just don't like the answers. Fact is: The only bullet associated with JBC's wounds is CE399. That's a FACT that was accepted as a FACT by both the WC & HSCA, and no amount of foot-stomping done by Robert Harris (or anyone else) is going to change that fact. Ever wonder why (or how!) both the WC and HSCA could accept CE399 as the SBT bullet if it has such a rotten chain of possession (and if your other theories re Connally, Stinson, Bell, and Nolan are accurate)? Was the HSCA just incredibly stupid, Bob? Or are they supposedly in on the "cover-up" too?

Like virtually all conspiracy theorists, Robert Harris has no ability whatsoever when it comes to properly (and reasonably) evaluating evidence in the JFK case. A second whole bullet falls from Connally's stretcher and is magically swept away from existence by....who again Bob? CE842 is filled with fraudulent initials. Who did that again, Bob? Any chance you could actually prove some of the crap you purport as being the truth? You were pretty doggone sure in 2009 that Bobby Nolan's initials weren't on CE842. Remember? And in 2010, you were positive somebody forged Audrey Bell's initials on the same envelope. (Bob never learned to look at anything upside-down before--which is amazing, considering his talent for treating most of the JFK evidence in an upside-down fashion.) And evidently Harris STILL thinks I'm wrong about Fritz' initials, because he's still got a YouTube video online stating that Bell's initials were forged! Go figure. The best way to know that Harris is full of cow dung is the fact that there is no second bullet in evidence today that in any way was associated with the wounding of Gov. John B. Connally. [bob's laughter begins, as he cannot believe that ANYONE in 2012 would still place an ounce of faith in anything the US Govt. or the DPD or the FBI told him about the JFK evidence. Well, Bob, there are still a few of us weirdos out here who DO treat the real evidence in the JFK case like the REAL evidence--vs. tossing it all in the trash in favor of the evidence that is nowhere to be seen.]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID: >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?" <<< DAVID VON PEIN SAID: #1 (Wade) -- He 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 at the link below. 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.) Sibert Interview: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html #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. 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 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. DVP Dec. 2011 Original Post: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2177c75ac72c96f6

Harris is totally forgetting (i.e., ignoring) the fact that Mike Williams demolished his CE842 forgery theory via multiple scans of the Hunt scan at various resolutions, etc., showing that there are no erasure marks on the document. One can only wonder why Bob persists in pursuing an obvious sham--his own. Sad.

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: 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?....

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:

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)

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?

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.