Tomlinson and Wright are at odds on the color of the magic bullet

[Andric Perez]

Some CT researchers often tout an interview for the book Six Seconds in Dallas where the second person to handle the stretcher bullet in Parkland (O.P. Wright) described it as having a pointed nose and being lead-colored instead of copper-colored. While this description should not be dismissed, it is in conflict with Darrell Tomlinson's recollection that it was copper-colored (

, date unknown, interviewer unknown, 47 second mark). Tomlinson was the person who found it.

Either Tomlinson or Wright is wrong. In every article I've read that includes Wright's description, Tomlinson's words go unmentioned, which is unfair in my opinion and puts more weight on Wright's testimony than it deserves.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Andric Perez

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Some CT researchers often tout an interview for the book Six Seconds in Dallas ...... Tomlinson's words go unmentioned, which is unfair in my opinion and puts more weight on Wright's testimony than it deserves.

I was quite shocked to hear Josiah Thompson's presentation at the Duquesne conference in 2003.

Dr. THompson claimed that CE399 was not the bullet found at Parkland,

and he cited eyewitness testimony to support his theory.

I was shocked because I am a longtime Thomson fan & I expected better.

The scientific literature shows that eyewitness identification

of human beings is unreliable,

so no one should give tuppence for eyewitness memory of a small INANIMATE object.

Edited June 26, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[David Von Pein]

The Darrell Tomlinson interview in question comes from the 1967 CBS-TV special "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report".

The interviewer is Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV in Dallas. It's in Part 2 of the 4-part CBS special below (at about the 41:15 mark).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html

Jim D.,

I even brought up the topic of Tomlinson's 1967 CBS-TV interview in Part 64 of my DVP vs. JD series, here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-64.html

"I was recently re-watching the outstanding 1967 CBS special "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", and while watching Part 2 of the program, I realized that Parkland employee Darrell C. Tomlinson did a really interesting flip-flop in his story between the years 1964 and 1988.

In 1967, on CBS-TV, Tomlinson was absolutely positive that the bullet he found on 11/22/63 had come from a stretcher that he had taken off of the elevator.

But in 1988, during the PBS-TV program "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Tomlinson said that

the bullet was positively found on a stretcher that he had NOT taken off of the elevator. [At the

7:20 mark of Part 2 HERE.]

In his '67 CBS interview, when asked if he was certain that the bullet had come from a stretcher that had come off the elevator, Tomlinson said "well, I know that. That I know. I just don't know who was on that stretcher".

During his Warren Commission session in 1964, Tomlinson seemed to be stuck somewhere in-between his 1967 posture and his 1988 stance, with Tomlinson stating numerous times in '64 that he just was "not sure" which of the two stretchers in question he had taken off of the elevator." -- DVP; March 24, 2011

Edited June 27, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jim D. is full of baloney (as usual). Eddie Barker's point-blank question that he asked Darrell Tomlinson in 1967 couldn't have been any clearer. Let's have a look at it (verbatim):

EDDIE BARKER -- "As you think back, is there any doubt in your mind today that the stretcher on which you found that bullet was the stretcher that came off of the elevator?"

DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, I know that. THAT I know. I just don't know who was on that stretcher."

BARKER -- "But the stretcher WAS on the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "Right."

BARKER -- "And this was the elevator that Governor Connally would have been placed on to go to the operating room?"

TOMLINSON -- "Yes, sir; that's the one he went up on."

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

From the above exchange, DiEugenio wants people to (somehow) believe that Barker's question was misleading and that Tomlinson REALLY meant to imply that the stretcher on which he found the bullet had NOT come off of the elevator.

You were talking about propaganda, Jimbo? Take a look in the mirror.

Edited June 27, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Some CT researchers often tout an interview for the book Six Seconds in Dallas ...... Tomlinson's words go unmentioned, which is unfair in my opinion and puts more weight on Wright's testimony than it deserves.

I was quite shocked to hear Josiah Thompson's presentation at the Duquesne conference in 2003.

Dr. THompson claimed that CE399 was not the bullet found at Parkland,

and he cited eyewitness testimony to support his theory.

I was shocked because I am a longtime Thomson fan & I expected better.

The scientific literature shows that eyewitness identification

of human beings is unreliable,

so no one should give tuppence for eyewitness memory of a small INANIMATE object.

I don't think it's a simple as that, Ray. What Thompson and Aguilar discovered, basically, is that there is NO eyewitness evidence supporting that CE 399 was the stretcher bullet.

While I tend to think CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, the evidence for this has largely evaporated.

If I recall, the whole thing is such a mess that Thompson spent much of his presentation laughing.

[Michael Hogan]

Jim DiEugenio discussed the finding of the stretcher bullet here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&view=findpost&p=203291

See his posts 85, 91, 94 and 95.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

What Thompson and Aguilar discovered, basically, is that there is NO eyewitness evidence supporting that CE 399 was the stretcher bullet.

While I tend to think CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, the evidence for this has largely evaporated.

If I recall, the whole thing is such a mess that Thompson spent much of his presentation laughing.

Pat: I have been travelling, and stayed away from the computer until this evening.

Yes, Thompson was laughing, but I didn't see a laughing matter.

There is no reason to dispute the government's claim that CE399 was the stretcher bullet. It was Thompson himself

who first argued that the condition of 399 was the very proof that it was planted. Thompson was only underminig himself

at Duquesne when he argued that 399 was not the stretcher bullet. Dr. Thompson was right the first time, IMO,

and should have quit while ahead.

Edited July 3, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, you yourself said that the argument could be made that all this was planted evidence just a couple of months ago!

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that 399 was planted -- on a stretcher in Parkland.

Arguments that 399 was not found on a stretcher in Parkland are UNPROVABLE, and simply another rabbit-hole in this case.

They are unprovable because they depend on eyewitness memory,

which has been proven unreliable in repeated scientific experiments.

But I won't elaborate for Mr. Di Eugenio's benefit,

since nearly everything I say goes right over his silly head!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I just proved it above.

You're a legend in your own mind.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Where is the tape?

You have asked that question before,

and each time I have answered it.

Logically that means that you are either

unable to read or

unable to understand.

Which one is it Jim?

[Andric Perez]

Here's my confusion: I believe CE-399 was planted. Most CT believe that Tomlinson found the bullet on the little boy's stretcher. If the bullet in the little boy's stretcher was a lead-colored pointed-nose bullet, then one would have to believe that two bullets were planted, as a result of a mistake made by the conspirators, who planted the wrong bullet in the first place.

Isn't this scenario a little hard to believe? Isn't it more reasonable to believe that the copper bullet was planted in the wrong stretcher, period? Didn't the conspirators know what kind of ammunition and rifle they were going to use as decoy?

Edited July 3, 2011 by Andric Perez

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Isn't it more reasonable to believe that the copper bullet was planted in the wrong stretcher, period? Didn't the conspirators know what kind of ammunition and rifle they were going to use as decoy?

Yes Andric, that is by far the more reasonable interpretation.

But good luck in expecting Mr. Di Eugenio to be reasonable.

Santa Claus will come down your chimney before that happens.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Many of us do not think you have any such tape.

So in addition to his longtime habit of impugning my motives,

Jim D. is now explicitly calling me a xxxx.

But observing the quality of your thinking on this thread I can say

frankly my dear Jim, I don't give a damn

what you think.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Didn't the conspirators know what kind of ammunition and rifle they were going to use as decoy?

Any number of possibilities exist. However, this assumption presupposes that the conspirators wished for only a single weapon to be discovered, and that it would lead to a single gunman, LHO.

For a variety of reasons, I would respectfully suggest that’s an unsafe assumption. Based upon the evidentiary record, more than one weapon was found in the TSBD, and since not all of the gunfire originated from there, even more weapons were used, or one more at the very least.

We know from the historical record that the Commission did all in its power to scuttle any and all data that suggested more than one gunman, by fair means and foul. But we have no reason to believe that this was the intent of the conspirators. It is entirely feasible they may have wished to leave evidence that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald’s proximity to it indicating it was Communist in origin. That was certainly the charge originally filed against him by Bill Alexander.

I think that at all times it is imperative to distinguish between: 1) what the evidence suggests the conspirators intended or did; and 2), what the Commission did to misconstrue, misinterpret and diminish that evidence, because the two aren’t necessarily synonymous.

Let me just add in closing that Andric and Zach are younger, newer members here whose contributions have been insightful and well reasoned. Their posts are a pleasure to read and I hope they will continue to make their mark. Many older hands here can learn much from them. And some already have, to their chagrin and dismay.

[Andric Perez]

We know from the historical record that the Commission did all in its power to scuttle any and all data that suggested more than one gunman, by fair means and foul. But we have no reason to believe that this was the intent of the conspirators. It is entirely feasible they may have wished to leave evidence that it was a conspiracy, with Oswald’s proximity to it indicating it was Communist in origin.

Fair point.