CE 399's BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY

[Gil Jesus]

Commission Exhibit 2011 ( 24 H 412 ) shows the break in the chain of custody of bullet 399.

"Darrell C. Tomlinson...cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O. P. Wright."

"Mr. O.P. Wright could not positively identify C1 ( CE 399 ) as the bullet that was found on November 22, 1963."

"Special Agent Richard E. Johnson, United States Secret Service, could not identify this bullet as the one he obtained from O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital, Dallas Texas, and gave to James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963."

"James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, advised that he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnson and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963."

All four of the people who handled the "stretcher bullet" before it came into the possession of the FBI could not identify CE 399 as being that bullet.

[John Navin]

Amazing, ain't it? And it's not just CE399. Not a single piece of evidence reliably and convincingly ties LHO to the deed. Most folks in American get this, but it remains a state secret of some kind which must never be uttered in official for-the-record circles.

[Terry Adams]

Also, something I have mentioned before. That barrel of the rifle on the sixth floor would have smelled of gunpowder. Anyone that has shot a deer rifle knows that you can smell the powder hours later. Oswald's gun was found less tha one hour after the assassination. I believe that at least one of the guys that handled the gun would have stuck their nose to the end of the barrel. i would have!

[John Dolva]

For me, these are the sort of simple questions that helps to keep me on the conspiracy side, not to say that there are not many macro issues in the history of the times that, to me, also makes it pretty convincing. (2bits)

[Daniel Gallup]

Everyone here knows where I stand on this issue with CE 399.

But how could the WC ignore this key point?

Further, John brings up another related issue: what important piece of evidence in this case does not have a break in the chain?

I mean take the shells and bullets in the TIppit shooting.

Take the revolver Oswald allegedly used in that case. Where is the evidence he ever picked it up?

Take the palmprint that was not there in Dallas, not there in Washington, but suddenly appears like six days later at the DPD.

One can go on and on. But the point is that any law enforcement official knows that these kinds of things do not happen in a normal case, simply because professionals know better. They know how to mark and date evidence since they have been trained to do that.

This is one of the telltale points that makes the WC the joke it is.

And what makes it worse is that almost every one of these WC guys was an attorney.

Jim, you keep missing the most important break in the chain of possession: the president's body. It shows up in a shipping casket at 6:35 - 6:40 in the back of the Bethesda Morgue. It doesn't matter when and how the perps got control of the body. What matters is that it's not where it's supposed to be -- in the Dallas coffin. All other breaks in the chain of possession pale in comparison with this one. Best, Daniel

[Gil Jesus]

But the point is that any law enforcement official knows that these kinds of things do not happen in a normal case, simply because professionals know better. They know how to mark and date evidence since they have been trained to do that.

This is one of the telltale points that makes the WC the joke it is.

And what makes it worse is that almost every one of these WC guys was an attorney.

Which allowed them to be able, to some degree, to coverup the crime. You COULD get a screw up here or there in the evidence. Sometimes it happens and when it does, you hope that it's not bad enough to destroy the case. BUT WHEN EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS QUESTIONABLE, how could anyone not believe that "something is rotten in Denmark" ?

And why did it only happen in the case against Oswald ?

Why didn't it happen in the case against Ruby ? Didn't the same authorities handle the evidence in both cases ?

This case is rife with evidence tampering, witness intimidation, falsification of affidavits and flat out lying.

And the shame of the American mainstream media is that not only do they accept this fairy tale as fact, they continue to try to "prove" the case.

Perhaps there is no "smoking gun" that will direct us to the persons responsible for this crime, but the one thing we CAN do is to show to the world and to future generations, that the official story, as it was told to us, was not the truth.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

But how could the WC ignore this key point?

The Commission and its staff executed its "investigation" under the presumption that Oswald was guilty.

Examination of Commission memos from the period of January-March, 1964 refer to Oswald's guilt and what the Commission had to do to prove it.

A January 11 "progess report" from Earl Warren to the other members refers to a Rankin "outline" whose subject headings included " 2.) LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY" and " ( 3. ) LEE HARVEY OSWALD: background and POSSIBLE MOTIVES."

So by early January, the Commission had already accepted Oswald's guilt before it even heard from it's first witness.

BTW, that first witness ( Marina Oswald ) testified on February 3, 1964. ( 1 H 1 )

In the section, "LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY", under the heading "murder of Tippit" there is a subheading "EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING OSWALD'S GUILT".

Even though the FBI didn't get the Tippit bullets until March 16, 1964 ( 3 H 474 ) and the Commission didn't hear testimony from the first Tippit murder witness ( Markham ) until March 26th. ( 3 H 304 )

In this same section of the outline is "EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING OSWALD AS THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY" , again a presumption of Oswald's guilt because in January 1964, the Commission HAD NOT YET ANALYZED A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE !!!

I can go on and on and on.....but you folks get the idea.

[Terry Adams]

For me, these are the sort of simple questions that helps to keep me on the conspiracy side, not to say that there are not many macro issues in the history of the times that, to me, also makes it pretty convincing. (2bits)

[Michael Hogan]

Yep Gil.

This is one of the worst aspects of the WC. The fact that a panel of lawyers and a staff of lawyers forgot all about proper legal procedure.

Mainly the rather key aspect of the system: the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty.

As I have said often, the WC proves the dangers of an unrestrained investigation. And "fact-finders" who don't give a damn about facts.

It was clear from the outset that the Commissioners did not consider Oswald to be "on trial." Hence, there was no need to give the late Oswald any form of representation.

There was no need to adhere to any of the rules of law when they did not want to.

The Warren Commission's decision not to hold open hearings was a slap in the face to the truth.

Even attorneys across the country and around the world that believed Oswald was probably guilty knew he didn't get a fair shake.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Josiah Thompson]

It's even stranger than it appears. Gary Aguilar and I did some work on CE 399 about five years ago.

We can track C1 (that is CE 399) to the Dallas Field Office in June 1964. We found a memorandum anonymously authored by someone in Washington at FBI headquarters that said Agent Bardwell D. Odum showed C1 to both Tomlinson and Wright on particular days in June 1964 and they said that C1 was similar to he bullet they handled on November 22nd. I found Odum who turned out to be a delightful guy in his 80s. He lived in Dallas and practiced law for a long time after leaving the FBI. He said he was certain he had never had C1 in his custody and had never shown it to either Tomlinson or Wright. Gary interviewed Odum over the phone and we both visited his home and reinterviewed him together where he reiterated the phone interview.

In addition, I understand that John Hunt has discovered some discrepancies or problems with the FBI Lab's paperwork on the receipt of C1. It is clear that FBI Agent Elmer Todd testified that he put his initials on the bullet he turned over to the FBI Lab. Todd's initials are not on CE 399.

So it gets curiouser and curiouser...

JT

quote name='Gil Jesus' date='19 July 2011 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1311112673' post='230881']

Commission Exhibit 2011 ( 24 H 412 ) shows the break in the chain of custody of bullet 399.

"Darrell C. Tomlinson...cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O. P. Wright."

"Mr. O.P. Wright could not positively identify C1 ( CE 399 ) as the bullet that was found on November 22, 1963."

"Special Agent Richard E. Johnson, United States Secret Service, could not identify this bullet as the one he obtained from O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital, Dallas Texas, and gave to James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963."

"James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, advised that he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnson and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963."

All four of the people who handled the "stretcher bullet" before it came into the possession of the FBI could not identify CE 399 as being that bullet.

[Gil Jesus]

Yep Gil.

This is one of the worst aspects of the WC. The fact that a panel of lawyers and a staff of lawyers forgot all about proper legal procedure.

Mainly the rather key aspect of the system: the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty.

As I have said often, the WC proves the dangers of an unrestrained investigation. And "fact-finders" who don't give a damn about facts.

IMO, the Report was nothing more than a brief for the prosecution.

There were serious problems with the evidence in the case that a non-partisan, fact-finding panel would have pursued.

This is why I laugh at those like Von Pein who say, "well, they made some mistakes."

These guys were lawyers. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

And the paper trail proves it.

[Michael Hogan]

But Mike, to say LHO did not get a "fair shake" from the WC is a monumental understatement.

I mean it would be better to say that he did not get the single benefit of any doubt, let alone a fair shake.

It is a monumental understatement.

But in context, my remark referred to attorneys that believed Oswald was probably guilty. They were aware that

Oswald was not going to get a fair shake simply by virtue of the fact that he had no representation.

They knew this before the Warren Report was even published.

What the Warren Commission did was nothing short of criminal.