Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

As I’m sure most of you know, Secret Service agents, Richard Johnsen and James Rowley, who examined the bullet that was found on a stretcher in the basement of Parkland hospital, refused to verify that it was the same bullet that came back from the FBI labs. Lone nut advocates like David Von Pein have argued that the reason for their refusal must have been that they did not mark the bullet as was standard procedure in law enforcement, and so could not be certain that it was the same one.

Of course, the totally unsupported presumption that these agents failed to mark the bullet, breaking the chain of possession and rendering themselves incapable of verification, makes little sense. By far, the most logical explanation is that they did indeed, mark this important evidence and refused to verify CE399 because their initials were nowhere to be found on it.

Confirmation of that fact, came from an unlikely source - David Von Pein, to whom I give much credit for reporting his discovery. This is a copy of an email he received from Gerald Blaine, in response to his request for information regarding this issue. From David’s website:

David,

Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple of weeks.

1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick [Johnsen] handed it over to them.

Hope that this helps.

Regards

Jerry

Of course the statement, which Blaine later clarified as coming from Clint Hill, who had spoken with Johnsen about this, clearly confirmed the reason why Johnsen could not verify the FBI’s replacement for the Tomlinson bullet. He couldn’t have been any clearer.

“The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.”

Poor David must have been devastated. He frantically, sent off another email, explaining to Blaine (a fanatical nutter himself), the consequences of his claim that Johnsen initialed the bullet. Blaine responded as best he could, promptly amending his earlier statement:

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, within a day or so, Johnsen no longer marked the bullet. He must have only marked the envelope. Needless to say, initialing an envelope is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. But this becomes a moot question, due to the simple fact that Johnsen’s initials are nowhere to be found on the envelope which contained the original bullet. John Hunt confirmed that when he photographed the envelope.

fig1.jpg

David’s last, desperate attempt at damage control was to suggest that Hunt overlooked the initials which must have been on the other side of the envelope. Of course, the suggestion that Hunt was so stupid that he didn’t bother to turn it over, is just ridiculous.

The simple fact is, that CE399 could not have been the same bullet that Tomlinson found. It was also not the same bullet that wounded John Connally, since DA Wade, officer Bobby Nolan, and even Connally himself, confirmed that the actual bullet which fell from his leg, was picked up by a nurse. She then, passed it on to Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD the next morning.

The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming. Most of it can be found in this article:

http://jfkhistory.co...ellArticle.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI---

For anybody who wants to read the whole story about this matter, including the common-sense inferences I draw from it, instead of just Robert Harris' conspiratorial slant on it, go here:

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service And Commission Exhibit 399

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

At Duncan MacRae's forum, Robert Harris said:

If I presented an unsigned memo from say Arlen Specter, saying something that supported conspiracy, what would your response be? Wouldn't you sign up for the EFS ["Everything's Fake Society"] too?

Why would I do that? Just because it's UNSIGNED means I automatically should assume it's "fake"?

Nonsense.

Bob, do you REALLY believe that this note pictured below is a FAKE note, with somebody OTHER than Richard E. Johnsen of the Secret Service typing that note and then pretending that it was written by Johnsen?

Richard-Johnsen-Note-Regarding-Stretcher-Bullet.jpg

Also: What do you think the above note just MIGHT have been stapled to, Bob? (Hint -- There are staple holes in the CE399 envelope too.)

Are those holes PROOF that Johnsen's note was stapled to that envelope? No. Of course not. But when we READ the contents of the note (in conjunction with the staple hole at the top of it, with the word "attached" being the key word here), isn't it pretty obvious that Johnsen DID staple his note to the envelope that held the stretcher bullet?

Please tell me, Bob, WHY my above brief analysis regarding that note and the envelope is NOT a reasonable analysis? What makes it so UNreasonable in your view?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well well, what do we have here?

Oh ... just another conspiracy theorist selectively quoting a source in order to affirm a baseless assertion.

And another two blindly agreeing.

How unusual!

Paul.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to post
Share on other sites

At Duncan MacRae's forum, Robert Harris said:

If I presented an unsigned memo from say Arlen Specter, saying something that supported conspiracy, what would your response be? Wouldn't you sign up for the EFS ["Everything's Fake Society"] too?

Why would I do that? Just because it's UNSIGNED means I automatically should assume it's "fake"?

Nonsense.

Bob, do you REALLY believe that this note pictured below is a FAKE note, with somebody OTHER than Richard E. Johnsen of the Secret Service typing that note and then pretending that it was written by Johnsen?

Richard-Johnsen-Note-Regarding-Stretcher-Bullet.jpg

Also: What do you think the above note just MIGHT have been stapled to, Bob? (Hint -- There are staple holes in the CE399 envelope too.)

Are those holes PROOF that Johnsen's note was stapled to that envelope? No. Of course not. But when we READ the contents of the note (in conjunction with the staple hole at the top of it, with the word "attached" being the key word here), isn't it pretty obvious that Johnsen DID staple his note to the envelope that held the stretcher bullet?

Please tell me, Bob, WHY my above brief analysis regarding that note and the envelope is NOT a reasonable analysis? What makes it so UNreasonable in your view?

David, it doesn't matter whether it was fake or not. Typing a note is not at all the same as marking the actual evidence. And the note was dated long before Johnsen was asked to verify CE399. This is a pathetically poor argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well well, what do we have here?

Oh ... just another conspiracy theorist selectively quoting a source in order to affirm a baseless assertion.

And other two blindly agreeing.

How unusual!

Paul.

Paul, none of this is about how people respond to my article. It is about the verifiable evidence. Rather than go the ad hominem route, why not simply examine the evidence as objectively as you can, and form your conclusions based on the actual facts of the issue? This is the article. I recommend reading it all. Some of the most important facts come toward the end.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Hi Ray:

I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Hi Ray:

I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Gary, my mistake. The fragments were in a see thru plastic container not a see thru envelope. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read and considered the entire entry on David Von Pein's website, Bob. Why don't you?

LOL.

From the guy who goes to Ken Rahn's site to revive the deader than a doornail NAA bullet lead analysis.

Talk about rich.

THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read and considered the entire entry on David Von Pein's website, Bob. Why don't you?

LOL.

From the guy who goes to Ken Rahn's site to revive the deader than a doornail NAA bullet lead analysis.

Talk about rich.

THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff?

Gary Mack quotes the NAA analysis faster than a jackrabbit. Is that surprising?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, the envelope Nolan received was a "small brown envelope" The enverlope, from Bell, to plain clothes agents, containing the fragments was a see thru plastic envelope.

Hi Ray:

I don't have any documentation in front of me at the moment but I am curious as to the source that the "envelope" Bell gave to "plain clothes agents" was of the see through variety. Can you enlighten me?

Thanks,

Gary Murr

Gary, my mistake. The fragments were in a see thru plastic container not a see thru envelope. My bad.

You were correct that the fragments were placed into a transparent container, but the container was placed into a small envelope. This is a photo of both the envelope and the container.

ce842.jpg

Look closely at those tiny fragments. Does anyone actually believe that Audrey Bell showed that to DA Wade and a cop and told them that it was a single, whole bullet that came from Connally's gurney??

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

From the guy who goes to Ken Rahn's site to revive the deader than a doornail NAA bullet lead analysis.

Talk about rich.

THUD! NAA analysis? There's still someone out there who thinks that's serious stuff?

Jimbo thinks that neutron activation analysis is junk science. He's wrong of course, but he never admits that he's wrong.

I say David, you have a Ph.D in Junk Science. Why don't you educate Jimbo?

Edited by Paul Baker
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
×
×
  • Create New...