Who was the nurse collecting the TRUE bullet falling from Connally's thigh?

[David Von Pein]

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

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I find the irony thick and delicious.

Take your findings elsewhere.

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

Take your findings elsewhere.

Take your attitude elsewhere.

[Michael Clark]

24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Take your attitude elsewhere.

Debate something, David. Leave your snark and perversion wherever you keep your snark and perversion.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Debate something, David.

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

[Robert Harris]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Debate something, David. Leave your snark and perversion wherever you keep your snark and perversion.

Hey! Don't underestimate David.

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

[David Von Pein]

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?

Edited August 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/13/2017 at 4:28 AM, Michael Clark said:

On 8/13/2017 at 3:40 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Excuse me, not to interrupt the flow of this interesting debate, but what were the official finding results of the Parkland hospital analysis of the paraffin tests on Oswald?

"A paraffin test was applied to Oswald's hands and right cheek; his hands reacted positively, whereas his cheek did not."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

While the statement highlighted in red is correct, it leaves out important facts. Which is unfortunate because it may lead people to believe that the paraffin tests proved that Oswald shot a gun that day. The tests proved no such thing. Even the Warren Commission Report states so.

This topic was discussed in great detail on this thread. The discussion died out when it was revealed that the Warren Commission threw the paraffin test evidence out. Here is what the WC concluded regarding the paraffin tests:

Warren Commission Conclusions

• The paraffin tests provide no evidence that Oswald fired his revolver that day.
  The FBI ran tests from which they and the WC concluded that the nitrate test is unreliable. As for the NAA test, the WC concluded that the barium and antimony on Oswald's hands may have come from his handling the rifle and revolver.
   
• The paraffin tests provide no evidence that Oswald fired his rifle that day.
  The FBI ran control tests from which they and the WC concluded that the nitrate test is unreliable. As for the NAA test of the cheek, the WC found the result to be inconclusive due to contamination of the cast.

If I recall correctly, it took careful reading of the WC Report's text to realize that it says what I report here. As though the writer was trying to downplay the significance of what he was writing.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Joe Bauer]

Thanks Sandy. Whew, that thread you linked me to was long, but totally informative.

[Robert Harris]

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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

Of course, but the study of Yogi Bear doesn't exactly contribute to ones analytical skills, IMO

But seriously David, I wish you would become objective and evaluate ALL the evidence, both pro and con.

When I got that way, all kinds of lights came on. I learned that one bullet probably DID pass through two men, that the shot at 313 DID come from the rear and even that Oswald probably took part in the shooting - all things that I previously denied.

Ridiculing me for being skeptical about a totally unverified document, which contradicts numerous witnesses and other hard evidence, makes for a very poor argument.

Even James Hosty has admitted that the FBI was engaged in a coverup then, due to fears that a conspiracy would lead to a nuclear confrontation with Russia. That fact alone, eliminates your right to ridicule the notion that they would fabricate evidence - something they had done in other cases as well.

Consider one of many problems with this thing. Supposedly, it was passed on to Lt. Alexander, an officer with the DPD. If it is legit, then why didn't Alexander pass this critical, chain-of-custody evidence on to either the DPD or the FBI? According to Gary, it never left Alexander's office until it went to the HSCA, years later. It makes no sense that he would just forget about something of that magnitude.

Nolan BTW, never said that he even signed a receipt, either when I interviewed him or Weldon Hartford. He did say however, that he didn't initial the envelope until he was at Will Fritz's office. Bell would never have released her envelope to anyone who didn't initial it and she was required to initial it also, but her initials are nowhere to be found on CE-842.

And then there's the little problem of Bell placing four tiny fragments into a container and then stating that it was a single fragment.

It just goes on and on and on and on, David. You need to balance the verifiable evidence against your very dubious, unverified evidence, including your newly discovered talent for handwriting analysis

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited August 14, 2017 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Redlich wrote an internal Warren Commission memo that essentially said the paraffin tests were exculpatory.

 

Always nice when you catch them red handed.

[Robert Harris]

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

David, you keep trying to exonerate the FBI by citing the FBI. Both of those FBI reports contradict the interviewees. NO ONE outside of the FBI ever claimed that Bell said that she gave her envelope to a uniformed cop - NO ONE. And she certainly would not have said that four fragments were one, after previously  telling the Dallas District attorney and officer Nolan that it was a whole bullet, from Connally's stretcher.

You need to listen to Nolan's FIRST HAND statements, most of which were corroborated by other witnesses.

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.

No, he was just regurgitating what the FBI had already told him.

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....

YES!!! Frazier knew all along that Bell processed FOUR fragments and there is no doubt that that is what Bell told them in their interview of her on 11/23/63. They lied because they needed to substitute her envelope for the one Nolan had, which really did contain one object. They also lied when they claimed that Nolan said he had a "fragment". How could he have said that after being told that it was a whole bullet??

Nolan also stated that there was nothing written on his envelope at the time he received it.

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.

That's impossible, David. Bell placed those four fragments into a plastic container and put the container in her envelope on the afternoon of 11/22/63. Your latest theory would have someone else pulling the envelope out of the evidence files and inserting three more fragments. That's ridiculous.

Bell told the truth on 11/23/63 but the FBI lied, just as they lied about what Nolan and said and lied about what Stinson told them. They also had Stinson claiming this was a "fragment", when he clearly stated in an interview with Ramparts magazine, that it was a whole bullet.

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"?

Please stop attributing things to me that I never said. I never accused Spector of anything related to this issue. And yes, I am certain that Frazier believed he needed to claim that there was only one fragment in that envelope. Their weight was irrelevant, since they were clearly visible and the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments".

FRAZIER LIED - deliberately and for an obvious purpose - to make it appear that Nolan had Bell's envelope.

And after all the years we have been discussing this, you STILL continue to evade the statements of Nolan and Wade. Wade stated.

"Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. "

Now, we might think that he was hitting the bottle early that day, except that Nolan heard the same thing and BOTH of their statements matched perfectly with what Connally said.

How do you explain that, David? It's not good enough to just say we can't trust witnesses. How do you explain the identical nature of the statements of those men?

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

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.)

Edited August 15, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein 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.)

Isn't there a video of Conally describing hearing something drop? I could swear I saw that video.