C399 and Elmer Todd's initials

[Greg Doudna]

Update: Nov 13, 2021-- a superior photo of C399 from NIST brought to attention by Micah has shown my analysis below on C399 from NARA photos is incorrect, and I retract the below. gd

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Greg Doudna

[Micah Mileto]

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

[Steve Roe]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is a widely circulated claim, first made in an essay by John Hunt presented at a JFK Lancer Conference in 2005, concerning a claimed absence of initials of FBI agent Elmer L. Todd on C399, the so-called "Magic Bullet". According to the claim, even though Elmer Todd testified that he marked his initials on C399 and then testified that he again verified finding his initials that he had put there when he later checked C399, John Hunt investigated and found no such initials were there. Based on that report countless books and articles discussing the JFK assassination have taken the supposed missing Elmer Todd initials as having the status of a fact. But it is simply not accurate, it is not true. C399 does have the initials of Elmer Todd. And this is not a matter of subjective or divided opinion or reliance upon expert testimony, but a simple matter that a mistake was made, an honest mistake on John Hunt's part but a mistake nevertheless, simply a matter of fact that should be corrected, as in stop claiming it and perhaps issue an error correction where appropriate. If the interest is being accurate.

This correction in one way of looking at it is not too important, for it changes nothing concerning the issues with C399 either way. (Seriously, it does not change the issues raised relative to C399 either way.) It matters simply on the level that something that has been claimed to be true is not true, and therefore should not be presented as if it is true. It is an error that should have been caught and corrected before now. I posted an earlier version of this on another topic discussion but it received little notice or comment so am reposting as a dedicated topic here for reference.

Below I show Elmer L. Todd's initials, "ELT", on C399 on two of the NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) color photos of C399 (the entire set of NARA photos of C399 can be seen here: https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-CE399). The initials "ELT" are cut off at edges in each case in the two photos, one photo showing the upper parts of the ELT letters, and the other showing the lower parts of the ELT letters.

When I first studied these photos and identified these initials, I had many reservations and self-doubts about what I was seeing based on a misunderstanding: I had thought or supposed, or read (I forget which) that John Hunt had reported his finding (of an absence of the Elmer Todd initials) based on personal examination of the physical item, C399, in the National Archives. That gave me pause, because surely the initials would be visible, and could not have been missed, if the item were viewed in person (since the initials are visible in the photos). I was baffled: how could John Hunt (or anyone) have looked at the item and reported the initials were not there?

That mystery was cleared up for me earlier this evening when I found John Hunt's article setting forth his finding: "Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet" (https://fdocuments.net/reader/full/ce399-chain-of-custody). In the article I discovered John Hunt did not make his finding based on examination of the physical item in the National Archives. He made it from photos, the NARA photos. He had no superior information to what I, or anyone else here, have and can have equally. In fact, we have better information than John Hunt did (through no fault of his), as explained below.

In Figure 5 of his article, John Hunt shows four views of C399, NARA photos taken from different angles. Then Hunt gives his initials identifications with arrows to where he saw them. The photo images in the Figure 5 themselves are too unclear and small to be able to see markings, but the photos on the Mary Ferrell site at the link above, if blown up on a computer screen, make the writing or scratching of initials on C399 clear and visible. 

Whereas John Hunt's Figure 5 shows four views of C399, the NARA photos actually show five views of CE399, pictures taken from different angles all the way around (photos #1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of seven total NARA for C399 on the Mary Ferrell site at the link). John Hunt's Figure 5 shows NARA photos #1, 2, 3, and 7 but not #4. It has dawned on me that the reason John Hunt's illustration shows only four of the NARA photos may be because that is all that were made available to him. If so, the one missing (#4) that he may never have seen may help explain and render more understandable how he made the mistake. For the #4 photo--the one not in Hunt's Figure 5--shows initials of Robert Frazier (RF). But John Hunt mistakenly identified Elmer Todd's initials ELT, which appear as parts of three letters in NARA #1 and the other parts in NARA #7, as Robert Frazier's (RF). If NARA #4 with the real Robert Frazier initials had been seen by John Hunt, I believe he would not have made the error in calling the parts of ELT initials RF's, for the error would have been apparent. All of this says to me that this was likely not a matter that John Hunt ignored #4, but rather that at the time he made his analysis, for whatever reason he never saw #4, never had it, did not know it existed. If he requested photos, whoever sent him photos sent only 4 out of the 5 NARA photo angles of C399 that actually exist.

Here are my notes and readings of the five NARA photos and initials thereon. The image quality of the NARA color photos on the Mary Ferrell site is such that these can be personally checked by anyone who wishes to do so. Who knows, although I think I have these right, maybe somebody can improve upon one or more of these readings. (References below to "Left" and "Right" refer to the upright bullet photos shown in the John Hunt Figure 5.)

NARA photo #1 = No. 4 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) on the Left, and RF (Frazier) on the Right. My readings: CK (Killon) on the Left, and parts of ELT (Todd) on the Right, cut off by the Right edge.

NARA photo #2 = No. 2 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) on the Right. My reading: I can see nothing.

NARA photo #3 = No. 3 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as having JH (Cunningham) in the middle. My reading: JH (Cunningham).

NARA photo #4 = [missing in Hunt Figure]. My reading: RF (Frazier) in the middle.

NARA photo #7 = No. 1 in the Hunt Figure. Identified by Hunt as RF (Frazier) on the Left, and CK (Killon) on the Right. My reading: parts of ELT (Todd) on the Left cut off at the Left edge, and indecipherable in shadow if writing exists on the Right. 

The conclusion: the Elmer Todd missing initials on C399 has been a mistake. Elmer Todd said he marked C399, then he checked it again and confirmed he saw his initials on it, and there is nothing amiss in Elmer Todd's testimony on that; the color photos of C399 of NARA show his initials in agreement with his testimony.

 

 

 

Greg, yes it was marked by Elmer Lee Todd. This nonsense is now in Oliver Stone's 2-hour film, written by Jim DiEugenio. about Todd not marking the bullet. Here's further proof.

showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)

 

Yes, it was initialed on the nose of the bullet by Elmer Lee Todd. Thanks for debunking this crazy nonsense. 

showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)

Edited November 13, 2021 by Steve Roe

[Micah Mileto]

Sorry, not true, not Robert Frazier's initials! See how clear the R and the F look when the bullet was digitally recreated in a computer https://www.nist.gov/image/kennedy-stretcher-bullet-digital

Edited November 13, 2021 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

I can't find pictures from NIST that show the whole surface area of the bullet model. That would probably give us the final nail in the problem of "Todd's missing initials"

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Sorry, not true, not Robert Frazier's initials! See how clear the R and the F look when the bullet was digitally recreated in a computer https://www.nist.gov/image/kennedy-stretcher-bullet-digital

 

You are right Micah. The NIST photo, which I had not seen until your link, is a superior photo, and it does show "RF" in the position I was reading "ELT" from the NARA photos. I was mistaken, and I apologize. With that ELT reading removed--because it clearly is RF and not ELT in the superior NIST photo--I have to eat crow. With that reading of Elmer Todd's initials gone, there do not seem to be Elmer Todd initials anywhere identifiable on C399 in the photos. Or if there are, someone else will have to find them, because I cannot now.

Stu Wexler also privately informed me that two well-known names did go to the National Archives to check the artifact, C399, in person, and found no Elmer Todd initials. And without any question, in-person examination of the artifact is superior to any photograph.   

I apologize for the error.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Greg Doudna

[Micah Mileto]

18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

 

Stu Wexler also privately informed me that two well-known names did go to the National Archives to check the artifact, C399, in person, and found no Elmer Todd initials. And without any question, in-person examination of the artifact is superior to any photograph.  

 

Never heard of that, thanks for sharing!

[Stu Wexler]

To clarify, I am not sure if their express purpose was to look for the initials. But they definitely did it as part of whatever their overall objective.

Also: the HSCA Firearms Panel bullet worksheets included detailed descriptions of key markings/characteristics. Every initial set was noted: except Todd's.

There is an argument that Nicol initials are not on CE399 and he undoubtedly initialed it when he did a follow up examination. Hence, they argue, both sets of initials disappeared due to oxidation. I focused on this in a Lancer presentation in 2015. Nicol appeared to mark the lead (not copper) part of other rounds. That is what you would normally do if you don't want to "contaminate" evidence (the jacket surface that retains ballistics markings) in any way. Well there was small portion of exposed lead on CE399 rounds, at the base.  That was removed for chemical analysis by the FBI years before. In other words, it is distinctly possible that Nicol's initials or markings were on that exposed lead on the base and were removed. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

David Mantik was one of our best interviews.  He was our confirming witness, and he had another witness with him at NARA.

Back then you actually got to see the exhibit in person.  I think Stu was referring to this.

From a message Dave sent me today:

"My notebook is at home--as usual I am away (in Ohio now) caring for cancer patients.

 

In June 1994, Steve Majewski and I examined the actual bullet at NARA and carefully reviewed the initials. Todd's was missing. My notebook documents this.

 

See my lecture for The Future of Freedom Foundation earlier this year: https://www.fff.org/freedom-in-motion/video/jfks-head-wounds/

David Mantik"

 

I don't see how anyone could realistically ask for more proof of this.  I would appreciate it if Greg would PM the celebrating Roe before he spreads the wrong information all over Facebook.

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't see how anyone could realistically ask for more proof of this.  I would appreciate it if Greg would PM the celebrating Roe before he spreads the wrong information all over Facebook.

I did, and I apologized for that mistake for which I, not Steve Roe, am responsible. 

[Stu Wexler]

Mantik was one but there is another. Only not sharing because I would want to ask him first.

But the HSCA firearms panel is just as devastating. They used microscopes and visual and ID'd all the other initials but Todd's and they weren't looking to make a point about the chain of evidence.

[Stu Wexler]

23 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Greg, yes it was marked by Elmer Lee Todd. This nonsense is now in Oliver Stone's 2-hour film, written by Jim DiEugenio. about Todd not marking the bullet. Here's further proof.

showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)

 

Yes, it was initialed on the nose of the bullet by Elmer Lee Todd. Thanks for debunking this crazy nonsense. 

showDoc.html (maryferrell.org)

Steve you are missing the point so let me clarify it. Elmer Todd initialed *a* bullet recovered from Texas. He later identified his initials on *that same* bullet. If that bullet were CE399 his initials should have been etched in like everyone else who later received it. They are not. What happened to them?  You have to argue that they faded away such that no one who has seen it, both live and in high res photos (that you yourself can look at) can find them. Yet initials for other people at the lab who engraved their initials at the same time as Todd, per FBI procedure, are on CE399 and all the other ballistics material those lab techs engraved. So you would have to believe Todd's initials disappeared while the others' markings somehow stood the test of time.  *Or* you can believe that another bullet came from Dallas, the one Elmer Todd engraved, is not CE399 and was removed from the evidence stream.  Which one is more likely?

[Micah Mileto]

2 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:

Steve you are missing the point so let me clarify it. Elmer Todd initialed *a* bullet recovered from Texas. He later identified his initials on *that same* bullet. If that bullet were CE399 his initials should have been etched in like everyone else who later received it. They are not. What happened to them?  You have to argue that they faded away such that no one who has seen it, both live and in high res photos (that you yourself can look at) can find them. Yet initials for other people at the lab who engraved their initials at the same time as Todd, per FBI procedure, are on CE399 and all the other ballistics material those lab techs engraved. So you would have to believe Todd's initials disappeared while the others' markings somehow stood the test of time.  *Or* you can believe that another bullet came from Dallas, the one Elmer Todd engraved, is not CE399 and was removed from the evidence stream.  Which one is more likely?

I feel like the official story on CE 399 is now "Elmer Todd handled the real stretcher bullet, but he forgot to write his initials on it, and just forgot about it or lied about it later because a Government man didn't want to admit that he forgot a crucial step in handling evidence".

[Stu Wexler]

The problem with that is that it was routine and required and so you would have to think that in the most important moment of his career Elmer Todd just dropped the ball even though it appears he would have engraved it right when everyone else did. I guess it is possible. My better bet: CE399 deflected off an oak tree limb into the wet dirt in DP.  It may be the bullet Walther found. A separate bullet from Parkland is sent earlier, the one engraved by all the techs including Todd. This other bullet,  presents a problem bc it is inconsistent with other rounds. So it is deep sixed (for fear that any conspiracy leads to WW3.) Once that bullet is trashed, the one that arrives from Dallas that struck the dirt and becomes CE399 must account for wounds it did not create. Don Thomas independently believes something similar. 

[Micah Mileto]

14 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

The problem with that is that it was routine and required and so you would have to think that in the most important moment of his career Elmer Todd just dropped the ball even though it appears he would have engraved it right when everyone else did. I guess it is possible. My better bet: CE399 deflected off an oak tree limb into the wet dirt in DP.  It may be the bullet Walther found. A separate bullet from Parkland is sent earlier, the one engraved by all the techs including Todd. This other bullet,  presents a problem bc it is inconsistent with other rounds. So it is deep sixed (for fear that any conspiracy leads to WW3.) Once that bullet is trashed, the one that arrives from Dallas that struck the dirt and becomes CE399 must account for wounds it did not create. Don Thomas independently believes something similar. 

Could CE 399 have been substituted AFTER Elmer Todd's Warren Commission testimony?