AUDIO: Odum denies showing CE 399 to either Tomlinson or Wright

[Gil Jesus]

On 6/17/2022 at 6:00 AM, Gil Jesus said:

CE 2011 says that FBI agent Bardwell Odum showed CE 399 to Parkland Hospital witnesses Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright.

But in this 2006 audio clip from an interview with Rex Bradford, Dr. Josiah Thompson explains what happened when Dr. Gary Aguilar contacted Odum and asked him about it.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2006_04_12_Thompson-on-bardwell-odum.mp3

Another point has to do with the handling of the evidence:

When the Commission asked the FBI to establish a chain of possession for almost 30 pieces of evidence, including CE 399,
the way the evidence was transported from Washington to Dallas and back to Washington was by registered airmail.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29

While it was in Dallas, there's no documentation indicating who in the Dallas Office had access to the evidence.
Given that Odum said he never handled the bullet, this is a grave mistake on the part of the FBI.
Talk about a break in the chain of possession.
ROFLMAO.

The right way to do this would have been for FBI HQ to have the evidence transported with one single agent.
Then that agent would interview the witnesses in Dallas, get their statements on FD-302 reports and accompany the evidence back to Washington.
This would maintain the chain of possession, avoid any chance of evidence tampering and give the Bureau the witness that it needed to prove everything was done by the book.

[Pat Speer]

On 6/19/2022 at 4:47 AM, Gil Jesus said:

There's also the question of why Odum's initials are not on CE 399 if he handled it to show Tomlinson and Wright.

At a certain point evidence is logged and signed out and people no longer leave their initials. Dozens of items were handled by the WC's lawyers and none of them were marked with their initials. 

[Gil Jesus]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

At a certain point evidence is logged and signed out and people no longer leave their initials. Dozens of items were handled by the WC's lawyers and none of them were marked with their initials. 

Where can we find the sign-out logs for the evidence ?

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Where can we find the sign-out logs for the evidence ?

It seems to me I saw the sheet for CE 399 in one of John Hunt's articles. Hopefully someone else will remember just where. In any event, the routing sheets were not published by the WC. 

[David Lifton]

On 6/17/2022 at 9:11 AM, Pat Speer said:

Tomlinson told Marcus in 66 and Golz in 77 that the FBI came out to the hospital and showed him a bullet. So it's not just the say-so of one report. As far as it being Odum, Tomlinson said he thought Shanklin showed it to him. Shanklin was the big boss in Dallas and I don't recall his going into the field on any other occasion. But I suppose it's possible he handled this himself and pretended it was Odum, in order to conceal his involvement from Hoover. He was the guy, after all, who ordered Hosty to destroy the note from Oswald...and then lied about it under oath. He may very well have handled this himself so that if Tomlinson and Wright said they were positive it wasn't the bullet, he could contain the damage. I would be willing to believe that's what happened, moreover, if Tomlinson hadn't told Marcus and Golz he thought the bullet shown him looked like the bullet he discovered. 

 

Re:  "Shanklin was the big boss in Dallas."  Yes; that's true.  Specifically, and using FBI terminology: Shanklin's position was designated --officially -- the "SAIC" of the FBI's Dallas Field Office.  ("SAIC" stands for "Special Agent in Charge,")  Shanklin's top assistant, who was delegated responsibility for handling the "Oswald" investigation, was Robert Gemberling (who was designated "ASAIC" ("Assistant to the SAIC", pronounced "Aye -Sack).  That is why, when navigating the voluminous FBI records -- you will find them all categorized as "Gemberling" reports. 

One other "filing fact" to keep in mind: the Gemberling report (FBI) volumes fell into two categories: "Oswald" and "Non-Oswald" (as I recall).  Most -- or much -- of what was labeled "Oswald" became the basis for the "essential" info in the WCR (or the 26volumes).  Much of the "Non-Oswald" material was simply sent to the National Archives.  Some of it (the "non-Oswald" stuff) was laid out in the "Speculations and Rumors" Appendix to the Warren Report.  (Appendix 13, as I recall). Furthermore:  when it came to "Speculation and Rumors,"  nothing was off limits and some of it was truly bizarre; and all of it seemed designed to reinforce (or promote) the idea that the FBI "had left no stone unturned" (my quotes).   For example (and if memory serves): I remember one allegation --which the FBI then duly investigated: the source insisted  he saw Oswald and Ruby at a State Fair, in Tupelo, Mississippi --with one playing the role of a clown, and the other being part of some  two-person clown act.  The FBI agent (or likely two of them) had to take the time to sit down, conduct the requisite interviews, and write up such nonsense, on the standard FBI 302 forms. (Really.  You can find these reports somewhere in the WC's 26 volumes).

Another FBI exhibit I shall never forget: upon first opening my copy of the Warren Report, there was one page with a carefully drawn exhibit: "Diagram of a hair."  Really!  "Diagram of a hair"!  The general impression given: the FBI had paid serious attention to detail.

What I have just described took place mostly in 1965 and the first half of 1966.  Matters took a much more serious turn (for me) in mid-Oct 1966, when -- shortly after the FBI 302 report of the two agents present at the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill) was released, I discovered the startling passage (on page three of their FBI report) describing what happened at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy: that when JFK's body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that there had been -- as in "already had been" --"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  What happened next?  See Best Evidence, Chapters 9 and beyond, for the rest of that story.  (DSL, 6/26/22, 12:05 AM PDT)

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by David Lifton