Why wasn't Darrell Tomlinson shown CE 399 and asked to identify it as the bullet he found ?

[Gil Jesus]

Tomlinson's WC testimony starts on page 128 of Volume 6. He's asked about the elevators, the stretchers and even of the construction of the stretchers. But he's never shown CE 399 and asked to identify it as the bullet he found. Why not ?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0069b.htm

 

And what of the others who handled the stretcher bullet ?

Why wasn't O.P. Wright ever called to give testimony ?

Why wasn't SS agent Richard Johnson ever called to give testimony ?

SS Chief James Rowley gave almost 40 pages of testimony.

Why wasn't he shown CE 399 and asked to identify it as the bullet he handled ?

Edited December 18, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Tomlinson's WC testimony starts on page 128 of Volume 6. He's asked about the elevators, the stretchers and even of the construction of the stretchers. But he's never shown CE 399 and asked to identify it as the bullet he found. Why not ?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0069b.htm

 

And what of the others who handled the stretcher bullet ?

Why wasn't O.P. Wright ever called to give testimony ?

Why wasn't SS agent Richard Johnson ever called to give testimony ?

SS Chief James Rowley gave almost 40 pages of testimony.

Why wasn't he shown CE 399 and asked to identify it as the bullet he handled ?

That’s a good point. I’ve come to believe that SA Odum probably did show Tomlinson and Wright the bullet and just forgot - since the FBI document ordering CE2011 states that the interviews are not to be put into report form (i.e. no 302 reports) because the interviews were requested by the WC - but that’s weird that the WC wouldn’t verify their own information. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59608#relPageId=39

The request came down two months after Tomlinson’s testimony, so it makes it look like the WC forgot to show Tomlinson the bullet and got the FBI to tie up their loose ends - but I have a tough time believing  the WC was that dumb. 

This was actually a bit of a pattern. Harry Holmes was never asked to authenticate some of the postal records he turned over to the FBI during his testimony, even forms that had his initials on them. The FBI quietly showed him a photograph of the forms two months later instead, and he still failed to  confirm the date he supposedly furnished the forms to the FBI. 

[Gil Jesus]

20 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The request came down two months after Tomlinson’s testimony, so it makes it look like the WC forgot to show Tomlinson the bullet and got the FBI to tie up their loose ends - but I have a tough time believing  the WC was that dumb. 

 

I don't buy the excuse that they "forgot" to show CE 399 to both Tomlinson AND Rowley and at the same time "forgot" to call Wright AND Johnsen. That's BS in my opinion.

BTW, they "forgot" to call Elmer Todd as well.

These people were lawyers and prosecutors. In addition, they pre-interviewed witnesses and knew exactly what the witnesses were going to say in advance of their testimony. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They avoided asking them to identify the bullet because they knew they wouldn't. Same goes for not calling Wright and Johnsen. If it was an innocent mistake, they would have called them back to get their sworn testimony on the record. Several witnesses made more than one appearance. I believe that it's much more likely that they tried to pull a fast one, but some junior staffer realized they hadn't established a chain-of-possession and made it known.

It was declared to be the "stretcher bullet" by Melvin Eisenberg, during his questioning of Robert Frazier on page 428 of Volume III :

"Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet that was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination."

Since when does legal counsel get to determine what is evidence by proclamation ?

Who testified that this bullet was found at Parkland Hospital ? Who identified it ?

No one. Eisenberg's proclamation that this was the bullet found in Parkland Hospital was not based on any document or testimony.

This bullet has no certifiable chain-of-possession prior to its being in the possession of FBI agent Elmer Todd.

And for that reason, if I were Oswald's lawyer, I would have gotten this "evidence" thrown out at trial.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I don't buy the excuse that they "forgot" to show CE 399 to both Tomlinson AND Rowley and at the same time "forgot" to call Wright AND Johnsen. That's BS in my opinion.

BTW, they "forgot" to call Elmer Todd as well.

These people were lawyers and prosecutors. In addition, they pre-interviewed witnesses and knew exactly what the witnesses were going to say in advance of their testimony. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They avoided asking them to identify the bullet because they knew they wouldn't. Same goes for not calling Wright and Johnsen. If it was an innocent mistake, they would have called them back to get their sworn testimony on the record. Several witnesses made more than one appearance. I believe that it's much more likely that they tried to pull a fast one, but some junior staffer realized they hadn't established a chain-of-possession and made it known.

It was declared to be the "stretcher bullet" by Melvin Eisenberg, during his questioning of Robert Frazier on page 428 of Volume III :

"Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet that was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination."

Since when does legal counsel get to determine what is evidence by proclamation ?

Who testified that this bullet was found at Parkland Hospital ? Who identified it ?

No one. Eisenberg's proclamation that this was the bullet found in Parkland Hospital was not based on any document or testimony.

This bullet has no certifiable chain-of-possession prior to its being in the possession of FBI agent Elmer Todd.

And for that reason, if I were Oswald's lawyer, I would have gotten this "evidence" thrown out at trial.

Oh totally. I think someone on the WC just realized that their apparent negligence in authenticating certain evidence might be a problem in the future, so they requested the FBI follow up on certain topics, took a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to the reports that were submitted, and never did any follow-up with the witnesses - even if they were called back to testify. That’s what happened with Holmes, and it sure looks like the same kind of logic was behind CE2011. 

If anyone ever asked the WC why they never asked Tomlinson and Wright about CE399 under oath they could just pull the report and say the FBI took care of it. 

[James DiEugenio]

Odum specifically said he did not show Wright  the bullet.

And he further said, if he had he would have written a report on something that important in a 302.

 Further, he would have distinctly remembered since he knew Wright.

It is pretty obvious that it did not happen because of the later Thompson interview with Wright.

And the result of that interview suggests why it did not happen. If you recall there were 302's for this function, and Gary Aguilar had them when he wrote his milestone article on the subject.

Edited December 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio