New Article: "Multiple Stretcher Bullets, AKA 'The Connally Bullet, Revisited' "

[Pat Speer]

A few months back, a November, 1967 Bell-penned article was discussed on this forum. In this article, first published in the AORN Journal, a nursing journal, Bell--not the FBI--claimed she gave a "fragment" to "the Department of Public Safety" (the Highway Patrol). 

So Bell's subsequent claims have been debunked by Bell herself. 

 

Edited February 8 by Pat Speer

[Denise Hazelwood]

I found page 1 of this article at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001209208700474 but not the subsequent pages from which this excerpt apparently comes. This excerpt does present a conundrum. Audrey Bell insisted to the ARRB that it was "fragments" (plural) that she turned over to two "plainclothes" federal agents. This excerpt about a "fragment" (singular) turned over to "the Department of Public Safety" with the "garment itself" being released (passive voice) to a patrolman matches neither her HSCA interview (where she said "4 or 5 fragments" (plural) that she "delivered" to (she believed) "Mr. Sorrels," nor to her ARRB interview, wherein she denounced the (unsigned, unattributed) FBI "302" report dated 11/23/63 as "inaccurate" because it said "fragment" (singular) that she turned over to Dallas Highway Patrol officer Bobby Nolan, whereas she recalled turning "fragments" (plural) over to plainclothes federal agents in her office. Nor does this match Bobby Nolan's recollection that he was handed an envelope (with no writing) containing a "bullet" by a nurse in the hallway.

You might suggest that Audrey Bell was "mistaken" and mis-remembering who she turned the fragment/fragments over to But listening to the ARRB audio interview, she struck me as a pretty sharp cookie, even some 30 years after the assassination. She also struck me as someone who was familiar with proper procedure in handling the chain-of-evidence procedures, and turning a "fragment" over to Nolan would have been a breach of those procedures.

On the other hand, I recall the Carl Bernstein expose on The CIA and the Media (https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977) along with a CIA scandal at an institution where I used to work, the Rochester Institute of Technology (I taught English at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, NTID, as an Adjunct, and then Visiting instructor) indicating a massive CIA presence in that institution of education. (See https://reporter.rit.edu/views/cap-and-dagger). The scandal came out just after I had left in 1990. So I know that the CIA presence in various institutions has been more prevalent than most people realize. 

I also recall that then-CIA director John McCone admitted to participating in a "benign cover-up" intended to keep the Warren Commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth'--that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."  ("Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-up" https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197/) 

So given all that, and knowing personally that the CIA had a presence in a place where they had no business being (and RIT, by the way, was also the institution that "authenticated" the back yard photographs) I have to wonder whether a CIA presence in the editorial office in AORN might have altered her words. 

I also note that neither the HSCA nor the ARRB asked her about that article, which is a damn shame. 

So personally, I think that the "National Security" interest in covering up the AR-15 accident led to a CIA disinformation campaign that included altering Audrey Bell's original words for this article. I also think that there's a possibility that some Parkland personnel heard about a young and inexperienced nurse, Diana Bowron, who did not follow proper procedures for dealing with criminal evidence. Elizabeth Wright describes the entire staff being told not to talk to the press, and hints that "there was one (person)" who was especially told not to talk (about something) in her Mark Oakes interview. So there may have been an effort to protect a young 22-year-old nurse fresh out of training who was at the beginning of her career. That's all speculation, of course, but I like it better than the alternative: that Bell and Nolan were both so "mistaken" in their accounts.

[Ron Bulman]

On 2/4/2024 at 10:54 AM, Gary Murr said:

As per your request - the Audrey Bell  half-page memorandum can be found in the records of the HSCA, specifically: HSCA: Record Number: 180-10096-10351: Agency File Number: 001894. It is rather curious that the HSCA has, as part of its records, two “different” versions of the Governor’s theoretical complete medical history of his stay at Parkland Memorial Hospital. The “second” version, that possessing the higher HSCA record number, comprises some eleven more total pages than its predecessor, listed as being 130 pages in length. Though allegedly larger in documentation than the Fenton/Moriarity version, this second rendering actually contains nine fewer pages of pertinent medical data prepared by various Parkland Memorial Hospital personnel. Included in this listing of fewer pages is; analysis of X-rays taken of the Governor on November 27, December 2, and December 4, all prepared by radiologist Jack Reynolds, as well as post-operative shift notations prepared by the nursing staff responsible for the Governor convalescing care, specifically nurses notes for the dates November 26, 27, 29, 30, and December 1, 2, 3. However, what is different in the second version is the inclusion of three disjointed pages from Secret Service prepared files constructed in January and February, 1964; photostatic copies of the front and back of the “Foreign Body Envelope” which originally was thought to have contained the fragment or fragments removed by Dr. Gregory from the Governor’s right distal radius, and; a single page from an FBI report dated 11/29/63, a report filed by FBI-SA Vincent Drain describing Drain’s acquisition of X-rays of the Governor’s thigh wound and the analysis of these same X-rays by Dr. Reynolds.

As to your myriad of questions, many of which to me appear to be based upon hypothetical nuances that cannot be answered satisfactorily to everyones liking - after all truth, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. However, I do find it interesting that on occasions in the past when I have produced this same document the authenticity of the document is the first thing called into question - as to why, I cannot answer. What I do know, that may or may not be relevant, is that on November 22, 1963, Bob Nolan was assigned to security detail at the Trade Mart. Because of this he was dressed in "plainclothes" not in what some may consider to be the uniform clothing normally associated with a member of the State of Texas, Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol Division, which Bob Nolan was. Why  Nolan would question his initials on the envelope as being upside down, I cannot answer. But why is this a curiousity? After all, Captain Fritz's initials are also upside down on this same envelope. Why did Audrey Bell write "fragment" on the half-page memo and "fragments" on the envelope is, again, a question I cannot answer. What I can indicate to you is that when the envelope was received in the FBI lab, and thereafter opened, it would appear it contained but a singular fragment. The "official" FBI lab photograph of this item, designated inititally Q9 and then C9, is a picture of a fragment, singular, not fragments. [image attached herein]. And as to your thought that the Nolan "envelope signature is a forgery, added after the Single Bullet theory became a necessity..." is not borne out as true because a photograph of the "first day evidence" generated by the DPD after the initial evidence taken by the FBI, via Vince Drain, was returned to the DPD shows the envelope on a desk with the rest of the returned evidence and Nolan's initials are already on the envelope - this months in advance of any thoughts of a SBT. FWIW

 

 

Thank you for your incredibly detailed response Gary.  The whole Hickey did it premise of this thread perpetuates the disinformation that it is imho.  Just curious sir, have you, or for that matter Denise ever seen Dallas from a DC9 at night?

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Actually, clicking on the .pdf button above the article at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/216507996801600401   will get you to the whole article. This excerpt can be found on the second page:

Audrey Bell was apparently the President of AORN in 1968, the same year this article was published, which should be noted, as it would seem to make alteration more unlikely. However, the alteration could have occurred after the original article was published, in the process of creating this online version. I know that may seem absurd, but I still think the chances of its having been altered from Bell's original words are very good, given the alteration to the Zapruder Film, other photographs, autopsy evidence, etc. and the fact that the CIA was everywhere (including the place where I used to work--and I need to clarify that NTID was one of the umbrella colleges of RIT, technically "NTID at RIT"). Also remember Quentin Schwinn, the RIT student whom the CIA had tried to recruit by teasing him with autopsy photographs different from the extant ones? All that would need to be changed is one sentence: "Since it was apparent that the bullet fragment would be of utmost significance to the authorities, I removed it from the scrub nurses' table and turned it over to the Department of Public Safety." from "Since it was apparent that the bullet fragments would be of utmost significance to the authorities, I removed them from the scrub nurses' table and turned them over to Federal agents." Note that the next sentence about a "garment" that was released to "a patrolman" is in the passive voice, meaning that Audrey Bell didn't do this herself.  

I realize that my assertion that the (unsigned) FBI "302" report for Audrey Bell is fraudulent, and my belief that Audrey Bell's original words for this article were altered (by some unnamed CIA asset) makes me seem like a "Conspiracy Theorist nut-case," but bearing in mind the Zapruder Film and assassination photographs were altered, and autopsy images were altered, I take this to be just one more facet of a wide-spread cover-up.

I am reminded of the attempts to discredit Dr. Charles Crenshaw when he wrote an article for JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) that ran counter to the official version of things, suggesting he had never even been in Trauma Room One. Crenshaw successfully sued the Journal, as I recall, but the damage to his reputation had been done. There was a sort of "damage control" effort done with Crenshaw, and there may well have been something of the sort done with Audrey Bell. Otherwise, we are left with a jarring discord between this article, and other statements by Bell inisisting that she dealt only with small multiple bullet fragments from Connally's wrist that were subsequently turned over to plainclothes federal agents, and the unsigned "302" and the article excerpt above.

At one point in time, I used to give the government and the official version of events the benefit of the doubt. That is no longer true. As I dug deeper and deeper into the case, my opinion changed. I doubt there was any "Deep State coup d'etat" or plan by LBJ or the CIA to have Kennedy murdered, or anything of the sort like that--an opinion so many others have reached. However, I am quite convinced that there was a widespread "benign cover-up" (John McCone's words) of the AR-15 "slam fire" accident. 

[Denise Hazelwood]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

As to your myriad of questions, many of which to me appear to be based upon hypothetical nuances that cannot be answered satisfactorily to everyones liking - after all truth, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. However, I do find it interesting that on occasions in the past when I have produced this same document the authenticity of the document is the first thing called into question - as to why, I cannot answer. What I do know, that may or may not be relevant, is that on November 22, 1963, Bob Nolan was assigned to security detail at the Trade Mart. Because of this he was dressed in "plainclothes" not in what some may consider to be the uniform clothing normally associated with a member of the State of Texas, Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol Division, which Bob Nolan was.

1. I cannot answer for others, of course, but I question the authenticity because of the conflict between the Audrey Bell and Bob Nolan accounts, and this document. Given that the Tomlinson/Wright/Pool bullet was "pointed" and the round-tipped CE 399 is not, along with the recent Paul Landis revelations and older Sam Kinney revelations, etc. I think that the Bob Nolan "bullet" (as it was presented to him) was the main body of the bullet that struck Governor Connally. It was technically a large "fragment" in the sense that it was not a complete bullet, but had lost some material out of it's tail end, but it was close to a complete bullet.

2. Actually, by Nolan's own account, he was in uniform.

3. The jarring discord between aspects of the case is what has kept this case on the front burner of so many researchers for 60+ years. "Truth is in the eye of the beholder" is a fallacy. There is only one truth. The trick is getting to it, weeding through conflicting information and disinformation, trying to figure out what parts of the conflicts are correct, and what can be attributed to imperfect memories and deliberate deceptions.

[Donald Willis]

15 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

Actually, clicking on the .pdf button above the article at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/216507996801600401   will get you to the whole article. This excerpt can be found on the second page:

Audrey Bell was apparently the President of AORN in 1968, the same year this article was published, which should be noted, as it would seem to make alteration more unlikely. However, the alteration could have occurred after the original article was published, in the process of creating this online version. I know that may seem absurd, but I still think the chances of its having been altered from Bell's original words are very good, given the alteration to the Zapruder Film, other photographs, autopsy evidence, etc. and the fact that the CIA was everywhere (including the place where I used to work--and I need to clarify that NTID was one of the umbrella colleges of RIT, technically "NTID at RIT"). Also remember Quentin Schwinn, the RIT student whom the CIA had tried to recruit by teasing him with autopsy photographs different from the extant ones? All that would need to be changed is one sentence: "Since it was apparent that the bullet fragment would be of utmost significance to the authorities, I removed it from the scrub nurses' table and turned it over to the Department of Public Safety." from "Since it was apparent that the bullet fragments would be of utmost significance to the authorities, I removed them from the scrub nurses' table and turned them over to Federal agents." Note that the next sentence about a "garment" that was released to "a patrolman" is in the passive voice, meaning that Audrey Bell didn't do this herself.  

I realize that my assertion that the (unsigned) FBI "302" report for Audrey Bell is fraudulent, and my belief that Audrey Bell's original words for this article were altered (by some unnamed CIA asset) makes me seem like a "Conspiracy Theorist nut-case," but bearing in mind the Zapruder Film and assassination photographs were altered, and autopsy images were altered, I take this to be just one more facet of a wide-spread cover-up.

I am reminded of the attempts to discredit Dr. Charles Crenshaw when he wrote an article for JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) that ran counter to the official version of things, suggesting he had never even been in Trauma Room One. Crenshaw successfully sued the Journal, as I recall, but the damage to his reputation had been done. There was a sort of "damage control" effort done with Crenshaw, and there may well have been something of the sort done with Audrey Bell. Otherwise, we are left with a jarring discord between this article, and other statements by Bell inisisting that she dealt only with small multiple bullet fragments from Connally's wrist that were subsequently turned over to plainclothes federal agents, and the unsigned "302" and the article excerpt above.

At one point in time, I used to give the government and the official version of events the benefit of the doubt. That is no longer true. As I dug deeper and deeper into the case, my opinion changed. I doubt there was any "Deep State coup d'etat" or plan by LBJ or the CIA to have Kennedy murdered, or anything of the sort like that--an opinion so many others have reached. However, I am quite convinced that there was a widespread "benign cover-up" (John McCone's words) of the AR-15 "slam fire" accident. 

Claviger would be pleased.  That was one of his causes, when last seen on alt.assassination.jfk, several years ago.  He questioned, specifically, the official bullet-trajectory figures.  Has anything been done on this (important) sub-issue since?

[Denise Hazelwood]

Donald Willis, if you are talking about the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) trajectory, there was a recent study conducted by Knott Laboratories ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Ss8XOQD1hEE), which concluded that the SBT was "impossible." This study correctly used the entry location that was some 5 1/2 inches below the neck line, as Clint Hill testified to in his WC testimony, and matching the holes in the jacket and shirt. Most diagrams supporting the SBT use the incorrect base of the neck location for the entry. Jerrol Custer's testimony about a large "king-size" fragment falling out of the back wound during the autopsy, as well as Custer's description of missing neck X-rays showing metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck would also discount the SBT. Mortician Thomas Robinson's statement that he was "adamant" about seeing a probe from the back of the head to the neck wound adds to the body of evidence.

My belief is that the throat wound was caused by the exit of a small fragment (giving the appearance of an "entry" due to its small size) from an internal ricochet off the back of the skull, from a frontal/forehead shot by Oswald, when the limousine was in the location described by witness Pierce Allman (just at the end of the turn) for the first shot, when Oswald still had a frontal shot and the limo was only going 3-5 mph. I describe all this in my documentary. The Z-film was altered not only to hide the AR-15 accident, but also to hide the first shot, because most of the SS agents (except Hickey) were slow to react--probably because they were hung-over.

Back to Audrey Bell, I just want to note how easy it would be to forge the half-page memorandum listing Bobby Nolan as the recipient of a "fragment." All it would take is a blank memorandum and a Lightbox (or alternatively, a window during daylight hours) and to trace the original receipt, minus the "-s" on "fragments" and to add "Bob Nolan's" name instead of the original recipient. I also note that this receipt was not included in the collection of Price Exhibits that were part of the Warren Commission documents. I also want to note Audrey Bel describing having received a "hard time" during her November 23, 1963 interview with FBI agents about the chain-of-custody of the wrist fragments, and how this led to an extra-careful chain-of-custody for the bullet that killed Oswald, with Dr. Shires handing it to her personally and telling her not to let another person touch it. And I suspect that the reason Nolan was told to "Give it Fritz" (and not to the DPD Crime Lab) was so that Fritz could use it in his interrogations of Oswald, to try to get a confession out of him.