Shooting Damage Communications

If JFK and John Connally were shot at from more than one location and more than three bullets were fired then can we safely make the assumption that someone at Parkland hospital was acting as a conduit in relaying information from the trauma rooms and JC's operating room that was finding its way back to Bill Decker and Will Fritz concerning how many bullets had been fired?

Is there anything in the record that could identify the Parkland insider if one existed?

Lee Farley wrote:If JFK and John Connally were shot at from more than one location and more than three bullets were fired then can we safely make the assumption that someone at Parkland hospital was acting as a conduit in relaying information from the trauma rooms and JC's operating room that was finding its way back to Bill Decker and Will Fritz concerning how many bullets had been fired?

Is there anything in the record that could identify the Parkland insider if one existed?

It's an interesting question, Lee. Not one that's up my alley, but if such a person existed, I'd first look at Cubans placed there by the Catholic Relief Mission. The next group - friends and relatives of police / FBI etc on the staff.

I'd like to know whether what I have suggested makes sense to the other members or if I've written it poorly.

We know the snipers nest should have been located and sealed off no more than four or five minutes after the final shot if we are to believe the official version of events due to Howard Brennan and others pointing out the location as the open windows on the fifth and sixth floors very quickly.

It took between 25 and 36 minutes to find the snipers lair depending on which account you prefer to use and even then the reports of how many shells were origninally found is up for grabs and we have to contend with the fourth unfired bullet being in the chamber of the rifle as well as Will Fritz holding onto one of the hulls when they were handed over to the FBI.  Did they originally think they only needed two hulls based upon reports from Parkland?

My point is that the number of shells required to be "found" on the sixth floor surely rested upon reports concerning the damage and number of wounds to the President and John Connally?  Was that why there was a delay in the "discovery" of the "snipers nest" and hulls?

The reason I ask is because I have, over the last couple of years, been very suspicious of a certain O. P. Wright who was Parkland Hospital's Director of Personnel.  Many critics hold up Mr. Wright in high esteem due to him supposedly throwing a spanner in the works related to the discovery of CE399.  However, I think his story and his insertion into the story is a crock of bullshit and he in no way helps the critics case concerning CE399 because his story has more holes than a tea bag.

On the topic of his role in Parkland we should never forget the man's previous work history which was Deputy Chief of Police for the Dallas PD for more than 25 years.  Wright was responsible for reprimanding the incompetence of J. D. Tippit on several occasions and was really tight with Wade, Alexander, Fritz and Decker.  And lo-and-behold he then turns up at Dallas Parkland hospital and immediately gets very inquisitive about some very specific things.

At the beginning of December 1963 Charles Jack Price requested that every single Parkland Hospital employee who was involved in any procedure related to the assassination complete a report of their actions.  These reports, we are told, were typed up on December 10th or 11th, and included in them was a Nurse Directors report.  This report contained the following information:

“Mr. Wright had somewhere down the line asked me if I could ascertain the path of the bullet - or bullets - determine the path, and find out where the instrument of injury actually was. When I checked on the Governor at this time, Dr. Tom Shires, Professor of Surgery, was in attendance. I asked him to describe the path of the bullet - or bullets - and to tell me what in the way of bullets had been found.

I recall he was out of town when this [the assassination] happened, and was flown in by special Air Force jet. From his conversation, he evidently scrubbed in on part of the surgery. This I cannot verify, but when I talked with him, he was in scrub clothing, and from his conversation to me, I judged that he was in on part of the surgery. He described the path of the bullet - from shoulder through arm to thigh - and said that the only fragment removed was by Dr. Gregory in the  wrist.

I asked him to whom this fragment was given, and he said: "To Officer Knowland (spelling questionable) of the Dallas City Police Department." I am not certain, but I think he was referring to Ranger Nolan of the Highway Patrol. I reported this to the security officer, and did not concern myself further until the question was raised: "Was Dr. Shires the final authority?" I called Dr. Duke, the resident who was present when I talked with Dr. Shires. He had heard our conversation, and had assisted Dr. Shires with his part of the surgery. The two of us conferred, and together agreed to release to Mr. Wright the information that, according to Dr. Shires, only one bullet was involved in Governor Connally's injury, and that the fragment of this bullet which was removed by Dr. Gregory from the wrist was in the possession of Ranger Nolan - who Dr. Shires, at the time of our conversation, had described as a city policeman.

I reported this to Mr. Wright…”


Price Exhibit http://www.aarclibra...ice_Ex_2-35.pdf

Who was the Nurse Director at Parkland Hospital?  Well, her name was Elizabeth Wright and she was O. P. Wright's wife.

Was the former Dallas Police Department's Deputy Chief the inside man for getting real time information to his buddies concerning the number, paths and locations of bullets used in the assassination.

And don't get me started on his involvement in "discovering" CE399. 

Lee Farley wrote:I'd like to know whether what I have suggested makes sense to the other members or if I've written it poorly.

We know the snipers nest should have been located and sealed off no more than four or five minutes after the final shot if we are to believe the official version of events due to Howard Brennan and others pointing out the location as the open windows on the fifth and sixth floors very quickly.

It took between 25 and 36 minutes to find the snipers lair depending on which account you prefer to use and even then the reports of how many shells were origninally found is up for grabs and we have to contend with the fourth unfired bullet being in the chamber of the rifle as well as Will Fritz holding onto one of the hulls when they were handed over to the FBI.  Did they originally think they only needed two hulls based upon reports from Parkland?

My point is that the number of shells required to be "found" on the sixth floor surely rested upon reports concerning the damage and number of wounds to the President and John Connally?  Was that why there was a delay in the "discovery" of the "snipers nest" and hulls?

The reason I ask is because I have, over the last couple of years, been very suspicious of a certain O. P. Wright who was Parkland Hospital's Director of Personnel.  Many critics hold up Mr. Wright in high esteem due to him supposedly throwing a spanner in the works related to the discovery of CE399.  However, I think his story and his insertion into the story is a crock of bullshit and he in no way helps the critics case concerning CE399 because his story has more holes than a tea bag.

On the topic of his role in Parkland we should never forget the man's previous work history which was Deputy Chief of Police for the Dallas PD for more than 25 years.  Wright was responsible for reprimanding the incompetence of J. D. Tippit on several occasions and was really tight with Wade, Alexander, Fritz and Decker.  And lo-and-behold he then turns up at Dallas Parkland hospital and immediately gets very inquisitive about some very specific things.

At the beginning of December 1963 Charles Jack Price requested that every single Parkland Hospital employee who was involved in any procedure related to the assassination complete a report of their actions.  These reports, we are told, were typed up on December 10th or 11th, and included in them was a Nurse Directors report.  This report contained the following information:

“Mr. Wright had somewhere down the line asked me if I could ascertain the path of the bullet - or bullets - determine the path, and find out where the instrument of injury actually was. When I checked on the Governor at this time, Dr. Tom Shires, Professor of Surgery, was in attendance. I asked him to describe the path of the bullet - or bullets - and to tell me what in the way of bullets had been found.

I recall he was out of town when this [the assassination] happened, and was flown in by special Air Force jet. From his conversation, he evidently scrubbed in on part of the surgery. This I cannot verify, but when I talked with him, he was in scrub clothing, and from his conversation to me, I judged that he was in on part of the surgery. He described the path of the bullet - from shoulder through arm to thigh - and said that the only fragment removed was by Dr. Gregory in the  wrist.

I asked him to whom this fragment was given, and he said: "To Officer Knowland (spelling questionable) of the Dallas City Police Department." I am not certain, but I think he was referring to Ranger Nolan of the Highway Patrol. I reported this to the security officer, and did not concern myself further until the question was raised: "Was Dr. Shires the final authority?" I called Dr. Duke, the resident who was present when I talked with Dr. Shires. He had heard our conversation, and had assisted Dr. Shires with his part of the surgery. The two of us conferred, and together agreed to release to Mr. Wright the information that, according to Dr. Shires, only one bullet was involved in Governor Connally's injury, and that the fragment of this bullet which was removed by Dr. Gregory from the wrist was in the possession of Ranger Nolan - who Dr. Shires, at the time of our conversation, had described as a city policeman.

I reported this to Mr. Wright…”


Price Exhibit http://www.aarclibra...ice_Ex_2-35.pdf

Who was the Nurse Director at Parkland Hospital?  Well, her name was Elizabeth Wright and she was O. P. Wright's wife.

Was the former Dallas Police Department's Deputy Chief the inside man for getting real time information to his buddies concerning the number, paths and locations of bullets used in the assassination.

And don't get me started on his involvement in "discovering" CE399. 

 

Lee:

Your first post in the thread made me immediately think of Wright, due to his prior career history and his inquisitive nature on the day. 

A couple of things to ponder though.  I don't know what role he did or didn't play in "discovering" CE399, other than what can be corroborated by Tomlinson, and nor does anyone else. 

What I can demonstrate is that when subsequently given the chance to confirm the bullet in question was the one held by authorities, he refused to do so, repeatedly.  This did not prevent the Bureau from nevertheless forging memoranda to the contrary: that he'd been shown CE399 and said it was the bullet he'd handled on 11/22/63.  Needless to say, had it been true, FBI would not have been forced to resort to forgery.

Likewise, I would have expected the Commission to call Wright as a witness regarding the discovery of CE399, or at least his role in handling it, according to Tomlinson.  I would have expected the Commission to establish his familiarity with firearms and ammunition based upon his military and police service.  I would have expected him to have been shown CE399 and asked if it was the bullet he had allegedly handled.  And I would have expected substantive statements by him, precisely due to his background. 

I suggest that this was not a simple omission, but a deliberate avoidance of a witness the Commission knew in advance would prove problematic to the pursuit of their preconceived conclusion.  Whatever else we might suspect of Wright, we should not allow these facts to lose their potency.

I think you're likely on the right track in suspecting Wright of passing information on to his old comrades in arms at DPD and Sheriff's HQs.  Why wouldn't he?  Hell, as a long-time lawman, he undoubtedly asked as many questions as he could simply out of his own curiosity and his desire to help solve the crime with whatever he gleaned.  Why wouldn't he?

However, I am uncertain that either Fritz or Decker were supremely concerned about the number of bullets or trajectories at so early a point in the investigation.  At the time of the Parkland treatment of Kennedy's body, nobody much higher on the food chain had yet exerted pressure to foreclose a real investigation.  At the time in question, police were overwhelmed with witnesses, tips, and trying to process the information and synthesize it into a tenable scenario of the crime.  As you know, numerous arrests were made of persons who were not Oswald, exhibiting a laudible willingness to let the evidence lead to a conclusion, rather than the other way around, reaching a conclusion despite the evidence, which is what ultimately occurred. 

What's more, nobody at Parkland knew with certainty what bullets may have remained in the body, as they were frantically trying to save a dead man, rather than performing an autopsy.  They didn't even notice a rear-entry shot to the back.  I'm sure authorities were grateful for whatever news came from Parkland, be it from Wright or others, but it seems to me that on the 11/22 timeline, police involvement in scuttling and falsifying evidence hadn't yet begun because the orders to narrow the focus to a single suspect hadn't yet been received.

Moreover, despite it being obvious to all concerned later that day that MORE than three bullets were the minimum requirement to explain all the wounds and defects, Fritz nevertheless retained a spent hull, one that would later prove problematic to the emerging consensus lone gunman scenario.  If Fritz was concerned that the number of shells found should account for the wound inflicted, why did he hang onto one, or any? 

I have my own suspicions about Fritz's days-long retention of several diabolically problematic pieces of evidence, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Lee:

Your first post in the thread made me immediately think of Wright, due to his prior career history and his inquisitive nature on the day. 

A couple of things to ponder though.  I don't know what role he did or didn't play in "discovering" CE399, other than what can be corroborated by Tomlinson, and nor does anyone else. 

What I can demonstrate is that when subsequently given the chance to confirm the bullet in question was the one held by authorities, he refused to do so, repeatedly.  This did not prevent the Bureau from nevertheless forging memoranda to the contrary: that he'd been shown CE399 and said it was the bullet he'd handled on 11/22/63.  Needless to say, had it been true, FBI would not have been forced to resort to forgery.

Likewise, I would have expected the Commission to call Wright as a witness regarding the discovery of CE399, or at least his role in handling it, according to Tomlinson.  I would have expected the Commission to establish his familiarity with firearms and ammunition based upon his military and police service.  I would have expected him to have been shown CE399 and asked if it was the bullet he had allegedly handled.  And I would have expected substantive statements by him, precisely due to his background. 

I suggest that this was not a simple omission, but a deliberate avoidance of a witness the Commission knew in advance would prove problematic to the pursuit of their preconceived conclusion.  Whatever else we might suspect of Wright, we should not allow these facts to lose their potency.

I think you're likely on the right track in suspecting Wright of passing information on to his old comrades in arms at DPD and Sheriff's HQs.  Why wouldn't he?  Hell, as a long-time lawman, he undoubtedly asked as many questions as he could simply out of his own curiosity and his desire to help solve the crime with whatever he gleaned.  Why wouldn't he?

However, I am uncertain that either Fritz or Decker were supremely concerned about the number of bullets or trajectories at so early a point in the investigation.  At the time of the Parkland treatment of Kennedy's body, nobody much higher on the food chain had yet exerted pressure to foreclose a real investigation.  At the time in question, police were overwhelmed with witnesses, tips, and trying to process the information and synthesize it into a tenable scenario of the crime.  As you know, numerous arrests were made of persons who were not Oswald, exhibiting a laudible willingness to let the evidence lead to a conclusion, rather than the other way around, reaching a conclusion despite the evidence, which is what ultimately occurred. 

What's more, nobody at Parkland knew with certainty what bullets may have remained in the body, as they were frantically trying to save a dead man, rather than performing an autopsy.  They didn't even notice a rear-entry shot to the back.  I'm sure authorities were grateful for whatever news came from Parkland, be it from Wright or others, but it seems to me that on the 11/22 timeline, police involvement in scuttling and falsifying evidence hadn't yet begun because the orders to narrow the focus to a single suspect hadn't yet been received.

Moreover, despite it being obvious to all concerned later that day that MORE than three bullets were the minimum requirement to explain all the wounds and defects, Fritz nevertheless retained a spent hull, one that would later prove problematic to the emerging consensus lone gunman scenario.  If Fritz was concerned that the number of shells found should account for the wound inflicted, why did he hang onto one, or any? 

I have my own suspicions about Fritz's days-long retention of several diabolically problematic pieces of evidence, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Hi Robert,

We are going to be heading down that dark rabbit hole here aren't we?    The physical evidence of the TSBD is as much of a head wrecker as trying to work out who was on what floor and when.

The simplest answer I can muster without getting into the fine detail is that the early reports from Parkland were that the President had been hit with one bullet in the head and the Governor had been hit with one bullet.  Two bullets required - three hulls found - one pocketed by Fritz.  Once the early hours of November 23rd had arrived the reports from Bethesda were that President had been hit twice -once in the head and once in the back.  Thereafter three bullets are required and the pocketed hull becomes unpocketed at a later date.

Overly simplistic?  Probably - - but we don't have any definitive answers as to when the hulls were found, who actually found them, what their configuration was, when they were dusted for prints and a host of other items that are fundamental to any type of murder investigation.  In addition we don't know what time the rifle was found or what type of rifle it was, we don't know when Truly told Fritz about Oswald being missing, we don't know where the Dr. Pepper bottle and chicken bag were found, we don't know what happened to them, we don't know where the rifle bag was found or why it wasn't photographed insitu and we don't even know the true configuration of the "snipers nest" boxes.  We don't know where Norman was, or Williams, or Jarman.   We don't know what they heard - or saw.  We don't know where Jack Dougherty was.  We don't know why the elevators were stuck on the fifth floor.  The Baker-Truly story is a mess.

When its all said and done - what do we know beyond a moral certainty?  Not much when it comes to the collection of the physical evidence or even what was happening in the immediate minutes after the shooting.

So, I think what I'm getting at is this - I just don't know, mate.  I don't know why Fritz held onto one of the cartridge cases.  I don't know why he asked for them to be dusted for prints a second time.  I don't know why one of the hulls has a dented lip.  I don't know why the rifle clip didn't fall out once the final bullet was chambered.  I don't know why the time of the "snipers nest" discovery was 12:50pm, 1:06pm and 1:15pm.  I don't know why reports of the type of rifle varied.  I don't know why the Dr. Pepper bottle and chicken bag moved floors.  I don't know why Bonnie Ray Williams was asked to add a sixth floor visit to his story.  I don't know why Jarman went back on his statement about being outside to being on the fifth floor. 

The stuff I don't know you could fill a cargo ship with.

However, there is one thing I do know.  I do know that in O. P. Wright's Parkland Hospital report he completed at the end of November, 1963, there is no mention of him discovering a bullet, touching a bullet, holding a bullet, looking at a bullet, or even discussing a bullet that was allegedly found on a stretcher that afternoon.  And that is my starting point concerning O. P. Wright and his involvement with the discovery of CE399.  A starting point that has a very quick end point.  In his official report detailing his activities that afternoon he found no room to mention finding a bullet on a stretcher that he claims he handed to Secret Service Agent Richard E. Johnsen.  His report runs for four (4) pages and he couldn't find the time to write "Oh, yeah, I found, was passed, a bullet by Darryl Tomlinson and I passed it onto a Secret Service agent."  The problems with this chain of custody are too numerous to mention and I simply will not include O. P. Wright as being part of this story because he disbarred himself from inclusion by deciding to exclude this important fact from his own report.  A former Deputy Chief of the Dallas Police decided not to include his own handling of possible primary evidence and his involvement in its chain of custody into a report that was going to become official evidence in the murder of President John F. Kennedy? 

Why was it left from his report?  Again, we are back to me not knowing.

I don't think I've ever come across your opinions concerning why you think Fritz kept hold of evidence, Robert. 

Lee

Don't know if any of this helps...

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support such a complaint of a conspiracy? 
Mr. WADE. Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was. I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me.


Wade...Of course, I have been told by a lot of people and undoubtedly a lot of it was exaggerated that he was a Communist, and you have had people say he was a Communist who might say I was a Communist, you know, if they didn't agree with me on something, so I have absolutely no evidence that he was a Communist of my own knowledge, I have heard a lot, of course. 

[sidebar: Wade supports Sean's belief that Fritz' notes were copied from Bookhout]
Mr. WADE. If there are any, I have never seen them. I have asked for them, but you are dealing with a man who not only doesn't make transcripts, but doesn't even make notes. Captain Fritz is the one who interrogated him most of the time, and if you--if there is any written evidence of what he said it must be from the FBI or the Secret Service or someone who interviewed him. I assume they make a record of what he said to them. 


Wade... we couldn't get a thing, couldn't put Fritz on the stand because he couldn't remember anything that was helpful.


Wade...I will say Captain Fritz is about as good a man at solving a crime as I ever saw, to find out who did it but he is poorest in the getting evidence that I know, and I am more interested in getting evidence, and there is where our major conflict comes in.

Lee Farley wrote:

Hi Robert,

We are going to be heading down that dark rabbit hole here aren't we?    The physical evidence of the TSBD is as much of a head wrecker as trying to work out who was on what floor and when.

The simplest answer I can muster without getting into the fine detail is that the early reports from Parkland were that the President had been hit with one bullet in the head and the Governor had been hit with one bullet.  Two bullets required - three hulls found - one pocketed by Fritz.  Once the early hours of November 23rd had arrived the reports from Bethesda were that President had been hit twice -once in the head and once in the back.  Thereafter three bullets are required and the pocketed hull becomes unpocketed at a later date.

Overly simplistic?  Probably - - but we don't have any definitive answers as to when the hulls were found, who actually found them, what their configuration was, when they were dusted for prints and a host of other items that are fundamental to any type of murder investigation.  In addition we don't know what time the rifle was found or what type of rifle it was, we don't know when Truly told Fritz about Oswald being missing, we don't know where the Dr. Pepper bottle and chicken bag were found, we don't know what happened to them, we don't know where the rifle bag was found or why it wasn't photographed insitu and we don't even know the true configuration of the "snipers nest" boxes.  We don't know where Norman was, or Williams, or Jarman.   We don't know what they heard - or saw.  We don't know where Jack Dougherty was.  We don't know why the elevators were stuck on the fifth floor.  The Baker-Truly story is a mess.

When its all said and done - what do we know beyond a moral certainty?  Not much when it comes to the collection of the physical evidence or even what was happening in the immediate minutes after the shooting.

So, I think what I'm getting at is this - I just don't know, mate.  I don't know why Fritz held onto one of the cartridge cases.  I don't know why he asked for them to be dusted for prints a second time.  I don't know why one of the hulls has a dented lip.  I don't know why the rifle clip didn't fall out once the final bullet was chambered.  I don't know why the time of the "snipers nest" discovery was 12:50pm, 1:06pm and 1:15pm.  I don't know why reports of the type of rifle varied.  I don't know why the Dr. Pepper bottle and chicken bag moved floors.  I don't know why Bonnie Ray Williams was asked to add a sixth floor visit to his story.  I don't know why Jarman went back on his statement about being outside to being on the fifth floor. 

The stuff I don't know you could fill a cargo ship with.

However, there is one thing I do know.  I do know that in O. P. Wright's Parkland Hospital report he completed at the end of November, 1963, there is no mention of him discovering a bullet, touching a bullet, holding a bullet, looking at a bullet, or even discussing a bullet that was allegedly found on a stretcher that afternoon.  And that is my starting point concerning O. P. Wright and his involvement with the discovery of CE399.  A starting point that has a very quick end point.  In his official report detailing his activities that afternoon he found no room to mention finding a bullet on a stretcher that he claims he handed to Secret Service Agent Richard E. Johnsen.  His report runs for four (4) pages and he couldn't find the time to write "Oh, yeah, I found, was passed, a bullet by Darryl Tomlinson and I passed it onto a Secret Service agent."  The problems with this chain of custody are too numerous to mention and I simply will not include O. P. Wright as being part of this story because he disbarred himself from inclusion by deciding to exclude this important fact from his own report.  A former Deputy Chief of the Dallas Police decided not to include his own handling of possible primary evidence and his involvement in its chain of custody into a report that was going to become official evidence in the murder of President John F. Kennedy? 

Why was it left from his report?  Again, we are back to me not knowing.

I don't think I've ever come across your opinions concerning why you think Fritz kept hold of evidence, Robert. 

Thanks for a well articulated reply, Lee.  I appreciate the time it took, and the thought behind it.

I share your puzzlement over most of the areas you touched upon, and the seeming futility of trying to unravel the Gordian knot of mutually exclusive, ever-changing and un-certifiable details.  It could put one in Bedlam.

I cannot rationalize Wright’s failure to include handling the bullet in his subsequent report, but have a speculative possibility.  Please bear with me, and I will attempt to not be characteristically over-wordy.

Darrell Tomlinson consistently tried to argue that the stretcher upon which he found the bullet hadn’t carried Connally’s body, even facing some rather hostile badgering from Commission counsel.  Consequently, I would suggest, he undoubtedly thought the bullet had no relevance to the assassination, or Connally’s wounding. 

He did, I think, as he should, and passed the bullet onto the superior most well positioned to deal with it, Wright.  (Despite being referred to as Personnel Director, Wright handled security, so this was very much his bailiwick.  Tomlinson may also have known of Wright’s past career in the PD., making Wright an appropriate choice for sending the bullet up the food chain, rather than just a superior who happened to be nearby.) 

In doing so, Tomlinson may well have advised Wright he thought the bullet came from a patient unrelated to either Kennedy or Connally.  I cannot definitively confirm this to be the case, of course, and raise it only as a common sense possibility, based upon Tomlinson’s refusal to accept or admit that the bullet he found came from a stretcher related to the assassination.

While I concur wholeheartedly with your reservations about Wright’s report, I think we should nevertheless acknowledge that Tomlinson stated he gave the bullet to Wright, and Secret Service Special Agent Richard Johnsen acknowledged he received such a bullet from Wright. 

In the absence of a motive for both men - otherwise unrelated as they are - to lie about Wright’s intermediary role, I think it likely he played such a role, irrespective of what’s contained in his report.  And, if my supposition is correct, it may explain why Wright neglected to relate this tale in his report; the bullet wasn’t considered germane at the time it was written.

What’s more, if - and I want to stress that qualifier - Tomlinson told Wright he thought the bullet was unrelated to the assassination, and Wright repeated this to Johnsen when giving him the bullet, I think it may help to explain the otherwise inexplicable slip-shoddiness of the chain of possession.  As a former careerist cop, Wright would have known the protocols and should have been mindful of adhering to them.  Assuming he thought the bullet had anything to do with the assassination.  If Johnsen likewise repeated this caveat to Rowley.... well, you can see the comedy of errors that might have played out.

Let’s briefly assume - arguendo - that the above is true.  Wright’s report was written little more than a week after the assassination.  In the interim, had he been interviewed by DPD or FBI or Secret Service?  Had anyone let Wright know that the bullet he passed onto Johnsen actually was part and parcel of the crime?  I can find no evidence that he was advised or informed in any way by any law enforcement authority that the bullet he may have thought unrelated to the assassination in actual fact was related.  Were you in his position at the time, responsible for reporting myriad other details of known significance, how prominently would you have mentioned a bullet that, to the best of your knowledge, was immaterial to the crime in question?

It is shameful that we are left to guess about such things rather than be able to pore over Wright’s Commission testimony, but the Commission seemed highly disinclined to call Wright, or SS SA Johnsen, for that matter, despite the latter twice being mentioned in key testimony of other law enforcement witnesses. 

Irrespective of wherever one finds oneself on the spectrum of opinions on this case, all should publicize and condemn the Commission’s witting, deliberate failures to probe evidence to its logical conclusion.  Perhaps they had good reason to avoid calling witnesses whom they knew would disavow CE 399 as the bullet they had handled on 11/22/63.  Such an assumption on my part requires the Commission to be witting of a fraud being perpetrated in the evidence presented to it, but I make that assertion with confidence.  What else would have precluded them from calling these key players to testify regarding under-reported matters? 

To close, given that Tomlinson said he felt the bullet played no role in Dealey Plaza because it came from an unrelated gurney; given that Tomlinson and Wright both later disavowed CE399 as having been the bullet they handled; given that the Commission called neither Wright nor Johnsen to confirm the chain of possession insofar as it might have been possible to do, and to have them under oath swear that CE 399 and “their” bullet appeared identical; and further given that it is impossible to credit the wounds and defects attributed to CE399 and have so immaculately preserved a bullet at tale’s end, I can only conclude that an unrelated bullet was inadvertently entered into the evidentiary stream, was thereafter absorbed into the crime’s vortex by substituting a relevant bullet in the place of an irrelevant one; and that CE 399 was fired into a water tank, not human beings, before being presented as the Parkland stretcher bullet. 

Desperate times call for extraordinary measures. 

As DPD Chief Jesse Curry later said, nobody had been able to put Oswald on the 6th floor with the rifle. 

The introduction of a falsified bullet - that did come from the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano attributed to Oswald - solved half the problem by proving a bullet found at Parkland had come from that weapon.  The one allegedly found on the 6th floor.  The one allegedly purchased by Oswald using an unnecessary pseudonym.  I can see where the introduction of such a bullet might have appeared providential to those who executed the substitution.

As for why Captain Fritz chose to retain certain pieces of evidence rather than include them with first day evidence passed along to FBI, I will have to wait a bit to elaborate.  Life intrudes at the most inconvenient times.

I very much enjoy corresponding with you, Lee.  As Oscar Wilde said of the suspense that was “killing” him, “I do hope it will continue.”

Last year I put together a thread at the Education Forum that was titled "Nathan Burgess Pool" where I put together a comprehensive overview concerning the discovery of CE399.  This thread took me quite a few weeks to develop and dealt with the November 27th meeting between Wright and Gordon Shanklin, the problems with there being no Secret Service interviews of Parkland employees in the record and a host of other issues.

Tom Scully split my thread off from that of serial nutcase "Mike Rago" because "Rago" was severely disrupting the thread.  Consequently there were two thread on the go.  My thread "Nathan Burgess Poole" and a thread called "Rago's Nathan Burgess Poole."

I've done a search looking for my thread today and it doesn't exist.  Rago's is still there consisting of him talking shit and me calling him a prick - hardly educational.

The real educational thread - mine - is gone.

Tom, can you look into this for me please?  I know you're no longer a member there but is there a way my thread, which is really important to me, is still available somewhere on the internet?

Hi Lee:

I recall the threads in question, one of which seems to remain extant:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=6aa475d24799a6ff7aadb7a44149bb0a&showtopic=19537&page=1

You made many of the same points there that are in this thread.  The Pool(e) thread seems to have entered the ether.

We agree that the Commission's failure to plumb this issue by calling every pertinent witness is inexplicably shoddy.  Unless one presumes the Commission counsel knew the uncalled witnesses would testify to facts inimicable to the Commission's agenda.  (Or to put it another way, if the witnesses testified truthfully, they COULDN'T verify what the Commission needed them to verify, and counsel knew it.) I do presume precisely that.

In fact, Commission counsel showed virtually no interest in the chain of possession for this singular piece of evidence.  They needed only to have Tomlinson assert it HAD come from the stretcher used to convey Connally into the OR.  Which he did not do.

It is lamentable that we must try to parse so much from such meagre and contradictory documention.  Using Poole's recollections to contradict what Tomlinson had said 14 years before Poole was first interviewed places emphasis on the wrong end of the time line.  First Day evidence is always preferable, I think we agree.  Nobody in law enforcement seems to have been much bothered about getting the details straight immediately after the events occurred. Which is part of the reason we are left with the dog's breakfast of scraps and supposition we find today.     

Both Tomlinson and Poole seem to have claimed to handle the bullet in question, yet O.P. Wright's recollection was that Tomlinson had found the bullet and left it in situ, reporting its existence to Wright.  Then Wright tried to get FBI to take the bullet, but they claimed to have no legal jurisdiction in the case (my, how quickly THAT changed.)  Then Wright tried to get Secret Service to come view the bullet in situ, but they declined, presumably because their entire detail was occupied elsewhere.  So he pocketed the bullet and about a half hour later gave it to Johnsen.  Johnsen didn't mark the bullet in Wright's presence, and didn't even ask Wright his name or occupation.

Though the recollections in the following film clip also come 3+ years after the fact, and memory may have been tainted in the interim, I was struck by how Wright characterized the bullet he gave Johnsen:  

"I just told him this was a bullet that was picked up on a stretcher that had come off the emergency elevator that MIGHT be involved in the moving of Governor Connally."  (Emphasis mine.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNP1kz2PJA

Such uncertainty - even years later - is congruent with the hypothesis I've outlined above, in which those who first found and/or handled the bullet thought it unrelated to the assassination.  And, in making no assassination-related claims regarding its provenance, treated it accordingly.

If Tink Thompson is correct that the bullet came from the stretcher used to carry young Ronnie Fuller, one can understand why it was initially treated by all concerned as immaterial to the assassination, but provided an opportunity to substitute a falsified bullet into the evidence stream that led directly back to the "Oswald" rifle.  Which, of course, is something that was impossible to do without such substitution. 

If there is chicanery at hand, I suggest it transpired after the bullet left Parkland.  Whether Tomlinson, Poole, or Wright, none of these men had demonstrable motive to invent, falsely insert or lie about what had been found.  Whereas those who handled the bullet thereafter had every reason in the world to swap out one bullet for another.

Were those three involved in the plot, each would have rushed to assure their various inquisitors that the bullet they handled and CE 399 were identical.  That would have been true in 1963, 1964, 1967 or 1977. 

That they failed to salute the government's case marks them, I think, as honest men, despite their confused and often contradictory recollections of what transpired.

RCD said "Were those three involved in the plot, each would have rushed to assure their various inquisitors that the bullet they handled and CE 399 were identical.  That would have been true in 1963, 1964, 1967 or 1977."

I'm not so sure this is true, Robert.  Not anymore.

We know that Norman, Williams, and Norman weren't honest.  Yet not one of them said they saw Oswald descending the sixth floor stairs.

We know Brennan wasn't honest, yet he failed to ID the DPD's suspect.

Do we believe that at some point the Warren Commission knew that the house of cards they were building wouldn't stand the test of time and once the lone-nut conclusion was patched together it was better to begin covering tracks and muddy the water with big wooden spoons and as many red herrings as possible?

I'll say this for the WC; if the maze created around Williams, Norman and Jarman was accidental then I'll eat my shoe.  If the contradictions around the CE 399 discovery were un intended then I'll eat my sock.

I don't believe these quagmires we work through each day were simply lucky breaks, Robert.  None of them have resulted in the history books being rewritten.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Hi Lee:

I recall the threads in question, one of which seems to remain extant:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=6aa475d24799a6ff7aadb7a44149bb0a&showtopic=19537&page=1

You made many of the same points there that are in this thread.  The Pool(e) thread seems to have entered the ether.
............

Robert, there were once 98 posts in the thread you linked to, but now there are only 82. The thread was crawled and archived:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130604225614/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537

Who would post regularly in a forum where members are suddenly taken out and shot and their posts are all disappeared? Quite a number
of people, actually.

Posted 14 October 2013 - 01:14 AM http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry279463

Evan Burton, on 13 Oct 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

 

David Reitzes, on 08 Oct 2013 - 3:03 PM, said:

       When a forum member is banned for whatever reason, is it necessary to summarily delete all of his or her old posts?
       Isn't that kind of Orwellian?
            Dave

 
   Apart from Peter - or if it is requested - I don't know of this happening. Even if requested, we really would prefer not to do that.
  What instance were you refering to?

Gary Loughran is still making an effort to extract any lingering remnants of decency from John Simkin and his lemmings. Gary included me
in an email he sent last week poinitng out to Evan Burton and John/lemmings that his reply to David Reitzes needed background. This afforded me
an opportunity to read an email sent by John Simkin on June 15. I read it and replied to it. I share it here, and my reply, because I've removed my gloves and I am too flawed to take the high road, in this instance. (I also made backups of all my Ed Forums posts because I suspect they will soon be disappeared.)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275626
John Simkin Posted 17 June 2013 - 08:08 AM

In  my original posting on this matter I gave a link to:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016

The quote I had in mind was the following

".....Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable."

Remember, these are the words of a moderator, whose role is apparently to people from posting abuse of fellow members. I have had numerous complaints from members over the past few months pointing out that Tom continually flouted the rules that he was supposed to be enforcing.

Tom Scully and Jim DiEugenio were not removed from this Forum for any individual breach of Forum rules. My decision was based on what I considered a long-term campaign into bullying members into not posting on this forum. .....

Consider that all of Daniel Wayne Dunn's posts have been disappeared from the Ed Forum.:

continued:


David Reitzes ia completing an eleventh day of waiting for Evan Burton to get back to him with a more informed response, and I have received no response to my email to Simkin/lemmings pointing out that on June 15 Mr. Simkin informed his moderators that Ray Carroll had criticized me and that Mr. Simkin himself had not long ago weighed in on that same Mr. Carroll's stability, in response to the exact issue Simkin on June 15 highlighted Ray Carroll complaining about.

J Ray Carroll Posted 15 June 2013 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&page=7#entry275536
I did try to complain about Tom Scully
and he sent me this
MODERATOR'S WARNING

Sent 29 March 2012 - 12:51 AM
You've been informed multiple times it is in violation of forum rules.......

Guest_Tom Scully_* Posted 27 March 2012 - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&page=8#entry249391
I moved nine posts from the thread titled, Show Me The Money in JFK Debate.....
.......So now we are into the fifth day of this. The forum administrators have not seen fit to suspend Mr. Carroll's posting privileges. I am sure they have their reasons. I've warned Mr. Carroll that I will unapprove any post in which my name is included and or contains criticism/protest of moderation. I've also reminded Mr. Carroll that he has had the option all along to post in a manner in conformance with the rules.
Edited by Tom Scully, 29 March 2012 - 05:20 AM.

"Sorry, we couldn't find that"__________ most popular thread on EF.  Dang, Tom, you spent a third of your time there just moderating.  Not fair!