Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but the statement “ FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd signs off as having received it at 8:50 PM” appears to come from this document.
At the 21 minute mark in the Stone documentary, we are shown multiple contemporaneous (i.e. written on 11/22/63) documents that WC had access to showing the 7:30 time appearing after the 8:30 PM time in the chain of custody.
But, in finding that, I also found a rebuttal to two of Stone’s salacious claims. That the bullets weren’t marked with the investigators’ initials, and that the time discrepancy is unexplainable.
As to the initials, it’s really a matter of having high quality pictures.
The writing is very faint, but the bullets are initialed.
Can you produce a copy of this “brief note”? Or are we taking someone’s word that this note once existed but now is lost to the mysteries of time? I find it quite astonishing how many pieces of paper in this investigation have a way of vanishing.
Unless you find Stone’s film more sexually stimulating than I do, I think you may be misunderstanding what the word “salacious” means.
OK, first place, what significance if any do you attach to the attestation in that note “It could not be determined who had used this stretcher or if President Kennedy had occupied it”? To me, it sounds like the first link in this chain of custody could have been planted, at worst, or switched out, to begin with. “Hey, Bubba, we’re gonna need some bullets to prove stuff. Ya got anything that we could stick on a stretcher while things are still confusing and there are still secret service agents hanging around? Yeah, that looks good–oh, any old stretcher will do, just do it fast.”
Regarding the timeline, that note shows how the security guard at Parkland, Wright, transferred it to Agent Johnsen and Johnsen delivered it to Rowley at the White House at 7:30 PM, which wasn’t in question. What was in question was Rowley’s delivering the bullet to E. L. Todd at 8:50 PM that night, which is supported by a
handwritten note marked Q1 signed by Todd. A memo (which appears on screen in Stone’s film at about the 20 minute mark) gives the time that Todd delivered the bullet to the lab (Robert Frazier, lab technician) as 7:30 PM. How can Todd give a bullet he received at 8:50 PM to the lab an hour and twenty minutes earlier? Were there perhaps two different bullets, and the WC pretended that it was one bullet?
Stone’s chart has the bullet going from
Tomlinson (Parkland maintenance) to
Wright (Parkland security) to
Johnsen (SS) to
Rowley (SS Chief) to
Todd (FBI agent) to
Frazier (FBI lab main investigator)
Stone’s film has David Mantik giving this time line and he says that there are multiple documents showing Frazier’s signature as having received this bullet at 7:30 PM. Is the FBI lab located in the White House?
briefer version: there are multiple attestations in Stone’s film that Frazier received the bullet (or a bullet) from Todd at 7:30 PM, and at least one memo appears on screen with the time written after “Evidence received from Special Agent Elmer L. Todd, Washington Field Office of the FBI, 11/22/1963: 7:30 PM”
(This memo is the one headed “FBI laboratory work sheet”)
Frazier wrote down the wrong time when he was preparing to testify to the WC.
Otherwise, a bullet was documented as going from Johnsen to Rowley to Todd at the White House, then disappeared because Frazier received a bullet from Todd hours before Todd received the bullet from Rowley. Todd then helpfully wrote down that he received a bullet at 8:50pm, apparently forgetting that he already gave a phony bullet to Frazier a couple hours earlier.
Hold on, if the stretcher bullet was the phony one, why would Todd be giving Frazier a different phony one?
That this one agent (who was taught to memorialize his activities) hadn’t done a complete investigation. He also spelled a bunch of words wrong. He was likely quite distraught.
The Warren Commission, of course, did do so. So we have the benefit of the statements of other people to fill in these gaps.
So do the rest of the work, and explain how planting a bullet (when the shooters would have no idea what the forensic evidence is going to reveal) going to help “prove stuff”. Prove what, exactly?
(It sounds to me like planting fake evidence is only going to encourage further investigation, which these canny assassins wouldn’t want)
Show it. These documents are indexed online. You’re obviously invested enough to participate in this thread and watch some movie. So bring the evidence so we can look at it. Like I did.
Show them. I don’t take the word of some dude who just said so. Why do you, when you should already be acknowledging the falsehoods that are being peddled?
It was asked earlier. Do you still claim the bullet was pristine?
Oh, another innocent error, this one on Frazier’s part? Gosh, these government agents are awful sloppy in their note-taking, note-keeping, recording of vital facts etc. But it’s OK because the WC doesn;t mind an error here, a mistake there, a goof here–it’s all good. The important thing is the facts all add up to one simple narrative, amirite, fellas?
One Error by One Person. One person marked the wrong time in his notes, and those notes were relied upon by himself and others later on.
Not “another error by another person” just one. When you account for that one error, there is no broken chain of custody, no second bullet forgotten or deliberately hidden by SS or FBI agents, just one bullet taken from a stretcher, handed to responsible people until it gets to the FBI lab.
I’m still waiting for your plausible story of what actually happened. So far I have a story with “Bubba” who happens to be carrying bullets fired from the rifle found at the Book Depository, is that the one you’re going with?
I feel in no way obliged to compose a narrative that explains the events more completely than the deeply flawed WC Report does, merely to point out its numerous errors, omissions, and sloppiness. Give me a year to compose a non-fiction version, and the budget allotted to the WC and I might take it under advisement.
I do, however, promise to hire a proofreader with that enormous budget to vet my final report carefully for implausibilities in the narrative I will invent.
So… you need a year, a budget, and a proofreader to come up with a plausible narrative for how one bullet got into evidence with the recorded times being inconsistent. Not to prove it, just to construct a narrative that isn’t ridiculous.
Because you don’t like “guy wrote down the wrong number” as an answer. THAT seems less likely to you than a series of events so complicated you can’t even trust yourself to keep the timeline straight.
You do realize that even if you find errors or sloppiness in documents, you haven’t undermined the commission’s reports, right? The raw data isn’t polished, unless it’s fabricated.
So you will suppress evidence that doesn’t jive with your official narrative? Because a real investigation is never that clean.
I mean, do you impose this standard elsewhere in your life? If somebody tells you it takes them “20 minutes to get across town”, do you start drawing maps and plot points to determine if might actually take 30 minutes, and if you do then do you confidently proclaim them to be a proven liar, and a suspect in any imagined escapade that could be schemed in those missing 10 minutes?
Or do you recognize that people don’t think and act so absurdly precise as this?
I’m trying to have a conversation. I’m not asking for proof, just what you think went on that day, just for this one item, an event that you have clearly thought about before.
