its quite a long video and it will take several posts to review it here .also i have started my review on seans video comment section . some of my comments remain but i have posted a review comment multiple times along with a comment in addition with links to photos in it on seans comments section . i have now posted them several times . they were up and then they were gone .so either youtube via its bots is removing my comments (comments they dont care for ) or or mister munger is .i personally dont know why this is happening .i posted a review on another as i call it lone nut advocate video called the kennedy assassination :inside the depository by lemmino . all my comments posted are still there .

so i am going to post my review here .

sean started  by arguing that the warren report is supported by facts within the 26 volumes and in essence is as such indisputable .i beg to differ and below we shall learn why . so i am simply starting here by re posting my comments as they appear on seans comment section .

the warren report is in parts unsupported by what is in the 26 volumes . very few in 1964 read that report , and even less bought the 26 volumes . those that studied both quickly saw the problems .and with the autopsy photos or atleast some of them being reported we have been able to see the deception / lie of arlen specter and the commission . they lied and said jfk had an entry wound on the right side of his neck in the area where the neck meets the top of the shoulder , so above shoulder level . that was a provable lie , the non fatal wound on jfks rear was on his BACK and BELOW shoulder level and just right of the spine .

in the shaw trial irving dymond who was shaws defense lawyer tried to have the warren report admitted into evidence .the judge said no stating it was HEAR SAY .

i will watch the video above and review it .

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg

zapruder film frame

https://www.conspiraciestalk.com/index.php?topic=188.0

the back of jfks head

https://www.conspiraciestalk.com/index.php?topic=49.0

right rear head blow out

https://www.cyberlearning-world.com/nhhs/compapps/workshop/jfk/autopsy.htm

jfk autopsy photos

here is the video in question



i view a lot of videos on youtube related to jfk and his assassination . i read comments posted on them and often i post comments or i reply to other peoples comments .

some people like me are happy to have a discussion , others who are entrenched in their view point on this case (quite often entrenched with very little knowledge of the case ) very often immediately attack you . i get attacked a lot for daring to post and say SORRY BUT YOU ARE INCORRECT THERE . some video uploaders also are only too happy to have people post comments on their videos , and why not ? , its a free world RIGHT ? . so what is wrong with differing opinions ? we all have them , its normal . and sane and rational people can have different opinions , disagree and yet do so in a cordial and civil manner . and some video uploaders disable comments . i think that is rather childish and in a way smacks of censorship . after all i could make a video that is rife with inaccuracies , falsehoods and lies , upload it to youtube and then refuse (by disabling comments ) to allow people to comment and correct those inaccuracies and lies . the above mentioned video uploader DISABLED COMMENTS , that is the first point here in my review .

the us mainstream media certainly is renowned now for not allowing any sort of fair and balanced discussion on tv of the evidence in this case . what they give you is gerald posner , bugliosi , gus russo , max holland etc etc and that leads to a completely one sided very biased agenda driven program . i mean the 1967 cbs program where they did the rifle tests (its on youtube) was made with a warren commission man as ADVISOR . now it that didnt tell you there was an agenda there what would ? , but then it was cbs so what else should we have expected ? .

i noticed by the way that the program is called THE AGENDA lol lol , i know its the program name in general and not just for this video but well i think the name is very apt , given the carry on in it .

let me just say that some 13 minutes in to the video (with 8 minutes to go ) and not ONE SINGLE THING has been debunked . but then by disabling comments they made sure that if they did speak inaccurately or god forbid lie that we have no way of correcting them . well i have , and its right here .

now the person being interviewed is a gay man , i have no issues at all with that . well except one , not that he is gay NO , that he is using being gay to support another gay man , in this case clay shaw . and that the interviewee being gay taints his view on this case because part of this case involved a gay man (clay shaw ) being charged with being in some way party to a conspiracy that led to jfks death . ive written many posts , comments and pieces on jfks death and people and witnesses etc related to it , not once did i write about them or speak about them based on my sexuality or theirs . if i say someone is a liar , its because they provably lied and i can prove it . its not about opinions , beliefs , sexuality , religion , its about facts , truth , what we can prove and what we can disprove . if shaw was a catholic and the interviewee a catholic , would he be saying shaw was innocent based on that ? i would hope not , so then why do so based on both of them being gay ? .

contrary to what many falsely believe , because they were lied to , jim garrison did not charge shaw with conspiracy because he was a gay man . in fact garrison went out of his way to try and ensure that shaws sexuality was not brought into it . however that was difficult given that in his gay life if you will he used the alias clay bertrand . but he also used that alias in ways that tie in with the reason he was arrested and charged .

when shaw was arrested he was put through a booking procedure , just as anyone else arrested would be . this was not questioning or interrogation , just standard booking procedure . shaw VOLUNTEERED when asked if he ever used any alias that he used the name CLAY BERTRAND . shaw signed not one but atleast 3 booking sheets with the alias clay bertrand on them . the jury in the case however were denied the right to see or know about this vital evidence . so when they reached a verdict it was without them knowing that shaw LIED about using the alias clay bertrand . and having being allowed to hide that LIE from the jury that then allowed him to lie further . we cant blame the jury however , they did their best .

the judge , that is judge haggerty however knew all the evidence and he knew shaw lied , and he told us so . here is an excerpt from an article

" In a 1992 interview, Edward Haggerty, who was the judge at the Clay Shaw trial, stated: "I believe he [Shaw] was lying to the jury. Of course, the jury probably believed him. But I think Shaw put a good con job on the jury"

so the jury in acquitting shaw never knew that HE ADMITTED that he was clay bertrand , so unknown to them it was INDISPUTABLE that shaw was bertrand , as he admitted it himself . the jury heard from witnesses from clinton , one of them a sheriff that they saw oswald standing in line in a black voter registration drive . of course for obvious reasons he stood out like a sore thumb . but he wasnt the only one . the sheriff noted a fancy car nearby and two other white men in it . he approached the driver and asked him his business there , remember now this was 1963 in the deep south , a very different time . the man told him his name was shaw and that he was connected to the international trade mart . he later pointed out in court clay shaw as the man he spoke to . and from witness descriptions the odd looking man sat  in the car with shaw can only have been dave ferrie .

the jury decided for reasons known only to them to not believe the clinton witnesses , but then again they again were not allowed to know the full truth . but lets see what the hsca in 78/79 said about the clinton witnesses

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that available records "lent substantial credence to the possibility that Oswald and David Ferrie had been involved in the same Civil Air Patrol (CAP) unit during the same period of time."[62] Committee investigators found six witnesses who said that Oswald had been present at CAP meetings headed by David Ferrie.[63]

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton, Louisiana in late August, [or] early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination"

what did dick helms of the cia say about shaw ?

"During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America."

the cia volunteer very little in regard this case , so the above admission by helms is surprising . in addition we also have former cia man victor marchetti who knew shaw was connected to the cia . he mentioned a conversation in cia offices where they spoke about given shaw all the help he needed . marchetti said that shaw in cia terms may have been a dangle . so shaw in saying he had no cia connections once again lied .

so now we know a lot more about mr shaw than the jury did . we knwo he lied about being bertrand , we know he lied about being connected to the cia , we know he lied when he said he did not know either oswald or ferrie . and we know the hsca with benefit of far more evidence than the jury had believed the clinton witnesses to be credible and truthful .

just to add a bit more , here is a small bit by jim di eugenio on clay shaw

" Its not speculation.  Shaw was Bertrand. Period.  End of story.

The FBI and Garrison had upwards of ten sources on this, including WR loyalist Larry Schiller. In fact, even Ed Guthman knew, and he told Liebeler.

As I noted, Litwin disguises this in his book with a bit of trickery that reminds me of Jerry Posner, and  I pointed out in my review precisely how he did it. But let me quote the FBI document itself. "On February 24, 1967, we received information from Aaron Kohn and from NO 1309-C that Clay Shaw is identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand...." "

when shaw was arrested the name bertrand was not mentioned to him , garrison kept that quiet . so at that point shaw would not have felt that giving his alias would harm him . the judge ruled that the jury could not hear from officer al habighorst and see or hear about shaws admission that he was clay bertrand , he did so incorrectly , he ruled so because shaws lawyers claimed that shaws lawyer was not present when he was questioned . such a ruling only applied to actual interrogation and questioning about THE CRIME . it did not apply to standard booking procedure . in any case shaws lawyer was mere feet away by the door , neither man complained at the time . only when garrisons files were stolen and given to shaws lawyers would the importance of that alias become evident and a problem .

the interviewee fred litwin says that shaw was a good man , DOES HE MENTION ANY OF THE ABOVE ?. and its clear that he is arguing that shaw was victimized for being gay , and that is absolute nonsense . in fact when shaw was arrested his new orleans home was searched . this fine upstanding man had a room containing shall we say items where a person would be tied up , whipped or tortured . if garrison wanted to attack shaw because he was gay he would have let all that be known , but he didnt .

when litwin speaks who are his sources ? , well i can tell you his sources are some of the most dubious . for example one of his sources is clay shaws friend who shaw had write a book ABOUT SHAW called american grotesque . he used harry connick senior the DA after garrison , hacks like billings and hugh aynesworth and shaws lawyers .

this is a guy who in the video above says that he has spoken to people that REFUSE to read , view or research books , articles and sources etc OTHER THAN THOSE that have the view that oswald didnt do it , that shaw was bertrand etc . yet i can not see an instance where litwin cites any source that disputes him . that is plain old hypocrisy is it not ? .

OH YES the idiot interviewing him at no point questioned litwin and said WELL HANG ON NOW A MINUTE , JIM DIEUGENIO FOR ONE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING HOW YOU MISLED AND OMITTED ETC IN YOUR BOOK , CAN YOU ANSWER THAT ? . there was no one there to speak for the other side of the argument . and the interviewer himself showed his leanings by saying he read posners case closed and how good a book it was (litwin agreed) and by completely AND FALSELY labeling the movie jfk as complete fiction . so much for unbiased journalism . they mentioned non conspiracy books , such as case closed mentioned above , another being bugliosis reclaiming history , which is for many the holy grail for those that believe oswald did it alone , in that sense im certain litwin will have read it . and remarkably they made no mention of that fact that bugliosi attacked posner FOR THE DECEPTIONS HE EMPLOYED IN HIS BOOK . and the interviewer attacked alex jones as reprehensible . usually honest and fair journalism prohibits such behavior , ever seen an interviewer say LOOK THAT GUY IS NOT HERE SO WE CANT TALK ABOUT HIM AS HE IS NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF ? . if they cant do honest , open and unbiased tv they should not do any .

posner provably lied to congress about what jfk witnesses said . he falsely claimed that he interviewed witnesses who when asked said THEY NEVER EVER SPOKE WITH HIM . he provably twisted , distorted and omitted and deceived in his book . other better books prove this , but hey LETS NOT MENTION THAT .

they mentioned that jackie gave very little testimony to the warren commission . this is true , but if you read her testimony you wont notice that the commission CENSORED IT . yes they decided to take out the bit where she talked about jfks head wound . in which she said she was trying to hold his head on , from the back there was nothing . DONT BELIEVE ME ? just go and google jackie kennedy censored testimony , you can find it also on jfk lancer .

21 minutes of video about debunking jfk conspiracies and not one thing was debunked , in fact as we can see above quite a bit was omitted . shaw was not victimized by garrison , and certainly not for being gay . garrison never said that shaw shot jfk or that he was party to that shooting , just that he played some part however peripheral it may have been . even if it was only sheep dipping oswald and getting him ready for his final acts in this tragic story . what ? so garrison knew that shaw had some vital information relating to jfks assassination and the accused assassin that he lied through his teeth about , and garrison should just have said IT DOES NOT MATTER  ?  . he was new orleans DA just as with any DA anywhere he had a duty to investigate . when he did he offered to give the fbi the case to investigate , prosecute or throw out if they saw fit . THEY DECLINED and let him go to trial . so the fbi could have ended it before it began and they chose not to .

and all of this is just the tip of the garrison / shaw iceberg . if litwin wont tell you all this what else is he hiding ? . well a far better man , far better researched man mr james di eugenio can go a long way to answering that question. so i will leave this in james very capable hands . here he is

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27126-jim-dieugenio-vs-fred-litwin/

now sadly despite an autopsy . 3 pathologists and several commissions we still really cant state with 100% accuracy where this wound was . IE was it at T3 ? or T2 ? or C 1 etc . we should be able to answer all these questions . lol but we cant . but luckily we have autopsy photos etc .

david emerling in a comment of his posted a graphic he made that shows the location of the entry wound where HE SAYS it was . or as near to it as he can get it . i will post davids graphic here and an autopsy photo .

just for clarity here is davids post

"@NOC1TIME  I created a graphic indicating (to the best I could) the location of the wound as it appears in the autopsy photograph. It is depicted by a red dot. I think many people would agree with what I've depicted as the "shoulder line", "neck area" and "back area". I guess we could quibble a bit about that, but I don't think what I've indicated is unreasonable in any way.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PfwZT-CEgX8Oq8IXabo-zXESHksEoYRi/view?usp=sharing

The red dot appears above the shoulder line; yet, within both the neck and back area. This is why it is difficult to describe. Nomenclature-wise, it's an awkward area. It seems you want to debate anatomical semantics.

Yet, no matter what words one chooses to describe the wound's location - there is the AUTOPSY PHOTO. That's where it is!" david emerling

ok so here is davids diagram followed by the autopsy photo




ok so the first picture / graphic belongs to david , he posted a link to it in a comment on his youtube video . its not my property its davids im just using it here for comparison purposes .

ok so lets look at what david says again

"I created a graphic indicating (to the best I could) the location of the wound as it appears in the autopsy photograph. It is depicted by a red dot. " david

so THE RED DOT . if you look at davids graphic it depicts on what appears to be a rather well built mans back a shape / outline , i say well built because he appears to have a large neck . shoulder area , when you see jfks photo you will see a difference

on top of the mans back is the shape / outline shall we say is a shape not unlike a trash can . im not trying to be rude here at all , i just think its that sort of shape and also its for clarity . through the upper of the graphic is a BLUE dotted line . which depicts the "SHOULDER LINE " from left to right of the picture . at the top of the trash can shape (lets call this the trash can lid ) he has a small green box . approximately half of the green box is within the trash can lid and the other half is above and OUTSIDE of the trash can lid . in the bottom right corner of this green box he has placed a RED DOT which he says represents where jfks non fatal wound was . as best as david can locate it .

NOW NOTE THE DOTTED BLUE "SHOULDER " LINE AND THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE "RED DOT" . what can we say here ? lets see , would there be roughly give or take 3 inches between the "shoulder line " and the "red dot" ? . i mean i know we are seeing the mans back on a smaller scale . but im estimating about 3 inches .

so 3 inches ABOVE "SHOULDER LINE " david places the entry wound . now lets look at some warren commission exhibits , look at the center / middle of the three exhibits which is CE 386

 

now lets look at davids graphic again



david has positioned his red dot pretty much EXACTLY where the warren commission and specter placed the entry wound . ok davids graphic may have the hole slightly more leftward but fractionally . but in essence david has struck to the tried and tested lone nut positioning of the entry wound . by the way the above warren exhibits are drawings by rydberg . rydberg NEVER saw jfks body , and he was NEVER allowed to see any autopsy photos . he drew what HUMES TOLD HIM TO DRAW .

so david has the entry APPROX (my estimate ) 3 inches above shoulder level . shoulder level is indicated on his graphic as being along the DOTTED "BLUE LINE " . i can agree with david on one thing his dotted "BLUE LINE " representing the SHOULDER LINE is an accurate depiction of  A shoulder line .

now lets look at an actual jfk autopsy photo



PLEASE NOTE THE AUTOPSY PHOTO IS A BIT LARGER THAN THE OTHER PICTURES SO IT DOESNT FIT AS I WOULD LIKE , BUT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE POST HERE AND SLIDE THE SLIDER ALONG TO REVEAL MORE OF THE PHOTO . I WILL TRY TO GET A MORE SUITABLE SIZE THAT FITS BETTER .

just so we understand what we are seeing . please note the thick wrinkles on the back of jfks neck , his head is pushed back causing these wrinkles , which means the base of the rear of his head can appear to be closer to the shoulders than it really was . on the upper left of the picture we can see two hands . the upper of the two hands (a right hand ) belongs to a person positioned above jfks head . the other hand the lower of the two is a left hand belonging to a second person , both hands are holding a rule , on end (the top end ) is pressed up against a bone / vertebra . and if you note the fingers of both hands they are holding the rule so as to highlight the measuremnet and location of the wound . now look on the upper right of the picture you will see a third hand .

ok the third hand i just mentioned is if you look ON THE SHOULDER and at shoulder level , we know this as we can see THE SHOULDER LINE . now look again at the back of jfk just to the right of the rule . you will see TWO marks , a larger one and a smaller one slightly below that . the larger of the two marks is so we are told THE ENTRY WOUND .

now from looking at these pictures we can see certain things . we can see that david has the entry wound some 3 inches ABOVE the shoulder line , while the autopsy photo proves that the wound was in fact  BELOW  the shoulder line . we can see that what david calls the BASE OF THE NECK is some 3 inches ABOVE the SHOULDER LINE . and we can see that the actual wound was BELOW that shoulder line .

what else can we take from this ? . well if david says that 3 inches above the SHOULDER line is the base of the beck that anything below the SHOULDER LINE is the back . thus jfks wound while high was indeed ON THE BACK not the neck or the base of the neck . of course i welcome any comments on this .

thanks to david for uploading his graphic . and thanks to my pal for resizing the autopsy photo to a more suitable size and for uploading the autopsy photos for my use here .

in a post on youtube on one of his videos , the dale myers one , david posted about the death of mrs johnson . here is what he posted .

"Priscilla McMillan died on July 7, 2021. I actually thought she was a remarkable woman. She was often an overlooked, key figure in understanding just how ridiculous all the conspiracy assertations were - that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually a spy, intelligence operative or the he was directed, controlled or specially trained by any government or organization. Implied, by missing in this article is the McMillan was fluent in the Russian language. She knew Marina Oswald in a way that nobody ever could and got a unique insight into Oswald through her.
https://radio.wpsu.org/post/personal-remembrance-priscilla-mcmillan-only-person-who-knew-jfk-and-lee-harvey-oswald
"

now to anyone that hasnt really done any proper research into this case well they might look at the above , read the article linked and think yes she was just a good author who did a good job back then NOTHING TO SEE HERE , LETS MOVE ON .

but as always when it comes to this case there is always more to see MUCH MORE . time and again we see the sanatizing of certain people by the media etc . we are in essence told or shown what they want us to know and see . for example the video davis posted his post on was his dale myers animation video . dale has written an oswald did it book , called with malice about the j d tippit shooting . he also ghost wrote on bugliosis reclaiming history and he has made his now famous animation . the animation alone earned him a million dollars minimal . the media lauds praise upon him for showing us the error of our ways and by telling us THAT OSWALD DID IT ALL ALONE .

but what are the media not telling you ? . they are not telling you that myers was a conspiracy theorist . that he is ON FILM saying that oswald CANNOT HAVE WALKED THE DISTANCE BETWEEN HIS ROOMING HOUSE ON NORTH BECKLEY AND 10TH STREET where tippit was killed . he simply didnt have enough time . and he is on tape saying that HE COULD PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT OSWALD WAS NOT GUILTY OF EITHER CRIME . next time you see a documentary or interview with mr myers on mainstream media look and see if any of the above gets mentioned . now back to mrs johnson .

here is what i replied to davids comment .

hi david been a while , i hope you are keeping safe and well .

its always sad to hear that yet another person with some manner of contact to this case has passed away . aft#r all no matter how small their part was they were a part of history . as near to 60 years has passed since those tragic events i guess we must get used to the sure knowledge that soon enough all will have left us .

even after all have left us im sure that we or the next generation of researchers will still be discussing their parts however small in this tragic slice of history . all that said good bad or indifferent when discussing these people we need a warts and all approach . i mean that we cant sanatize a persons past or indeed their character so that only the good remains . when we discuss a witness for example , we naturally look at all their statements to see if they are contradictory or contain lies etc . we look at their lives and behavior before and after jfks death , what connections they have , what skeletons they may have in the closet that may relate to this case . meaning , if we are discussing a witness , did they later embellish or lie to make money , sell a book etc etc . we dont and cant sanatize , we expose that person good or bad for all to see and then those that reading that follow us into researching this case can see the real person . they will be able to judge if that person is honest , reliable , credible or the opposite of that .

when it comes to priscilla johnson mcmillan their is indeed sanatizing , and im certain david thaty a man of your knowledge of this case knows EXACTLY what i mean here . i mean so far as i can see not one word of your comment or the article that you linked to makes a mention of her CIA connections . but then she is not the only person with any connection to this case who has been sanatized by the media etc .

the truth is the truth and we must put that truth out there good or bad . for example mcmillans book is based in large part on what marina oswald told her . marina was paid some two thirds of the amount advanced to mcmillan for that book . thats just the advance . we know quite quickly marina had a business manager in place . she was making money from her stories and items of interest that could be sold . we now know from both the warren commission and hsca that marina lied to them repeatedly . we also know the following

" It was also pointed out that later Marina began to distance herself
from Johnson's conclusions, saying she was "misled by the ?evidence'
presented to me by government authorities... I am now convinced Lee was
an FBI informant and did not kill president Kennedy."

marina herseld lacks credibility thus anything she claimed (and she claimed ridiculous things and she did undeniably lie ) must be viewed in that light . ive had it argued to me by lone nutters that YES marina did lie  BUT SHE TOLD THE TRUTH SOME TIMES thus we really should believe her . based on lone nutter claims the exact same could be argued about oswald himself . that he lied when it suited and told the truth when it suited . yet no LN will ever accept oswalds word for anything , well unless what he said tends to incriminate him lol . then it becomes gospel truth .

but back to the late mrs johnson . should we look a bit closer at her ? had she any skeletons in her closet ?. certainly she did , and as i said earlier here im certain david knows this and if the article writer didnt know that does not bode very well for their research skills as it would not really take any real skill to get the information .

johnson or mcmillan as she was has cia connections . lets take a little look .


?Pamela Johnson McMillan may be called to discuss her contacts with Oswald in Moscow at which time her ?witting source? affiliation may be exposed,? Breckenridge wrote in a memo.

Nonetheless, McMillan maintained contact with Agency officials who

NOW WHEN I LOOKED AT MY POST SHORTLY AFTER I SAW THAT SOME POSSIBLY 50% OF WHAT I POSTED ABOVE IS GONE . before anyone says anything im in no way accusing david of anything . i have often posted on youtube these days to find that all or part of my comment was gone , links are gone , quotes are gone and so on . so im 100% certain its down to youtubes stupidity . so i re posted on davids thread as best i could and as best i could remember what i had originally posted but that was now missing .and just in case ive posted the lot here .  HERE IT IS

The CIA was the first to recognize it might have a problem.  When
Congress re-opened the JFK investigation in 1977, CIA general counsel
Scott Breckenridge worried that McMillan?s cover relationship to the
Agency in 1959 might be exposed.


?Pamela Johnson McMillan may be called to discuss her contacts with Oswald in Moscow at which time her ?witting source? affiliation may be exposed,? Breckenridge wrote in a memo.


A witting source is someone who knows they are giving information to
the CIA. In 1959 many patriotic Americans were witting sources, of
course. There was nothing wrong with supplying the U.S. government with
useful information. McMillan was certainly not a tool of the Agency, not
at that time. She was considered for Agency employment several times
and rejected for her youthful association with leftist groups.




Nonetheless, McMillan maintained contact with Agency officials who
recognized she was sympathetic to the Agency?s purposes. British popular
historian John Simkin cites a declassified December 1962 CIA memo,
which stated about McMillan before she married.




?I think that Miss
Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It
will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could
come around"


A mutually useful relationship developed and was documented in McMillan?s CIA file.  According to this January 1975 CIA memo, the Agency classified McMillan as a ?witting collaborator.? 
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54212#relPageId=289

Relevance




The relevance of these new records?their newsworthiness?seems
indisputable to me. They show McMillan was not just the independent
scholar she purported to be. She was also a CIA asset and thus less
independent than she wanted to be known.




How are these facts relevant to our understanding of the JFK story
today? The Priscilla McMillan story is a reminder that the Agency
used?and uses? its covert assets to influence American public opinion on
the question of who killed JFK. That?s not a theory. That?s a fact.


After graduating from Harvard with a master's degree  in 1952 she applied to join the Central Intelligence Agency.
On 3rd October, 1952, a request was submitted for a security clearance
as an "Intelligence Officer, GS-7" in Operations to work in the Soviet
Realities Division of the CIA. On 21 January, 1953, this was changed to a
request for a security clearance for Johnson (CIA number as 71589) to
work as an Intelligence Officer. On the same day, Bruce L. Solie
responded that Johnson had "declined employment on 21 January 1953". A
formal cancellation was put in her file on 10 February and it was said
"it is not believed there is any CE interest in subject case." (4)

   

The following month W. A. Osborne,
chief of the Security Branch, sent a memo to Deputy Chief, Security
Division, requesting that her "case be reviewed from a CE
(counter-espionage) aspect." (5) On 17 March, 1953, Osborne sent a memo
to Sheffield Edwards,
head of CIA security, that after checking out Johnson's associates he
recommended approval. "She's active politically (i.e. interested in
domestic and international politics) but is not and has not been tied in
with subversive groups... While a member of UWF, she does not appear to
be objectionally internationalistic." (6)

   

Later that month Osborne sent out another memo to Edwards that was
completely at odds with the one sent six days previously: "The most
serious question raised by investigation and research is that of her
associates. It is felt that these associations being considered in the
light of her activities in the United World Federalists, her attendance
at questionable schools and her activities in the League for Industrial
Democracy raise a question regarding her eligibility which should be
resolved in favor of the Agency. It is, therefore, recommended that she
be disapproved." (7)

   Although Johnson was apparently rejected, Cord Meyer, her former leader at the United World Federalists, was recruited by the CIA after an interview with Allen W. Dulles "we had a number of friends in common at whose houses we had played tennis together on Long Island weekends."


In September, 1975, a subcommittee under Richard Schweiker was asked to investigate the performance of the intelligence agencies concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
This created panic in the CIA and in one document declassified in April
1999, the CIA raised concern about McMillian appearing before the
committee: "Priscilla Johnson McMillan may be called to discuss her
contacts with Oswald in Moscow at which time her CIA "witting source"
affiliation may be exposed. She gave executive session testimony last
week, and staff indicated that they had follow-up issues as a result but
would not share their issues. If the CIA relationship is presented,
Gary Coit (retired, DCD) may be subpoenaed." (36) This was a reference
to Johnson's 201 file dated 28 January, 1975: "In accordance with the
DDO's notice of 9 December 1974, I have reviewed the 201 file on
(Priscilla Johnson) and have determined that it can most accurately be
categorized as indicated below as a 'witting collaborator' (01 Code
A1)." (37)

so this is a woman who applied to  join the cia in the early 50s . she later became a cia asset . a very willing and co operative collaborator TO USE THE CIA OWN WORDING . and one who the cia said would probably write WHAT EVER THEY WANTED WRITTEN . and she just happens to write a book saying oswald was a lone nut . neither david or the article mention her cia connections , or that marina was an acknowledged liar , both warren cmmission and hsca admitted this YET STILL USED HER TESTIMONY to convict oswald in the peoples minds . marina was paid about two thirds of the advance money that johnson was paid for her book . and we already know that marina was happy to lie if it suited her . marina later came to distrust johnson .

WHEN DID HUMES ,BOSWELL AND FINCK KNOW THAT JFK HAD A THROAT WOUND ?

officially they only found out about jfks throat wound the day after the assassination on november 23 . officially at that point having learned about jfks throat wound on saturday humes then revised / re wrote his autopsy report .

you are about to find out and see proof that the official line above IS A LIE .

in FACT dr humes was told as early as 3.30 pm on november 22 (just 3 hours after the assassination ) that jfk had a throat wound .

at this point im going to quote a post from sandy larsen . all credit and thanks for the post to come goes to sandy . thank you sandy for your work .


" According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it the day of the autopsy, apparently long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

    We have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

    Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=605&relPageId=4
     
    Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find source.]
     
    In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Ebersole indicated that information regarding the throat wound and tracheotomy was received from Parkland Hospital during the autopsy. Though he couldn't recall how the information was conveyed. (Source) He referred to the throat wound as one of exit, which contradicts what was believed at Parkland. I believe he did that because (according to Lt. Lipsey) the doctors were convinced at the time that the throat wound was one of exit for the EOP entrance wound.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md60/html/Image64.htm

    Dr. Perry testified to the WC that he received two calls from Dr. Humes the day of the autopsy, during which they spoke about the throat wound. Arlen Specter then interjected and successfully changed Perry's mind on the timing of the calls, saying they were made the following day. Here is the testimony. (I don't know if Perry ever changed his mind back.)

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=26&tab=page

    In his HSCA testimony, photographer Robert Knudsen recalled seeing a B&W negative of Kennedy in profile, right side, in an erect posture. He recalled there being two metal probes, one extending out the back wound and the other in a track from the back of the neck to the throat wound. (Source)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=666#relPageId=34&tab=page

    In his ARRB testimony, John Stringer said that a metal probe was inserted into the throat wound. [Find source.]

    [Check out the Audrey Bell story.]

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

    [Check out this list and this list by Micah Mileto.]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

EDITS:

    Added Ebersole's HSCA testimony.
    Added Perry's WC testimony.
    Added Knudsen's HSCA  testimony.
    Added Stringer's ARRB testimony.
    Added links to Micah Mileto's lists.
"

ok i posted sandys original post exactly as it was posted . the only exception was that i added the links to the sources he cited .

so what does the information above tell us ? . it tells us that dr livingstone called bethesda the afternoon of the assassination and was put through to humes , where upon he informed humes (some time around 3.30 to 4pm on november 22 ) that jfk had a throat wound . the american medical association (see the testimony linked ) attempted to object to livingstones testimony asserting in essence that he had no way to be sure what time or day he had at that time . he quickly put them in their place in his testimony explaining that he knew very well what time it was and WHY . please see his testimony above .

it tells us that dr ebersole testified that humes had not one but two calls from dallas DURING the autopsy on the evening of november 22 informing him that jfk had a throat wound and that they had performed minor surgery through it , in essence they enlarged the wound just enough to insert a trach .

dr perry in his testimony stated that he spoke to humes on the day of the assassination in regards the above . that is until good old boy arlen specter jumped in and reminded him of the script that perry had veered from . perry then changed his testimony and said the calls were on saturday not friday . but we already have two witnesses above without requiring perry that show humes and his official story regarding his first learning of the throat wound to be a  blatant LIE .

so OFFICIALLY humes learned of the throat wound on saturday november 23 and that then caused him to revise his autopsy report in essence to record that a bullet entered the upper right of the neck (a lie in its self ) and PROBABLY exited the throat .
so humes has three lies two his name here already .

1 / that the entry wound was on the upper right neck
2 / that he ONLY learned of the throat wound on saturday november 23
3 / that what he learned on saturday about the throat wound caused him to revise his autopsy report

as he already knew as early as 3.30pm on friday november 22 that jfk had a throat wound we now can state as fact that what ever reason he had to CHANGE the autopsy report that he didnt do it because he only learned of the throat wound . its an utter lie .

the following day upon hearing that oswald had died he again altered the autopsy report . now i wonder how mr oswald being killed would have any bearing at all on findings of jfks autopsy ? . the answer is NONE , no bearing at all . but if mr oswald was dead as oppose to being alive well there now was one MAJOR difference , which was that humes now knew that there would be NO TRIAL . in essence he could alter the autopsy report to state what ever nonsense he wanted and as their would be no trial now who would know ? .

i dont want top be too hard on these 3 men . i believe essentially that before that tragic day november 22 1963 that all 3 men were probably honest men . they then found them selves in a situation that clearly required them to lie and deceive , probably under orders . so i can feel sympathy for them to a degree , but now we are also in no doubt that they did lie and deceive . and that dishonesty and those lies reflect now on all aspects of the autopsy they performed and in all statements and testimony they gave . meaning now everything they said and did is in question as they now have serious credibility issues .

CONSPIRACIES TALK FORUM WOULD LIKE TO WISH ALL MEMBERS A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR AND 2020 . WE THANK ALL WHO VISITED US AND SUPPORTED US IN 2019 AND WE HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT US IN 2020 .

HAPPY NEW YEAR from the conspiracies talk team

A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” �" i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” [Fig. 5 - Page 1, Page 2]

Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.
   

Figure 5. Declassified FBI memo reporting neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify “C1” [#399] as the bullet they handled on 11/22/63.
[Page 1, Page 2]

A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]

Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” �" the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.
   

Figure 6. Suppressed 1964 FBI report detailing that neither of the Secret Service agents who handled “#399” on 11/22/63 could later identify it.

In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives. [Fig. 9]

On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

Figure 7. Letter to Assassinations Records Review Board requesting a search for records that might support FBI’s claim that hospital witnesses identified #399.
   

Figure 8. ARRB reports that it is unable to find records supporting FBI claim Parkland Hospital witnesses identified #399.
   

Figure 9. Letter to National Archives requesting search for additional files on C.E. #399.
   

Figure 10. Letter from National Archives disclosing no additional files exist on C.E. #399.

[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]

Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.

“Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”

“I’ll find out,” he promised.

Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau.  Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files �" CE  # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.

Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.”  [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.

Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
   

Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.

Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.
Missing 302s?

But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been written by the agents who investigated #399’s chain of possession in both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s whatsoever backing them up.

But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission’s formal request, as outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on 6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was checked out to FBI Agent Todd. [Fig. 12] What transpired during these episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the record.
   

Figure 12. FBI routing slip. Note that #399 was sent from Washington to Dallas and back again, and that FBI agent Todd checked out the bullet on 6/24/64, the day it was reported the Secret Service Agents told Todd they could not identify #399. [See Fig. 5 (page 1, page 2) and Fig. 6.] (Courtesy of John Hunt)

Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright’s testimonies with a bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn’t it also adjust Johnsen and Rowley’s? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in Dallas.
Summary

In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have interviewed both men and the Bureau’s own suppressed records contradict the FBI’s public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.

What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.

[1] The eighth wound, JFK’s head wound, accounted for one of the bullets. And evidence from the scene and from a home movie taken of the murder by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, suggests that a third bullet had missed entirely.

[2] Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 161 �" 164.

[3] The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy �" Report. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964, p. 81. See also 6H130 �" 131.

[4] 18H800. See also: Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 155.

[5] 24H412.

[6] 3H428; 24H412.

[7] See Ray Marcus monograph, The Bastard Bullet.

[8] Text of email message from Josiah Thompson to Aguilar, 12/10/99.

[9] Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 175.

[10] 5/11/98 email message from Eileen Sullivan re: “Your letter to Jeremy Gunn, April 4, 1998.”

The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?

Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
Introduction

Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer, Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission’s case that with but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had single handedly altered the course of history. [Fig. 1]

Mr. Specter’s hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one shooter was involved.

For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds �" eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from the supposed “sniper’s nest” would have been necessary to explain all the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired, reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by both men.[1]
   

Figure 1. CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused both of JFK’s non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally’s wounds, is shown in two views, above left. Arlen Specter theorized the bullet had followed a path much like the one shown at right. (National Archives photo)

But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

Mr. Specter’s idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor’s clothes and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the stretcher where the bullet was discovered.[2] Nevertheless, studies done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile to Oswald’s rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet’s chain of possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview

That a bullet, fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to doubt the bullet’s bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell he’d held on the day of the murder.

For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved. Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out that the FBI’s own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission, and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.
A Bullet is Found at Parkland Hospital

The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled stretchers when he bumped a stretcher “against the wall and a bullet rolled out.”[3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright, Parkland’s personnel director. After examining the bullet together, Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen.[4]

Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn, gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,[5] who carried it to agent Robert Frazier in the FBI’s Crime Lab.[6] Without exploring the fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence, Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found originally.

The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page, July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace “various items of physical evidence,” among them #399 [Fig. 2].  #2011 relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it. [Figs. 2, 3]
   

Figure 2. C.E. 2011. Chain of possession of #399(FBI Letterhead Memo Dallas 7/7/64)

Positive identification” of a piece of evidence by a witness means that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to establish positive identification is for a witness to place his initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in evidence and a crime.

Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was indeed the same one.

However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,[7] it also states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure being merely one of not “positively identifying” the shell that, otherwise, “appeared to be the same” bullet they had originally handled. [Figs. 2, 3]

Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said #399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on 6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same bullet, even if neither could “positively identify” it by an inscribed initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a resemblance.
   

Figure 3. Last two pages of 7/7/64 FBI memo to Warren Commission, as published in C.E. #2011. Note that FBI states that both Dallas witnesses said #399 looked like the bullet they found on 11/22/63.

And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors published a book in 1967.
Two Different Accounts from One Witness

Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”[8]

As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”[9]
[Fig. 4]
   

Figure 4. In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P. Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did not look like C.E. # 399.

Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.

 ''I am convinced that the one bullet theory is wrong, because of the fact, that one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.  I am disturbed as to why I was not asked by the Warren Commission to give final testimony, even though Doctors Olivier and Dzimean [sic], to whom I serve as their Consultant were called, to give final testimony. I had advised these doctors to conduct certain experiments at Edgewood �" which they did �" and their findings were not consistent with their testimony.'' Joseph R. Dolce, MD, FACS


http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests