Seeking the O. P. Wright/Tomlinson deposition re: ce399 pointed nose

[Jim Hackett II]

Ok folks, I opened my mouth in a discussion, a very friendly one about the "sworn testimony" (wrong term I know) that the magic bullet was not and could not be the "stretcher bullet" and Manchester/FBI be damned.

Problem being I have looked for that doc online and in hard materials and I have not found the darn thing yet.
Our discussion will continue.
I could buy 6 Seconds in Dallas but I thought I had the doc somewhere.

[Jim Hackett II]

I just put my hands on a copy of "Six Seconds In Dallas".

I would have been willing to swear that the document I seek was in that book.

The denial of the FBI agent and Messrs. Tomlinson and Wright of the CE 399 "magic-specter-bullet" I have found in detail. No deposition of the "civilians" I truly thought was in that book could I find.

The truth of my point was accepted by the person I had the discussion with at the next part of the conversation before Thursday night's BORadio show.

Carl Ogelsby was right as I really thought there was a copy of the depositions in that book and I had let my memory shape my view of evidence. A no - no.
Live and learn.

Ok. It maybe time to reread some of the first generation material again for me.

[Dawn Meredith]

I just put my hands on a copy of "Six Seconds In Dallas".

I would have been willing to swear that the document I seek was in that book.

The denial of the FBI agent and Messrs. Tomlinson and Wright of the CE 399 "magic-specter-bullet" I have found in detail. No deposition of the "civilians" I truly thought was in that book could I find.

The truth of my point was accepted by the person I had the discussion with at the next part of the conversation before Thursday night's BORadio show.

Carl Ogelsby was right as I really thought there was a copy of the depositions in that book and I had let my memory shape my view of evidence. A no - no.
Live and learn.

Ok. It maybe time to reread some of the first generation material again for me.

Carl was "right" about a lot of things, but what are you specifically referencing here?

Dawn.

[Jim Hackett II]

QUOTE Me:[ Carl Ogelsby was right as I really thought there was a copy of the depositions in that book and I had let my memory shape my view of evidence. A no - no.] UNQUOTE Me

Though I found this sentence clear,
Thanks Dawn let me explain. But after I thank you for your interest and reply.

I would have sworn that there is a copy of O.P. Wright or Tomlinson's sworn deposition re: CE 399 in "6 Seconds In Dallas".
Not being the copper jacketed lie and not being round nosed lie either as the NARA CE 399 lie is now.
I would have sworn the deposition(s) was/were reproduced in Thompson's work.

I bragged in a BOR greet n feed gathering about the lack of verification for CE 399 in a conversation, and cited "6 Seconds in Dallas".
I bought a copy and searched again and again for the depositions in that book.
I found no such.

The reference is on page 175 in note 17.

The reason I referenced Carl was he cautioned us to have extra care to not warp the evidence to fit our own view of the crime. I had done just that as my memory of that deposition was bogus for location.

The discussion guest in my home conceded the point of a bogus CE 399 based on Thompson's book and a little thing Mr. Jack White did about lands-and-grooves changing between Lie 1 and Lie 2 (WC and HSCA).

My so called manufactured memory was wrong, but the issue is Not.
Jim