Post by John CorbettPost by Mark TylerPost by John CorbettPost by Mark TylerPost by Mark TylerPost by John McAdamsI've been going crazy with video lately, and so I've updated this
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm
Let me know of any witnesses I have missed.
Mr. LIEBELER. That was when the bullet him him in the head ; is that
correct?
Mr. HUDSON. Yes ; it looked like it hit him somewhere along about a little
bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Hudson.pdf
Thanks. I have updated my page.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This looks great John, I'm glad I could help out in some small way!
Hudson was in a very good position to see the effects of the head shot, so
he seems like a good quality witness for this list.
Thanks for putting in the remark "Hudson thought the second shot was the
head shot" alongside Hudson's head shot testimony as I think it's rather
salient. For readers who don't already know, Emmett Hudson said that the
head shot was the second shot of three, and that the timing between each
of the shots was long enough for someone to operate a bolt action gun.
He didn't specify the number of seconds between the shots, but the
Zapruder film tells us that the gap between JFK's reactions to being hit
in the back, and then the head was almost exactly 5 seconds, so presumably
the second gap was near this time also. In other words Hudson is a
perfect witness for the so called "lone nut" scenario with Lee Harvey
Oswald firing three shots from the TSBD with the bolt action gun that was
found after the assassination.
Many other Dealey Plaza witnesses agreed with Hudson's shooting scenario
such as Charles Brehm on the other side of Elm Street who also mentioned
three shots, the head shot being the second, and that the timing was
consistent with a single bolt action gun being used. While a shot fired
well after the head shot is not favoured by "lone nut" or "conspiracy"
believers in recent years, there is a lot of direct witness support for
it. When I started my study of witness statements back in 2019 this issue
was probably the biggest surprise for me as I had previously assumed that
the final shot was fired at Z313, or maybe a second later if two gunman
were at work. I now accept that this assumption about timing was wrong
and is directly contradicted by much corroborated witness evidence.
And the moral of the tale? Check all of the primary evidence before you
listen to any theories or speculation.
I don't think Charles Brehm is a good source witness for determining the
timing of the shots. He is seen clapping his hands even as JFK is clearly
reacting to having been shot. Brehm at that point doesn't seem to be aware
of what was happening.
Like almost all witnesses Brehm didn't change his behaviour after JFK was
hit, so it seems a little harsh to dismiss his testimony on that basis.
Most witnesses only started to take evasive action after the Z313 shot
judging from the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bronson, and Wiegman films.
There are other witnesses who agree with Brehm and Hudson, such as Mary
Moorman and Jean Hill who were very close to the limo and mention shots
being fired after the head shot. David Von Pein helpfully shares these
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jean-hill-and-mary-moorman.html
It's not hard to find cherry picked witnesses to support just about any
scenario you choose. The problem is the shooting only happened one way and
since we have it being described more than one way, we know a lot of
witnesses got some key elements wrong. To figure out what happened you
need need to look at the entire body of evidence and figure out what fits
and what doesn't. The body of evidence yields only one sensible solution.
Three shots were fired at JFK. The first one missed and the next two found
the mark.
Post by Mark TylerJean Hill was thoroughly cross examined by the Warren Commission and
expanded on some of the details. For example she said that the head shot
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hill.pdf
As I was saying, you can find witnesses to support any number of
scenarios. Only one scenario is correct and the witnesses who described it
otherwise are simply wrong.
Post by Mark TylerMy policy when studying the witnesses was to accept everything that each
witness said in any statement given in 1963 or 1964,
If you take that approach you are accepting multiple truths because from
the beginning eyewitness accounts varied greatly on key elements.
Indeed! But the key point is that I am accepting what each witness says
in their own words, and on their own terms. My interpretation comes
later, but any theory I concoct must explain why a witness disagrees with
my ideas (the burden of proof is on my shoulders you could say). I think
it is common for a witness to be distracted and miss one of the shots, so
perhaps we should understand what a witness says in terms of "perception"
rather than "truth". For example Mary Moorman perceived the first shot
noise when she took her photo at Z315, but the truth is that at least one
shot (and probably more) were fired before as we see the victims react
Z225-Z230. I conclude that she was simply busy concentrating on her
Polaroid camera, and failed to perceive all of the shot noises. Mary
Moorman's persistent honesty in not reporting the earlier shots here is to
her credit. A lesser person would have changed their story to follow the
herd and avoid social embarrassment.
Once you take account of witnesses missing shots and other events, a large
number of contradictions suddenly disappear and making sense of witness
statements becomes much easier.
Post by John CorbettPost by Mark Tylerand then if possible
locate the point in the timeline when the witness heard a shot being
fired. Only if there were conflicts between statements did I feel it
necessary to favour one witness over another (depending on the strength of
the evidence in each case). In other words, I accept corroborated witness
evidence unless stronger evidence exists to contradict it.
Multiple people can be wrong about the same thing. We know multiple people
were wrong about the same thing. For example most witnesses believed the
shots only came from one direction. One group of witnesses said they came
from the TSBD and another group said they came from the GK. Unless the two
groups were hearing a different set of shots and couldn't hear the other
set, we know for certain that one group had to be wrong about where the
shots came from. The same is true for the way other elements of the
shooting were described. Accepting what any witness tells us without
corroboration is a dubious practice. Using one witness to corroborate
another is almost as dubious. Anything any witness tells us should neither
be assumed to be right or wrong. It should be evaluated against the body
of evidence to determine if it is credible or not.
Post by Mark TylerConflicts between witnesses regarding when the first and last shots were
fired were very common so I have concluded that some witnesses missed
either the first or the last of the shots. With 15-20% of witnesses only
hearing two shots this seems a reasonably safe conclusion, and clears up a
lot of the contradictions between witness statements (e.g. whether the
shooting lasted 5 or 10 seconds in total, which suggests a 5 second
witness missed the start or finish of the shooting).
Post by John CorbettRelying on any witness, even a group of witnesses is a dubious exercise.
Depending on which group of witnesses you choose to believe, you can
construct a number of scenarios. The shooting only happened one way so
only one group of witnesses can be correct. The only witness I fully trust
is Zapruder's camera. If we are to believe the head shot was the second
shot, it follows that the single bullet was the first shot. The problem
with that is that shot was fired around Z220 with the sound reaching those
on Elm St. 3-4 frames later. So how do we explain Connally's turn to the
right at Z164 which he said he did in reaction to hearing the first shot
which he was positive was not the one that hit him. How do we explain
Rosemary Willis stopping and turning back in the direction of the TSBD
before Z220? It doesn't add up.
In order to determine what happened, we must look at the body of evidence
as a whole. You can construct any number of plausible scenarios that fit a
few pieces of evidence but don't fit with others. The only scenario that
makes sense to me is a first shot miss followed by the two shots that hit
JFK. The evidence for when the first shot was fired is inconclusive but my
best estimate is Z150.
I agree that you should look at the evidence as a whole, and look for
patterns that indicate when shots were fired. However, interpreting a
head turns in the Zapruder film isn't really evidence of a shot, and is
rather subjective.
Agreed but when we have a witness like Connally who describes for us what
he did in response to hearing the first shot and we see in the Z-film he
was doing just what he described, that is the kind of corroborate I have
faith in. Almost immediately after Connally turned his head to the right,
Rosemary Willis began to slow to a stop and then turned back toward the
TSBD. We have the Altgens photo showing the SS agents on the running board
of the follow up limo turning their heads to the rear. These aren't just
simple head turns that require interpretation. Clearly these people were
reacting to something.
Yes, I agree that the Altgens photo is helpful so lets explore it a little
as I think it is most instructive regarding timings and head turns:
Loading Image...
We can see that these agents have all turned to the rear or their right in
some form:
John Ready (our left, front position) - Fully turned to the rear.
Paul Landis (behind John Ready) - Mostly turned to the rear.
Clint Hill (on our right, front position) - Looking at JFK.
William McIntyre (behind Clint Hill) - Turning to his right.
George Hickey (back seat) - Fully turned to the rear.
If the photo was taken around Z253-Z255 as most people think (including
me!), are they reacting to the shot or shots at Z220 which hit JFK &
Connally, or are they reacting to a shot fired some time before? I
suspect it was a shot fired before Z220 because they didn't have time in
those 30 frames (1.6 seconds) to hear the noise and then react by a
complete body turn.
So when did the agents start their turns? Not before Z193 as the Zapruder
film proves:
Loading Image...
George Hickey is looking to his left, so he would have to spin close to 270
degrees over the next 60 Z-frames (3.3 seconds). By Z200 Hickey is looking
directly forward so he has started to move!
Loading Image...
By Z205 John Ready has started shuffling his arms around, so within 50
frames (2.7 seconds) he turned right around:
Loading Image...
During Z193-Z205 I see no evidence of JFK or Connally being hit so I
deduce we are looking at the reaction to the first shot here, and then
Z225-Z230 we see the reaction in the victims to a being hit by a different
shot. But when was the first shot fired? Assuming a witness reaction
time of 0.2-0.5 seconds, the first shot *MUST* have been fired before Z190
with all head turns etc all starting by Z195.
As I have previously noted, this fits the Z185 shot theory, i.e. the
second largest Z-film blurring episode, and John Connally saying he heard
a shot 2 seconds before he was hit circa Z225-Z230.
Anyone who thinks a shot was fired 2 seconds before Z185 needs to explain
the lack of reactions in unison before, and why do they all suddenly start
moving exactly in the same half second, exactly 2 seconds later? A
pregnant pause of that length for well trained agents makes no sense!
Surely it's far easier to just accept that a noisy gunshot was fired at
Z185 which fits the agents starting to move Z195-Z200 as soon as they hear
it; Zapruder starts shaking his camera as a reflex when he was startled at
Z190; Phil Willis and Hugh Betzner's photos sandwiching the shot sound
Z186 & Z202. No loose ends as far as I can tell, and all testimony is
backed up by the Zapruder film and two still photos. Denying a shot was
fired at Z185 requires someone to explain this remarkable set of
coincidences all happening within a fraction of a second. Meanwhile all
of the head turns before Z180 are sporadic and independent, and entirely
consistent with people in the cars looking at the crowd, and people in the
crowd looking at the cars.
As a side note, Rosemary Willis starts slowing her run down from 6 MPH
down to 4 MPH between Z133 and Z170. She seems to be decelerating as the
limo accelerates away from her at 10-12 MPH as it comes out of the corner
turn. Her full stop and head turn is Z190-Z200 - yet another coincidence
for my ever growing list!
Post by John CorbettPost by Mark TylerFor example at exactly the time Connally turns his
head Z160-Z170 JFK also turns towards the crowd, smiles, and waves which
doesn't seem consistent with a shot being fired.
It is consistent with a man who didn't recognize the sound as a gun shot.
Connally was an experienced hunter and he knew what a high powered rifle
sounded like. JFK was a trap shooter and more familiar with shotguns which
produce a different sound.
I'm sure you are right that many people didn't recognise the first noise
as a gunshot (Arnold Rowland on Houston street said people nearby started
laughing!), but I don't think that really helps nail down the exact timing
of the first shot as well as my previous points.
Post by John CorbettPost by Mark TylerAlso don't forget that
Connally said he heard the first shot just 2 seconds before he was
It's safe to say he didn't have a stopwatch so anything he said about the
timing between the first and second shots is a guess and doesn't establish
the actual spacing between the shots.
Indeed, Connally didn't have a stopwatch, but the point he is making is
that the time gap was long enough for him to know he wasn't hit, but not
long enough to go beyond a short time gap like 2 seconds. Proof of the
rapidity he describes is elsewhere such as his Warren Commission
testimony:
"I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the
thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or
three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an
automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind
because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that
I took" (4H133)
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0071a.htm
I don't think this description is consistent with a gap between shots of
over 4 seconds from Z150 to Z225. As you mentioned yourself earlier,
Connally was an "experienced hunter" so he knew a bolt action gun couldn't
have fired both shots, so this is why he said either an automatic weapon
was used or two gunmen were involved.
Post by John CorbettI am very much unpersuaded by arguments that begin "So-and-so said"
because I know how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be. It is the least
reliable form of evidence we have.
I agree, the witnesses are in conflict on certain issues, but when they
independently corroborate each other and there is no conflicting evidence,
surely we should accept that what they say is probably true? *ALL*
witness testimony is "So-and-so said", so does that mean we should ignore
John Connally and Rosemary Willis when they described turning their heads
after the first shot? I would say witness evidence is stronger if the
head turn can be corroborated with many other independent events in the
Z-film as I outlined earlier.
Post by John CorbettPost by Mark Tylerhttp://youtu.be/uvUaJLrdoSs
Any head turn in this 2 second period would have occurred when Connally
was hidden behind the sign rather than at Z160-Z170. As I mentioned in
another thread this Z190-Z210 range was also the time of heavy blurring of
the Z-Film, and the evidence given by Betzner and Willis that their photos
at Z186 and Z202 sandwiched the sound of the first shot. This all seems
consistent with a shot at Z185, and the witnesses all reacting as they say
in their statements (Zapruder, P. & R. Willis, Betzner, Connally, etc).
If the Alvarez theory is correct, there will be blurring after every shot
but not every blurring is evidence of a shot. There could be other reasons
for the camera to shake in Zapruder's hands.
Post by Mark TylerAll theories must be judged on the quantity and quality of their
supporting evidence, so hopefully I have done enough to show a shot circa
Z185, and another in the seconds following Z313 is consistent with the
evidence.
You seem to have convinced yourself of that.
Wrong, the *witnesses* have convinced me of a shot after Z313! Perhaps I
am too trusting, but if several witnesses say they heard a shot at a point
well after Z313 in the Z-film then I see no reason to dispute that. I
don't understand how so many witnesses can imagine the same thing
happening at the same time, and yet be totally wrong. I can easily
imagine a dozen people missing something due to being distracted by
events, but this is such a specific and positive event that was being
independently reported within hours and days of the event occurring.
When I evaluate competing theories in this case, if a theory cannot
explain corroborated evidence then I consider the theory to be either
incomplete or wrong. In other words the theory that Z313 is the final
shot requires a persuasive explanation of why these witnesses are all
wrong in their very clear interviews and statements.
As a contrast, you mentioned the shot noise from the grassy knoll earlier,
and there is a very plausible explanation that the reverberating sound
waves tricked many witnesses in this regard. Proof of this is from Emmett
Hudson, Zapruder, Sitzman, and Mr/Mrs Hester, who were all the closest
witnesses to that area and said the shot sounds came from the TSBD or that
general area. In this situation the quality of those witnesses trumps the
greater quantity of the witnesses who disagree because they were much
closer to the picket fence, concrete wall, and pergola (where the other
witnesses suggest that the shots came from).
If a similarly persuasive explanation exists for why shots were *NOT*
fired well after Z313 then I am happy to listen to it, and if I am wrong I
will happily accept that argument and change my mind.
