JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Lets look at Lopez' description again.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.


Lopez said 'I believe it was not the same person ... not the person or the individual who went to the consulate... I did not recognise Oswald ... The individual I saw in the movie was a young man, considerably younger and a fuller face.'

That is what Lopez testified.

He did not share your view that Oswald looked like someone who was in his 30s, nor that he had a thin long face.




That leaves two possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.


That is farfetched.

You accept eyewitnesses' testimony when their description does not match Oswald's and now you will not accept eyewitness testimony that a certain person was not Oswald.

Either way, Oswald is damned and that is not fair.



2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.



Conspirators leaving evidence of their muddled attempts to frame Oswald is not farfetched.

An Oswald was meeting Sylia Odio while another Oswald was in or on his way to Mexico.

Either she met the real Oswald or he was being impersonated in two places at once.

Either way, the conspirators messed that up.

The lone gunman theory was a later development.

The Mexico City impersonation was designed to make the assassination look like a communist plot.

The conspirators could have had expectations that they would be able to place Oswald in such a location as to be able to frame him for the assassination, and that is less farfetched than Oswald going to Mexico to prepare an escape route to Cuba when he had no idea that he would be working in a building on the President's motorcade route.

[cobalt]

I am always interested in the comment that a conspiracy has to be near perfect to succeed. If that was the case nobody would bother conspiring in the first place. Controlling the repercussions of a conspiracy is as important to its success than the planning beforehand.

The issue of Oswald in Mexico City is clearly confusing whichever side of the JFK argument you are on, but sowing confusion is part and parcel of any intelligence operation and often crucial to the concept of plausible deniability after the fact.

If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, then the presence of the FBI, the CIA and US military intelligence inside embassies, plus their Mexican equivalents, makes a recipe for a dog’s breakfast. The two embassies Oswald was alleged to have visited were both photographed by surveillance teams yet no photographs have surfaced of him to confirm this. Either they existed and have been destroyed due to political sensitivities in the wake of the JFK assassination, or he was never there.

According to Hosty, Oswald was initially charged inside the DPD with the murder of JFK as part of a Communist plot.

[PRB]

The Single Bullet Theory is completely unsupportable.

Looks to me that Kennedy and Connally are simultaneously jolted at Z226.

[Fiver]

That is irrelevant because the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a Mauser, as certified on the day of the assassination.

A couple people misidentified the Carcano as a Mauser. Every one of the except the extremely unreliable Craig changed their minds. We have police photographs showing the Carcano in place. We have TV news footage showing the police carrying the rifle across the 6th floor after it was found - it was a Carcano.

Your theory requires a Conspiracy would be inept enough to plant the wrong rifle. And inept enough to not care that there was a TV station filming this rifle being carried across the 6th floor. Yet powerful enough to convince everyone except Craig to sign off on this rifle switch, even though it meant these people would become part of a Conspiracy to cimmit mureder and treason.

And you straight out ignore the rest of the forensics evidence.

* The Caracano was Oswald's. We have his handwriting on the order form. We have photographs of Oswald with the Carcano that were taken by his wife using Oswald's camera. One photo had a note in Owald's handwriting on the back. Fibers from his shirt match those found on the rifle.
* Oswald's prints were on boxes at the sniper's nest, the paper bag, and the rifle itself.
* Fibers from the blanket that Oswald kept his Carcano in matched fibers found in the paper bag.
* Oswald's Carcano was the weapon used to kill JFK. The shell casings match the Carcano. The bullets and bullet fragments match the Carcano.

All of this forensic evidence was confirmed by police forensic experts and the FBI forensic experts.

He saw a man whose age he estimated to be eight years older than Oswald's, whose weight he estimated to be nearly three stone heavier than Oswald's, and who was wearing much lighter-coloured clothing than the shirt Oswald was wearing when subsequently arrested.

Oswald's shirt wasn't put into the police lineup.

* An eyewitness, Howard Brennan, saw a white man of Oswald's approximate weight and build firing from the snipers nest. When he saw a police lineup, Brennan said that Oswald looked like the man he saw, but could not positively identify him.
* Several other eyewitnesses saw a man in the snipers nest or a rifle extending from it, but none provided as good of a description.

There is no evidence that Oswald ascended towards the sixth floor shortly before the assassination, that he descended from them following the assassination, nor that he ever carried a rifle inside the building.

* Given's testimony puts Oswald on the 6th floor.
* Frazier and his sister's testimony shows Oswald carried a package large enough to hold the disassembled rifle and that he was lying about ot containing curtain rods.

* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his coworkers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.

I agree, but that does not mean that he fired any shots nor that he was behind the assassination.

It means only that he may have been an accessory, with foreknowledge of the assassination, but who was intended to be framed for the shooting.

That makes no sense. If Oswald was an accessory, then he wouldn't have agreed to frame himself. And it would be a literal matter of life or death for every member of the Conspiracy to make sure Oswald never fell into police custody alive. Oswald would have been found dead on site, shot in the head with his own pistol. Or there would have been a car waiting for Oswald, waiting to which him away to a new identity, or more likely an unmarked grave. Or one ofr the many, many police officers that would have to be in on it would have shot him dead.

Instead, Oswald was taken alive in spite of trying to shoot one of the arresting officers, allowed to speak to the press, and not killed until over 45 hours after his arrest.

I think that is incorrect.

You are wrong.

The case against Oswald in the killing of Officer Tippett is even stronger.
* Tippet asked the police dispatcher to repeat the description of JFK's killer just before he pulled over the man who killed him.
* Multiple witnesses who saw the killing of Officer Tippet or the killer fleeing the scene picked Oswald out of a police lineup.
* The discarded cartridge casings came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of two different brands of bullets.
* The bullets in Tippet's body came from Oswald's pistol. They were a mix of the same two brands of bullets.
* The jacket discarded by the killer was identified by Marina Oswald as belonging to her husband.
* When apprehended at the theater, Oswald tried to shoot one of the arresting officers.
* The bullets found in Oswald's pistol and his pocket were the same two brands of shells.

No one identified Oswald based on his clothing.

Mark Lane was a fraud who trued to manipulate witnesses.

Mrs Markham told Mark Lane that the killer was short and had slightly bushy hair.

Markam testified under oath that Lane was lying and that she had never described Tippet's killer that way.

Acquilla Clemons described the murderer as short with bushy hair.

Once asked leading questions by Mark Lane.

And even then, Clemons didn't support the bushy hair claim,

MARTIN: And did you notice his hair as all? Was it thick hair?

CLEMONS: No. I didn’t pay his hair any attention. I was getting out of his way…

Patrolman Roy W. Walker radioed a description of the killer which included his having wavy hair.

That is incorrect.

"We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

[Fiver]

'* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his co-workers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.'

There is no requirement for the accused to have an alibi any more than there is for the prosecution to provide a motive, although it clearly helps if they can be established.

It's not just that Oswald had no alibi - Oswald lied about having an alibi.

Troy West, Danny Acre, and Jack Dougherty all said that they had lunch in the domino room during the time Oswald claimed he was there, but they never saw Oswald.

I think Oswald has a pretty good alibi which relates to his seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman pass by (or pass through) the domino room at 12.23.

That's further proof that Oswald was lying.

Jarman and Norman did not claim to have passed through the domino room at 12:23. Harmon testified that after eating lunch in the domino room, where he did not see Oswald, he left the domino room, met Jarman, and they went outside sometime between 12:00 and 12:10. Jarman said that after he ate lunch he went outside to watch and that between 12:20 and 12:25 he and Jarman went up to the 5th floor.

Their testimony explained that they came through the back door rather than push past the crowds at the front door to enter the building. Oswald's description of them was accurate as he knew them by sight, and is on a different planet of credibility when compared with the descriptions given by witnesses looking up at windows and claiming to see a person they did not know.

Oswald provided virtually no description.

"He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In response to Fiver's # 2329.

We have a different approach to the evidence.

Saying that there is film of a Carcano being held aloft and that Weitzman changed his mind does not alter the fact that the best evidence is that the rifle actually found on the sixth floor was a 7.65 Mauser.

Weitzman's affidavit is far too detailed for his testimony - that he had merely glanced at the rifle - to be credible.

Brennan's evidence could have been used to convict someone about eight years older than Oswald, weighing nearly three stone more than than Oswald, and wearing different coloured clothes than Oswald.

Givens' testimony puts Oswald on the sixth floor shortly after 12.45 p.m. and he was seen later by another witness or witnesses on much lower floors prior to the assassination.

His evidence is about as damning as Brennan's.

Mark Lane was not lying about what Helen Markham said.

I quoted from the Warren Commission's own transcript.

It was not something made up.

As for Roy W. Walker's forwarded description of Tippit's murderer, it agrees with William Smith's description of the killer having dark hair.

Benavides said he had curly hair.

Lane had heard that Markham had described the killer's hair as bushy and, during their recorded conversation, she agreed that it was slightly bushy.

Aquila Clemons said during an interview that his hair was bushy.

These descriptions of the murderer's hair do not match Oswald's hair.

[cobalt]

'Jarman said that after he ate lunch he went outside to watch and that between 12:20 and 12:25 he and Jarman went up to the 5th floor.' {I think you meant 'he and Norman']

That is correct, and that is presumably why Oswald mentioned seeing them when being questioned by Fritz. If he was downstairs at 12.23 he could hardly have been upstairs preparing the assassination of the president. Oswald's ID is absolutely spot in terms of the two workers: Jarman was indeed known as 'Junior' and Norman was a short man, quite distinct from his friend Bonnie Ray Williams who was very tall. How could Oswald have known that this pair were walking through, or past the domino room at that time?

Both Truly and Frazier noted in testimony to the WC that Oswald was in the habit of walking around outside during his lunch break. The idea that he remained glued to a seat in the domino room reading newspapers during his lunch break (and laughing out loud according to one of the three witnesses) has no factual basis.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oswald provided virtually no description.

"He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

I don't know where your quote comes from, but Captain Fritz's notes have the following:

Says two negr. came in

one Jnr. & short negro - ask ? for lunch says cheese sandwiches & apple.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Looks to me that Kennedy and Connally are simultaneously jolted at Z226.

It looks to me as though Connally is blurred at Z 226.

But Kennedy is clearly already hit and Connally has not yet faced front again, which is when, according to his recollection, he himself was hit.

[Fiver]

Lee Bowers: I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together.

Bowers also reported seeing two men standing near the picket fence on the grassy knoll. He added: "These men were the only two strangers in the area. The others were workers whom I knew." Bowers said the two men were there while the shots were fired.

Strange that he didn't see the Pullman Dining car behind the picket fence.

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbowers.htm

Here's Bowers Warren Commission testimony.

Bowers said the shots came "either from up against the School Depository building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".

Bowers described the two men he saw and said they "gave no appearance of being together", "facing and looking up towards Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down." Bowers also said that at least one of the two men was still there after the shooting.

No flash of light, No smoke cloud. No indications that either of the two men were armed.

But witnesses stories did tend to change once Mark Lane got ahold of them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Here's Bowers Warren Commission testimony.

Bowers said the shots came "either from up against the School Depository building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".

Bowers described the two men he saw and said they "gave no appearance of being together", "facing and looking up towards Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down." Bowers also said that at least one of the two men was still there after the shooting.

No flash of light, No smoke cloud. No indications that either of the two men were armed.

But witnesses stories did tend to change once Mark Lane got ahold of them.

I think that is not true.


I would recommend anyone interested in this question to view the transcript of Bowers' testimony at

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Bowers.pdf

and his interview by Mark Lane at

https://alchetron.com/Lee-Bowers#lee-bowers-7559c049-9d61-44fc-b18a-44f09067986-resize-750.jpeg

The two accounts are remarkably similar - especially his description of the first of three cars he saw entering the area.

In both cases, he mentioned seeing something which he could not pinpoint.

In the testimony, he called it something out of the ordinary and in the interview some unusual occurrence.

[FrankO]

Yes, I should have used the terms lone gunman and three shot limit. I find myself at a loss to understand how it can be proposed that Kennedy and Connally were perfectly aligned for the single bullet when the were behind the freeway sign. It's as though the circumstance was decided, wound placement, seat placement, how far Connolly had turned, and then it is claimed that this must have occurred where we couldn't see it.

Hi George,

I take it that you haven’t read or seen anything about the re-enactment by the FBI on 23 and 24 May, 1964. They used the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films to put a limousine at the most precise spot for at least a number of Zapruder frames: 161, 166, 185, 186, 207, 210, 222, 225, 231, 235, 240, 249, 255, 313. The limousine was very similar to the original presidential limousine and there were 2 stand-ins for Kennedy and Connally. A photographer in place on the pedestal where Zapruder had stood 6 months before, made photos for every frame of the Zapruder film. All the while another photographer had taken Oswald’s place on the 6^th floor with a camera attached to the telescopic sight of the Manlicher-Carcano rifle. This way, the view from the 6^th floor window could be coupled to the recreations of the Zapruder frames. See here for an elaborate version of the above:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...tml#trajectory

And, BTW, I have to correct myself. I wrote earlier that the Kennedy and Connally were lined up perfectly for one shot to hit them both where they were hit between Zapruder frames 207 and 225, but that’s not what FBI agent Frazier testified to. He testified that Connally had been in a position during the span from frame 207 to frame 225 to receive a bullet which would have caused the wounds he actually suffered, which is not really the same.

My understanding is that the original proposal was that a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, and in the head, and Connolly in the back. Then an explanation had to be found after the examination of the ZF showing Kennedy and Connolly hit only a second apart, and Tague's statement:

I assume you mean that an explanation had to be found by the Warren Commission. Can you show me where the evidence for this is?

"Somebody threw a firecracker. And then I thought what kind of an idiot would be throwing a firecracker with the president driving by," Tague said.
"I'm standing there still in disbelief over somebody throwing a firecracker, and then, 'Crack! Crack!' Two rifle shots, not a second apart, and something stings me in the face." Tague said that the bullet that hit the curb was the second or third shot.

Besides the fact that this is from an interview 50 years later (he didn’t mention “not a second apart” in his official statements at the time), I don’t think a handful of witnesses who stated that they heard the 2^nd and 3^rd shot fired within a second or two from each other urged them to create the SBT. What had led to the SBT was the findings that the bullet that had supposedly hit the president in the neck hadn’t caused the damage to the inside of the limousine. It was judged that the bullet exiting the president’s throat would have been much too fast for the damage they did find. However, the bullet hitting the back and coming out the throat couldn’t have missed both the car and its occupants. So, the question remained: if it didn’t cause the damage found on the car, then could it have hit the person or persons sitting in front of the president?

As you know I am not persuaded that Connolly was hit around frame 220 of the ZF. I have watched this slow motion frame numbered video many times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSbYYe84W0&ab_channel=HowardWillens

I see that the President has been hit as he emerges from behind the sign, and Connolly shows no sign of distress. At 224 Connolly has turned his head to his right, but then turns back to face forwards. At 236 he is starting to turn his body to his right and between 240 and 250 he is grimacing ( every still photographer knows temporary facial expressions can occur.). However, from 250 to about 273 he can be seen still turning to his right, again showing no signs of distress. The slowmo excludes Connolly for some frames after 279, but when he re-appears at 293 he is in obvious distress. Connolly stated that he was hit just after he started turning back to his left.
IMO there is no frame from which Connolly consistently shows distress that could provide the SBT alignment.

As you know, I don’t share your view, especially not because you have been unable to give a good alternative for a separate shot hitting Connally. Just saying you don’t see any sign of distress until somewhere between frames 279 and 293 doesn’t cut it for me. After all, we know Connally held on to his hat throughout the ordeal, despite the factthat we know a bullet had gone through his wrist. And during frames 279 to 293, Connally had his back towards his wife and leaned back into her lap, so, if a shot were to enter close to his right armpit and exit a bit below his right nipple, then he had to have been hit from a shot coming from the direction of the Criminal Courts Building or Old Court House. As he was sitting straight up and then leaned back, the shot had to have come from very high up. And, of course, by that time and from that direction, the president, who was the actual target, was behind Jackie Kennedy, leaning in to her and out of view from any supposed sniper in or on one of those buildings. All in all, not a very likely proposition to me that he was struck between frames 279 and 293.

I don't know upon what presumption it can be concluded that Desroe was standing on the Pullman at the red dot.

Well, I know I didn’t conclude that. I just assumed that that would be one place where he could have stood. Because I actually agree with you that there was no Pullman directly behind the picking fence. If there had been, we would have known it.

Boone indicated he was in the railway yard. My view is that the Pullman was in the railway yard behind the TSBD and that Towner's account just left out the bit about his proceeding to the railway yard from the picket fence before he encountered Desroe.

Going searching behind the picket fence seems a logical thing, as quite a few people thought the shots came from there and many people started running up the grassy knoll to have a look behind the picket fence. But why go behind the TSBD? And how could anybody behind the depository have seen much, if anything at all, behind the picket fence?
My view, based on, amongst other things, a sketch made by Boone, which indicates that he entered the area behind the picket fence very close to the overpass, filmed interviews of him and photographic evidence directly after the shooting and later that day, that there was a train/train wagons directly to the west of the control tower Bowers had been in (no. 4 in the photo further below).


As the image below shows, any position in the yellow area would not provide much of a view, if any all, of the area directly behind the picket fence in the corner where the 2 cars are situated. However, a Pullman placed in positions 1, 2 or 3 would have provided that unobstructed view.

It should also be remembered that Karl Desroe said he saw nothing, but his wife, who was standing next to the Pullman, told their preacher that “I saw some things……I’m afraid to tell anybody. I’ll never tell anybody. I’m afraid for my life.” That doesn't sound like she saw nothing.

But doesn’t what his wife allegedly told the preacher contradict a position of the Pullman somewhere ‘behind the TSBD’ where she wouldn't have been able to see much, if anything? Anyway, unfortunately for us, we’ll never know whether he/they really saw nothing and nobody behind the fence or not. We’ll only have the evidence of Boone and Turner, which isn’t all that clear. It would have been nice if someone had taken statements from the Desroe’s.

All the best,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don’t think a handful of witnesses who stated that they heard the 2^nd and 3^rd shot fired within a second or two from each other urged them to create the SBT. What had led to the SBT was the findings that the bullet that had supposedly hit the president in the neck hadn’t caused the damage to the inside of the limousine. It was judged that the bullet exiting the president’s throat would have been much too fast for the damage they did find. However, the bullet hitting the back and coming out the throat couldn’t have missed both the car and its occupants. So, the question remained: if it didn’t cause the damage found on the car, then could it have hit the person or persons sitting in front of the president?

(FrankO)

Robert MacNeil (journalist in motorcade), Roy Kellerman (Secret Service Agent in Presidential limousine), George Hickey (Secret Service Agent in motorcade), Mary Woodward (the journalist who was closest to the Presidential limousine), Seymour Weitzman (policeman), Linda Willis (one of the closest bystander witnesses), and Lee Bowers (who had an excellent view of the motorcade from above) all stated that the last two shots they heard were very close together.

The SBT was a Single Bullet Necessity.

Without the invented shot in the back of the neck, the hole in the front of Kennedy's neck had to be an entrance wound, as verified by every doctor who had seen it, and Connally had to have been hit by a separate shot.

That meant at least two more shots than Earl Warren was prepared to admit (three, if you take into account the double shot) - and at least two gunmen.

According to Dr Humes' examination of the back wound, the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back did not penetrate far.

It could not, therefore, have exited the front of Kennedy's throat which, in any case, was - according to his own autopsy diagrams and FBI witnesses - about half a foot higher than the bullet hole.

The Warren Commission invented a neck wound and, without any precedent in the history of shootings anywhere, claimed that a bullet entering the back of the neck could exit the front of the neck, just as it claimed without any precedent that a shot fired from behind would throw someone violently backwards.

The fact that both Connally and his wife were definite that he was shot by a separate bullet, that according to his own account and a viewing of the Zapruder film he could not have been hit less than half a second after the 'Single' bullet was fired, and his own impression that there were multiple gunmen - remarkably similar to Kellerman's testimony - should settle the matter.

[FrankO]

Robert MacNeil (journalist in motorcade), Roy Kellerman (Secret Service Agent in Presidential limousine), George Hickey (Secret Service Agent in motorcade), Mary Woodward (the journalist who was closest to the Presidential limousine), Seymour Weitzman (policeman), Linda Willis (one of the closest bystander witnesses), and Lee Bowers (who had an excellent view of the motorcade from above) all stated that the last two shots they heard were very close together.

Thanks for Robert MacNeil, PI. I didn’t have him on my list, yet.

As I’ve wrote to George a short while ago, I’ve looked into some 220-225 witnesses and I found around 45 who stated that the 2^nd and 3^rd shots were close together or closer together than the 1^st and 2^nd shot. It seems that of some we can say with some certainty that they remembered hearing them almost simultaneously, but, unfortunately we can’t say that of any one of them. It comes down to interpretation.

What’s also interesting, is that a number of these 45 thought the shots had come from the TSBD, while others thought the overpass or grassy knoll. And, what should not be forgotten either, is that memory isn’t a recording device. Which is supported by the fact that there were witnesses who gave 2 versions of the event. Mary Moorman, for instance said in one statement that she heard 3 or 4 shots, while in another she spoke about 2 or 3. And Lee Bowers said in one statement that he at least heard 3 shots very close together, while in another he said he “heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together”. Then there were Tom Dillard and Robert Jackson, who were in the same follow-up car. With almost exactly the same acoustics to deal with, the first remembered 3 evenly spaced shots, while the other heard the 2^nd and 3^rd shots were in rapid succession. How rapid, he didn’t tell.

But all of this doesn’t change what I wrote: that there was only a handful of witnesses (ok, say 2 handfulls) who can actually be interpreted as stating that they heard the 2^nd and 3^rd shot fired within a second or two from each other.

Without the invented shot in the back of the neck, the hole in the front of Kennedy's neck had to be an entrance wound, as verified by every doctor who had seen it, and Connally had to have been hit by a separate shot.

Couple of remarks and questions here, PI.

If a wound to the back of the neck was ever invented, then it was invented long before the SBT even began to take shape.

Then, with regards to the Parkland doctors: as they weren’t responsible for studying the wounds on the president and giving their opinions about it as would be so in case of an autopsy, I wouldn’t call it ‘verified’.

And I suppose you’re not familiar with or a fan of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier’s testimony, who examined the president’s clothes and found that the object having created the holes on the front of his shirt had travelled through it from the inside out, as fibres had been pushed from the back to the front of the shirt.
But when, according to you, was the president hit from the front in the throat? And from where, exactly?

Let me, furthermore, ask you, as I asked George: from where and at what point during the motorcade do you think Connally was hit if he wasn’t hit by the ‘single bullet’?
Because I think that if you don’t believe the SBT, you have to have a good, clear and realistic idea of the origin and trajectory of a separate bullet striking Connally after the president was hit. For me, not believing the SBT should go hand in hand with a good, clear and realistic idea.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Then, with regards to the Parkland doctors: as they weren’t responsible for studying the wounds on the president and giving their opinions about it as would be so in case of an autopsy, I wouldn’t call it ‘verified’.


They were the only doctors who saw the wound in its original condition and all believed it to be an entrance wound.

I would call that verification.



And I suppose you’re not familiar with or a fan of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier’s testimony, who examined the president’s clothes and found that the object having created the holes on the front of his shirt had travelled through it from the inside out, as fibres had been pushed from the back to the front of the shirt.


According to Frazier, the holes in the jacket and shirt were 5 3/8 and 5 3/4 inches below the bottom of their respective collars.

The bullet could therefore not have passed through Kennedy's neck and throat.



But when, according to you, was the president hit from the front in the throat? And from where, exactly?

Let me, furthermore, ask you, as I asked George: from where and at what point during the motorcade do you think Connally was hit if he wasn’t hit by the ‘single bullet’?


As I stated, Connally could not have been hit less than half a second after Kennedy, and quite possibly a full second after.

As for which building that shot came from, I do not know, but I do know that a shot entering Kennedy's back about six inches below his neckline, at a downward angle, could not have passed through the front of his throat.

If it had exited the front of his body, it could not have hit Connally in the back.



Because I think that if you don’t believe the SBT, you have to have a good, clear and realistic idea of the origin and trajectory of a separate bullet striking Connally after the president was hit. For me, not believing the SBT should go hand in hand with a good, clear and realistic idea.


I would like to know the locations of all the shooters, but I don't need to know them in order to know that there were multiple marksmen and Kennedy was not even shot in the back of the neck, and at least six shots were fired.