JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[cobalt]

Here's a photo of the three work colleagues together. Norman and Jarman seem around the same height, so why did Oswald allegedly say he saw 'Junior' and a 'short negro?'
Well that would be because he didn't know Hank Norman's name and was distinguishing him from the very tall Bonnie Ray Williams.

[cobalt]

Here's the reconstruction photo from inside. Much easier to guess Williams' height when you can see his legs.

[cobalt]

Obviously very difficult to judge height and weight from that angle. I think the photo you attached was from the FBI reconstruction prior to the WC? I am guessing that is Harold Norman on the right hand side and Bonnie Ray Williams, a taller man as could be guessed probably, on the left.

Brennan actually 'fingered' Bonnie Ray Williams to a policeman as someone he had seen in the upper floor windows and that presumably is why Williams- but not Jarman or Norman- was taken to DPD soon after the shooting. Williams must by then have realised that the 6th floor was the crucial area for during his first interview he did not mention the fact he had eaten his lunch there after 12.00. Once his chicken bones and juice bottle were discovered he must have realised it was better to admit where he had been.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Frank,

In Connolly's interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgSM3Hsuuc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

he states that he turned to the right to try to see Kennedy and had just started turning back to his left when he was hit. Looking at the ZFs that I have linked before and this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&ab_channel=antdavisonNZ

It can be seen that the turning process that Connolly describes occurs between frames 240 and frames 290, which is the frame that I nominate as him being hit, reinforced by his very obvious reaction in the frames that follow. This turning process is not visible before frame 240.

This would be consistent with this diagram, except without the President in the path of the bullet.


While I appreciate that you do not agree, I find this to be a better alternative that a theory that lines up seven wounds occurring behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I guess we'll have to continue to agree to disagree.

Just as a comment on the Brennan description of Oswald, can anyone tell me the height and weight of the two men seen in this photo?



Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

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.

The matter was settled many post ago P.I .

But its always pleasing to see further evidence that backs up multiple shooters.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.