JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The black employees of the TSBD were in a much better place than Marina but uncomfortably close to the 6th floor from where we assume shots were fired. Unsurprisingly they sought to put as much distance as they could between Oswald and themselves on the day lest they be suspected as fellow conspirators. Any additions they made to their original statements were helpful to the FBI case.

Again, you are assuming an inept Conspiracy, forced into pressuring people into changing their statements.

The only people who suspect Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James Earl Jarman, Jr of being fellow Conspirators are people like you. They were photographed on the fifth floor moments after shots were fired by Dallas Morning News photographer Tom C. Dillard, so they could not have been fellow conspirators with Oswald. And the Conspiracy had no reason to get these three men to lie about anything. That's before we get into the problem of ensuring that a;; three men told the same false story.

Charles Douglas Givens did not mention Oswald in his original affidavit. In his Warren Commission Testimony, Givens said he saw Oswald on the 6th floor at the opposite end of the building about half-an-hour before the shooting. If the Conspiracy was going to get Givens to commit perjury and become accessory to murder, you think they'd want a lot more out of Givens.

Trying to pressure perjury out of anyone that wasn't already part of the Conspiracy would have been a stupid, unnecessary risk.

[Fiver]

You have to if you support a lone shooter .

Sso you are accusing Connally of lying?

Governor CONNALLY. Yes, I do; I do have doubt, Congressman. I am not at all sure he was shooting at me. I think I could with some logic argue either way. The logic in favor of him, of the position that he was shooting at me, is simply borne out by the fact that the man fired three shots, and he hit each of the three times he fired. He obviously was a pretty good marksman, so you have to assume to some extent at least that he was hitting what he was shooting at.

[Fiver]

His correct they did . The 4th shot came from the front and blew the back of JFKs head out.

Governor Connally and James Tague both believed there were only three shots.

[Fiver]

Yes i agree too, 3 shots did come from the TSBD so what ? Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see any evidence of anybody having fired from the TSBD Mr Tague ? i think i know what his answere would have been .

Mr. TAGUE. Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window.
We said maybe this is where they came from. And the deputy sheriff ran back to the policeman. I may not be quite accurate, but I believe at the time there was a whole swarm of motorcycle policemen coming back to the area under the underpass going the wrong way here on Elm.

[Fiver]

Not so , I think your missing the fact.

If Connally was sure there where 3 shots and a separate shot hit him, then work it out .

1 for jfk back and neck
1for Connally wounds
1 for tague wound.

3 shots all from the rear.

Now which shot hit the president and blew his head to bits ?

Connally's three shots from the rear were
* JFK to the throat.
* Connally to the back.
* JFK to the head.

Governor CONNALLY. So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

Connally thought there were only three shots, all from the Book Depository.

Tague thought there were only three shots, all from the Book Depository.

Neither of them support the idea of a fourth shot from the front.

[Fiver]

Perhaps it’s been suggested somewhere that 2 entirely unconnected assassination attempts were occurring in Dealey Plaza (frankly it wouldn’t surprise me)?

Two unrelated shooters make more sense than that a Conspiracy framing Oswald would use multiple gunmen, let alone have one of them firing from the front.

[Fiver]

I don't recall having read THAT one. IIRC, the only books on the JFK assassination that I've actually bought have been The Warren Commission's Report, Posner's Case Closed, Manchester's The Death of a President, and Dr. Lattimer's Kennedy and Lincoln. I've read several of the conspiracy books, but decided not to spend $$ on any after the total nonsense of Best Evidence. Mortal Error did intrigue me when I first read it, but I was a kid and just getting into the research.

I had a high view of Manchester until I tried to read Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War. I came to the conclusion that Manchester was a a terrible person and I did not trust his words. Subsequent research has proved much of Manchester's memoir was lies.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Not so , I think your missing the fact.

If Connally was sure there where 3 shots and a separate shot hit him, then work it out .

1 for jfk back and neck
1for Connally wounds
1 for tague wound.

3 shots all from the rear.

Now which shot hit the president and blew his head to bits ?

I'll leave the cherry picking to others .

As I said ,carve it up anyway you like, if Connally is right with his separate bullet that hit him ,then there is a 4th shot and a second shooter.

Connally, according to you, has to be both right - he was hit by a bullet that didn't hit the President - and wrong - there were four shots fired and not three. Yet you wrote that only an idiot would disbelieve him, and then disbelieved him.

Connally was convinced that there were only three shots fired, and all three from the direction of the TSBD. He heard the first, and knew that it didn't hit him, and was sure that the second hit him, and the third struck the President's head. He believed that the first bullet must have hit the President, but he had his back to him at the time, so there must be an element of assumption here. If the first shot missed altogether, then the second shot must have hit both of them, or there were four shots. He believed he was being honest, but would have been mistaken. The debate is over which mistake he made, which shot hit the President first, or the number of shots fired.

A reconstruction of the event, using Oswald's rifle, but a camera instead of the telescopic sight, demonstrated that the trajectory of a bullet that hit JFK at the back of the neck would carry on to strike Connally in the back and continue as per the single bullet theory. Or to put it another way, for a bullet to miss JFK and strike Connally as it allegedly did, the President had to not be in the position that he was. This is, of course, disputed like much of the information allegedly known about the assassination.

There is a massive amount of contradictory evidence, and we all select the bits that suit our theories, and reject the rest, which is why there will always be debates like these!

I don't dispute the possibility of a second gunman firing once from the rear, but see no reason to believe that he was in any way connected to Oswald. I share the view that no sane person would hire Oswald as a hitman.

[Abby Normal]

what is the tague wound??

[Fiver]

what is the tague wound??

"Tague received a minor wound to his right cheek caused by tiny pieces of concrete debris from a street curb that was struck by fragments from a bullet that was fired at Kennedy."

[cobalt]

The only people who suspect Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James Earl Jarman, Jr of being fellow Conspirators are people like you.

That sounds a deliberate misunderstanding of the point being made, since I never stated that I suspected any of the three men. Although I accept that 'people like me' are a problem for WC apologists.

They were photographed on the fifth floor moments after shots were fired by Dallas Morning News photographer Tom C. Dillard, so they could not have been fellow conspirators with Oswald.

On the contrary, their presence on the 5th floor could have been construed as exactly that. Bonnie Ray Williams had actually been on the 6th floor not long before the assassination- he left a cola bottle and some chicken bones behind quite close to the sniper's nest- so dragging him into the conspiracy would have taken no great effort by the authorities, if required.

And the Conspiracy had no reason to get these three men to lie about anything. That's before we get into the problem of ensuring that a;; three men told the same false story.

Again you choose misunderstand me. I never said that any of the three men lied about anything. What they chose to do was place as much distance (both physical and social) between Oswald and themselves as possible, a wise choice in the circumstances. Especially for black men in 1960s Texas. Buell Frazier was threatened with being charged as a a conspirator when first questioned so it is hardly unthinkable that something similar happened to Williams, Norman and Jarman.
Had either Norman or Jarman remembered seeing LHO in the TSBD lunch room when they passed through around 15 minutes before the shooting then they might have been given a harder time by the Dallas Police. It is possible that they simply did not notice Oswald, so no need to lie. Or it possible that Oswald just made it up and he was not there at all; although it is remarkable that of around 40 employees he hit, by pure chance, on a pair who had indeed walked through the lunch room around that time.

[Fiver]

Connally, according to you, has to be both right - he was hit by a bullet that didn't hit the President - and wrong - there were four shots fired and not three. Yet you wrote that only an idiot would disbelieve him, and then disbelieved him.

He also believes Connally was wrong when he said the shot to JFK's head came from "the direction of the School Book Depository" and wrong when Connally believed Oswald was the only assassin.

[Abby Normal]

"Tague received a minor wound to his right cheek caused by tiny pieces of concrete debris from a street curb that was struck by fragments from a bullet that was fired at Kennedy."

thanks fiver
so which shot was it according to the wc/ official account?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The three cartridges on the 6th floor. Why would any conspiracy, even if it was planned by idiots, have risked 4 bullets being recovered, after an extra shot from the Knoll,




Not really , The 1 shot cartridge from the front may have been picked up by the shooter, there were only tiny fragments in jfk head , not a bullet.

But the risk would have been for a bullet to have passed through and been discovered whole. Leaving 4 bullets, 3 cartridges. You surely can’t be suggesting that a shooter on the Grassy Know was relying entirely on his bullet disintegrating so badly that it wouldn’t be identified as a separate bullet? He couldn’t possibly have been sure of that in advance so he would have been totally aware of the possibility of the bullet being found either whole or mostly whole. That would have left more bullets than cartridges.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I disagree Herlock , Im coming from the viewpoint that Connally knew what he said , his quote couldnt be any clearer or precise ,if you want use that excuse to suggest he was miskaken about the bullet that struck him, then we are different in our opinions once again .Dont forget his wife and two police officers confirm Connallys separate bullet account . Are you willing to hold them to the same excuse ?

For arguement sake[ hell what else] and just indulge me if you wouldnt mind , If Connally is correct and he was hit with a separate bullet than the jfk back and throat wound caused , where does that leave the WC lone gunman 3 shot theory? .Given the fact you now have to acount for 1 shot for jfk wounds , 1shot connally wounds , 1 shot tague wound , 1 shot jfk head kill . ??? Would that be a reasonable call .?

It’s not an excuse Fishy. I’m sure that you wouldn’t deny that witnesses can be mistaken; even under far, far less difficult circumstances? It’s difficult to give much credence to any other person saying two separate shots Fishy. This occurred in a heartbeat. No one could be certain of accurate recall when they hadn’t felt the bullet.

Whilst I agree that 4 shots would have meant a second gunman we can’t allow the fact that some believe in a second gunman to allow them to assume that Connolly was correct. And as Fiver has said, why do you assume that he was correct about a second shot when he also said that there were just three shots all coming from the rear. Isn’t that a case of picking the parts that are true to suit a conclusion?

Numerous reconstructions have been done using state of the art technology which all prove that one bullet passed through both men. It lines up perfectly. Why does this get rejected? Why is this technology considered redundant in this case and yet it never is in other fields? Doesn’t that smack of selectivity a little?

The big problem in this case is that evidence isn’t just questioned it’s dismissed out of hand when it doesn’t fit. It’s a general problem imo. We get stock denials, like, an inconvenient photograph - forged, an inconvenient x-Ray - faked, an inconvenient document - forged. Any debate on any crime would be simple (but pointless) if those responses were regularly used - as they are in this case.