(5) Moorman-in-the-Street Part II, Afterword, Appendix A

[Josiah Thompson]

PART II

From Fetzer and White’s perspective, White’s mistaken LOS observation led to the conclusion that Moorman could not have taken her photo from a position in the grass beside the curb. Immediately, Fetzer and White were faced with an obvious question. She took her photo from somewhere. If a position on the grass by Elm Street was too low, from where did she take it? Of course, she took it from the street! It was 8" lower than the grass!

A quick scramble to check some of her interviews added some confirmation. Thirty-four years after the event (1997), Moorman said in a Dallas radio interview that she took her photo from the street. On the afternoon of the shooting, Moorman said something that might be construed to mean that. “So that must be it,” thought Fetzer and White, “she took her photo from the street and the fabricators of the Zapruder film moved her above the curb to the grass along Elm Street.” But why? Why would Mary Moorman being in the street or in the grass become of such importance to the conspirators that they would go to the great trouble falsifying the Zapruder and other films? Well, that’s not clear... But we can’t be expected to know everything. Maybe the conspirators had something else to cover up and this just became part of it.

In some fashion like this, the Moorman-in-the-street theory was born. Is it remotely plausible?

Think for a moment exactly what is being proposed.

The James Altgens photo taken at Zapruder frame 255 and showing the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass, show how crowded Elm Street was as the limousine passed.

An earlier sweep by motorcycle officers was designed to move stray spectators out of the roadway. Two motorcycles on each side of the limousine patrolled the sides of the roadway. As the Altgens photo dramatically shows, the motorcycle outriders accompanying the limousine came within thirty inches of the south curb of Elm Street. If we are to believe that Mary Moorman jumped into the street to take her famous photo, we also have to believe that those officers, Martin and Hargis, veered their cycles suddenly to the right to miss her. Furthermore, this happened right in the middle of the assassination when spectators’ attention was riveted on the motorcade. Not a single witness later reported anything like this. Not a single witness reported seeing a spectator leap into street and almost get run down by two motorcyclists. Both Officers Martin and Hargis made reports and were later interviewed several times. Neither one said a thing about some crazy woman jumping into their path in the middle of the shooting and their having to veer around her. Is it remotely plausible that this happened and no one saw it or reported it?

What do the other photos of the assassination show?

The Nix, Muchmore and Bronson films all show the same thing that the Zapruder film shows. Martin and Hargis never veer their motorcycles but maintain their station off the left rear of the limousine. No one jumps into the street. Hill and Moorman can be seen standing quietly beside the curb as Moorman takes her picture. As indicated earlier, their shadows standing on the grass appear in the Altgens photo taken approximately three seconds before the Moorman photo. The Bronson still photo shows Hill and Moorman standing in the grass as the limousine approaches. The Moorman photo itself shows the motorcyclists cruising serenely by several feet from Moorman’s camera. As John Costella recently pointed out, all the photographic evidence (including the Moorman photo itself) confirms Moorman’s standing in the grass to take her photo. (NOTE: See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6152)

Two other ingenious proofs have surfaced showing that the Moorman photo was taken from the grass not the street. Neither had anything to do with Fetzer and White’s failed LOS argument.

Bill Miller produced a test of supreme simplicity. First, he contacted the Harley-Davidson Museum and learned everything the Museum could tell him about the particular Harley model used in the Presidential motorcade. Nest, he was able to find via Ebay an actual Harley-Davidson motorcycle that had been used in the motorcade that day. Bill asked the owner to make a measurement for him after inflating the tires to their proper pressure and putting a 200 pound rider on the cycle. The owner measured the distance from the ground to the top of the motorcycle’s windscreen. It turned out to be 58”.

The Moorman photo is looking down from above on the top of Hargis’s windscreen. Hence, the Moorman camera has to be higher than 58" above the ground. Since the roadway is 8" lower than the grass, this would be the camera’s likely position if the photo were taken from the grass. Only if Mary Moorman jumped into the street and then raised the camera high above her head to take her picture could the Moorman photo have been taken from the street. Six or seven years ago, Miller and Robert Groden set up yellow staffs 58" high in the roadway at the position of the two motorcycle riders windscreens. They then photographed the yellow staffs from Moorman’s position in the grass as shown in the Zapruder film. Miller prepared this GIF that alternates between the Moorman photo and the 58" high staffs.

John Costella recently described a further test of which I was unaware. According to Costella, Rick Janowitz carried out an experiment suggested by Marcel Dehaeseleer. This happened in 2003. Costella described the experiment as a simple comparison of the field of view in the Moorman photo with the field of view produced by the same camera lens when placed in the street or placed in the grass. “If Mary were in the street,” wrote Costella on December 14, 2008, “you would not see as much background as if she were in the grass, simply because she was closer to everything in the background. Janowitz and Marcel (if their research was done as well as it seemed) proved that the field of view of the extant Moorman [photo] corresponds to that of a grass position, not a street position.” [NOTE: See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk-research/message/6048. I have been unable to find any monograph or posting giving the results of this experiment.]

Afterword

The claim we have examined in such detail probably does not deserve the attention it has received. It was based upon a simple mistake of observation: What Jack White said was present in the Moorman photo just wasn’t there! The importance of the claim, however, is what we can learn from its curious defense by Fetzer and White.

Remarkable about Fetzer and White’s defense of Moorman-in-the-street is that it comes a full six years after the claim was shown to be based on a careless reading of the Moorman photo. In the pages above, I have gone over many points. But these are not new. They were pointed out ad nauseum to Fetzer and White in, and since, 2002. The fact that their defense continues in 2009 signals a stubborn unwillingness on their part to engage with their critics. Over the last three months, Fetzer has proved a moving target. Once a single point was argued to a conclusion, he would introduce an extraneous point while never admitting the resolution of the first point. Again and again, he bombarded his critics and the public-at-large with alleged “proofs” that the Zapruder film has been falsified. When examined, the instances of proof end up being claims that Fetzer earlier made and were shown to be invalid. In this way, an invalid claim only gets buried to be resurrected again after people have forgotten its demise.

A second characteristic of the Fetzer-White defense is the proliferation of film alteration claims. The Moorman-in-the-street claim began with White and Fetzer claiming the Moorman photo was clearly genuine. As White put it in MIDP, “Because it was an instant photo that was copied and widely published within hours of the assassination, the Moorman Polaroid is guaranteed to be an authentic image.” However, as soon as it became apparent that the Moorman photo confirms Moorman’s position in the grass, we begin to hear about the likelihood of its alteration “especially in the area of the pedestal and the pergola.” Why would anyone care about altering the photo in this area? To conceal the fact that Zapruder and Sitzman never stood on the pedestal. Then what about the Betzner and Willis photos that clearly show persons dressed like Zapruder and Sitzman standing on the pedestal? Those photos were faked up too... And so it goes.

Last year on this site, Fetzer grandiloquently announced a new proof of Zapruder film fakery. Officer James Chaney gave an interview to ABC newsman Paul Good on the night of November 22nd saying he rode forward to inform the lead car about the shooting. Other reports by law enforcement officers seem to be saying the same thing. The Zapruder film shows no such thing, says Fetzer, hence the Zapruder film must have been altered. The Nix, Muchmore and Bell films show no such thing. Then they were altered to. A photograph taken by James Altgens shows no such thing. It was altered too.

Then Craig Lamson and others found additional photos of which Fetzer and White apparently were ignorant. The Daniel film and a still photo by Mel McIntire both matched the other films and showed Chaney trailing far behind the limousine. The McIntire still photo is particularly telling since it shows the Presidential limousine abreast of the lead car with the SS follow-up car close behind. Officer Chaney can be seen trailing about one hundred yards behind. Fetzer and White were asked repeatedly whether these photos were altered too. They declined to answer.

At the present time, it is not known whether Fetzer and White hold any of the Dealey Plaza photos to be genuine and unaltered. Their refusal ever to admit a mistake is comical. However, their ever-expanding claims of film alteration might have serious consequences. But only if they were believed.

Fortunately, it is clear this will not happen. Criticism already launched against the Fetzer-White claims has marginalized their efforts as far as the research community is concerned. Belief in alteration of the Zapruder film is generally looked upon as a kind of kooky religious belief. Meanwhile, Fetzer has moved on to the latest conspiration du jour.

The failure, however, of the Fetzer-White attack on the authenticity of the Zapruder film has had an unintended consequence.

There is a significant question concerning what evidence in the Kennedy assassination is to be considered authentic. The problems concerning the autopsy photos and x-rays hardly require mention. I believe there are significant questions regarding the provenance of CE 399 and perhaps other items of physical evidence. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and (as expected) in this case is filled with contradictions. Where then might we expect to find some bedrock of evidence in the case to use to evaluate the authenticity and significance of other evidence? Were Fetzer and White’s assault on the photo evidence from Dealey Plaza deemed successful, we would lose the photo record from Dealey Plaza as a source of vital evidence. The tabloid atmosphere already apparent on the internet could become permanent. Any claim could be launched because no body of evidence existed that could limit what might or might not be the case. Research on the case would be reduced to a cacophony of competing conspiracy theories each one contending that this or that piece of evidence was misleading because it had been altered.

For over a decade now, Fetzer and White have attempted to show discrepancies between the Zapruder film and other films and photos shot in Dealey Plaza. Their odd defense of Moorman-in-the-street is just part of this overall effort. Their effort is actually based upon a simple but incredibly powerful principle: Each photo and film taken in Dealey Plaza has to fit into a more general fabric. If you take photos and movies of a single event from multiple standpoints, all the films and photos have to agree. They can only vary with respect to the standpoint from which they were taken. For example, with respect to Mary Moorman, the Muchmore and Zapruder films show her from wildly different angles. Yet these films can be matched up frame-by-frame to lay out every detail of her actions as the limousine passes her. The same can be said of all the photos and films taken in Dealey Plaza. If a film or photo were altered, it would stand out. It would be discrepant with the rest of the photo record.

Because of the persistent but failing efforts of Fetzer, White and others, I can say with considerable confidence that the photo record from Dealey Plaza forms a seamless tapestry of what happened on November 22nd. If you want to know what happened there, then study the photo record. It is a self-authenticating whole that can stand as bedrock in the case. It can be used to evaluate both eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. Only by the sheerest luck did Abraham Zapruder climb up on that pedestal with his camera and Mary Moorman take her Polaroid along that day. Zapruder’s film and Moorman’s Polaroid (plus many other films and photos) give us the raw material to reconstruct the event insofar as it is possible. Without them, we in the research community would have gotten nowhere.

In the oddest way and against their will, the failure of Fetzer and White to defend their claims has provided a singular gift... a bedrock of evidence on which true research on the case can continue and thrive.

Josiah Thompson

Appendix A: What Mary Moorman said and didn’t say!

Mary Moorman has been interviewed numerous times by newsmen and law enforcement officers concerning what she saw and did on November 22nd. On that afternoon, she executed an Affidavit in the Sheriff’s Office. On February 15, 1969, she testified under oath in the Clay Shaw trial. I have collected below all the various statements of Mary Moorman I could find relevant to the question of her position when she took her famous photo. There probably are others. Without comment, I list them below for the record:

Affidavit Executed at the Sheriff’s Department on the afternoon of November 22nd

Moorman stated that “Mrs. Jean Hill and I were standing on the grass by the park on Elm Street... I had a Polaroid camera with me and was intending to take pictures of the President Kennedy and the motorcade.” She described taking two earlier photos. Then she stated:

As President Kennedy was opposite me, I took a picture of him. As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over. Then I heard another shot ring out and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up in the car and said, “My God, he has been shot.” When I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself.” (19H487)

FBI Interview of Moorman at Sheriff’s Department on the afternoon of November 22nd

Moorman was interviewed by Special Agents Perryman and Gemberling on the afternoon of November 22nd. She described taking an earlier photograph of a police officer leading the motorcade. Then she described taking her famous photograph:

She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker and very shortly thereafter heard another similar sound which she later determined to have been gunfire. She knows that she heard two shots and possibly a third shot. She recalls seeing the President “sort of jump” and start to slump sideways in the seat, and seems to recall President KENNEDY’S wife scream, “My God, he’s been shot.” Mrs. MOORMAN states that she and her companion fell to the ground, but does not recall what prompted her to fall unless it was the reports and commotion in the President’s car. She says she must have instinctively realized that there was shooting, but does not recall actually thinking about it. She states that she could not determine where the shots came from, and her next recollection is of people running more or less aimlessly, it seemed to her. She recalls that the President’s automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and, when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry. (22H839)

NBC/WBAP interview of Hill and Moorman broadcast at 3:18 PM Dallas time*

* (Although broadcast at 3:18 PM Dallas time, this interview was filmed around 1:00 PM.)

Hill: Just as Mary started to take the picture and the President came right even with us, two shots – we looked at him and he was looking at a dog in the middle of the seat – two shots rang out and he grabbed his chest and a look of pain on his face and fell across Jackie and she, uh, fell over on him and said, “My God, he’s shot!” And there was an interval and then three or more shots rang out. By that time the motorcade sped away.

Interviewer: What prompted you to take the picture at that particular instant, Ma’am?

Moorman: Well, that’s the only chance I had. Mine is a Polaroid and I can take only one every ten seconds, and that was at that time when I took it.

Interviewer: Did you know he was shot?

Moorman: No, I didn’t. I must have snapped it immediately when he slumped, ‘cause in the picture that’s the way she’s there and he’s slumped over.

Interviewer: Did you see the person who fired the –?

Hill: No, I didn’t see any person fire the weapon. I only heard it. I looked up and saw a man running up the hill. No, I had no idea, nothing to go by, I mean I don’t think it dawned on me for an instant that the President had been shot. I mean, I knew and yet it didn’t register.

Interviewer: Did you get a look at the suspect, the assassin?

Moorman: No, I had taken a picture and then the shots and I decided it was time to fall on the ground. (Trask, Pictures of the Pain, pp. 238-239)

KRLD Radio Interview of Mary Moorman, broadcast around 3:45 PM (local time) 11/22/63 [The text of this interview was supplied by David Lifton to John Costella. Gary Mack listened to a Sixth Floor Museum copy of the original tape and supplied a critical part. The Lifton/Costella transcript stated: “Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there? Moorman: (unclear) stepped out. We were right at the car.” By listening to the Museum’s tape, Mack was able to correct Moorman’s answer to read: “Yes, that’s where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.”]

Jay Hogan: Hello, Mrs. Moorman?

Moorman: Yes.

Hogan: You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before?

Moorman: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

Hogan: What type of picture was this.

Moorman: A Polaroid picture.

Hogan: About how close were you?

Moorman: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out)

Hogan: Fairly close.

Moorman: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera.

Hogan: This was right at the underpass?

Moorman: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off)

Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

Hogan: Uh Huh.

Moorman: (he has cut her off, and she is continuing). . . She (?). . . Hollered.

Hogan: Did you see any suspicious person, in conn. . . ?

Moorman: Yeah, of course, I have, I was just uh you know (unclear word) my camera, and when I took that the shots had rang out, and I wasn't looking around.

Hogan: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out".

Moorman: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard.

Hogan: Uh huh.

Moorman: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for it (for you to?) realize what was happening.

Hogan: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought?

Moorman: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT.

Hogan: Uh huh.

Moorman: And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car, so I decided (unintelligible words) [safest place to be?? OR possibly: the place for me is to get on the ground??] (laughs)

Hogan: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly?

Moorman: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot.”

ABC/WFAA interview of Mary Moorman filmed late in the afternoon of 11/22/63

Bill Lord: Did you realize what had happened when you heard the shots?

Mary Moorman: No, I didn’t. There was, oh, three or four real close together and it was, uh, it must have been the first one that shot him because that’s when I, that was the time I took the picture, and during that time, after I took the picture, and the shots were still being fired, I decided I’d better get on the ground.

Lord: Did people lie down on the ground?

Moorman: Uh, I just know about myself and the ones right close to me, and really, I just know about myself.

Lord: You did lie down?

Moorman: I did. We were, I was no more than 15 foot from the car and in the line of fire evidently.

(Note: Trask cites a portion of this interview at page 239 of Pictures of the Pain. Gary Mack was kind enough to make a transcript of the original filmed interview and provide additional dialogue.)

The Warren Report (9-27-64) (CBS-TV News Special) (Part 10) Walter Cronkite narrator, 3:33 - 3:53 seconds into Segment 10.

Moorman is filmed standing in the grass by the south curb of Elm Street. Whatever question prompted her response is cut edited. We have only the following words from her:

Moorman: I stepped out into the street so I took the camera and aimed it, uh, focused it and stood there and looked through it for quite a few seconds because I wanted to be sure they were looking at me. And, uh, I followed it for, uh, so many seconds and then I did take the picture.(3:32 - 3:53)

(NOTE: See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXNXotif5J8.)

February 15, 1969, Moorman’s Sworn Testimony at the Shaw Trial

Moorman was asked to identify her famous photograph and did so. She was asked to “pin this flag on the location, your location, in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963." After doing so, she was shown a large mock-up of Dealey Plaza and once again asked to place herself in the mock-up. She did so. (NOTE: The Court transcript, of course, does not indicate where she pinned the flag on the exhibit or placed herself in the mock-up. Since, a few minutes later, she identified herself in the Zapruder film in the grass by the curb, there is no reason to believe that she placed herself anywhere else on the exhibit or in the mock-up.) Next, she was asked what she saw and heard on November 22nd and replied:

I observed the motorcade as it approached. There were several cars preceding the Presidential limousine, and, as the Presidential limousine approached me, I stepped forward to observe closer in order to take a picture, that is what I planned to do and just what I did. (36)

Finally, the Zapruder film was shown and she was asked to “locate yourself in the picture... please walk to the film and point to yourself.”(45) She pointed herself out as she appears standing in the grass taking her photo in Zapruder frames 291-313.

KRLD interview of Moorman in 1997

Moorman: Uh, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me, we were right ready to take the picture. And she’s not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did holler for the president, “Mr. President, look this way!” And I’d stepped out off the curb into the street to take the picture. And snapped it immediately. And that evidently was the first shot. You know, I could hear the sound. And...

Charley Jones: Now when you heard the sound, did you immediately think “rifle shot?”

Moorman: Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up onto the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong. I certainly didn’t know what was wrong. (MIDP, 346)

******************************

One can speculate endlessly about what a witness says in an interview. With regard to Moorman, it is clear that in her KRLD interview from 1997 she says she took her famous photo from the street. A twenty-second sound bite from CBS’s 1964 Warren Report broadcast has her saying the same thing. However, it is equally clear that this has not always been her story.

In her Sheriff’s Department Affidavit from the afternoon of November 22nd, she tells of taking her picture, and, “when I heard these shots ring out, I fell to the ground to keep from being hit myself.” To FBI agents Perryman and Gemberling, she said the same thing that afternoon:

She took a second photograph of the President as his automobile passed her, and just as she snapped the picture, she heard what she at first thought was a firecracker... Mrs. MOORMAN states that she and her companion fell to the ground but does not recall what prompted her to fall unless it was the reports and commotion in the President’s car... She states that she could not determine where the shots came from and her next recollection is of people running more or less aimlessly

In her NBC/WBAP-TV interview filmed around 1:00 PM (CST), she says, “I had taken a picture and then the shots and I decided it was time to fall on the ground.” In her ABC/WFAA-TV interview from that afternoon, she says, “... I took the picture, and, during that time, after I took the picture and the shots were still being fired, I decided to get on the ground.” The interviewer, Bill Lord, asks her if she lay down and she replies: “I did. We were, I was no more than 15 foot from the car and in the line of fire.” In her 1969 sworn testimony at the Shaw trial, Moorman identified herself in the Zapruder film standing in the grass taking her photo and indicated her “location in Dealey Plaza” on both a map and a mock-up of the Plaza.

All of these remarks and sworn testimony are confirmed by later pictures showing Hill and Moorman seated on the grass at the spot where earlier film and photos show them standing as Moorman snaps her photo.

Fetzer and White have made much of a remark made by Moorman during a radio interview carried out on the afternoon of November 22nd. The crucial segment of that interview runs like this:

Moorman: ... I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over.

Hogan: What type of picture was this.

Moorman: A Polaroid picture.

Hogan: About how close were you?

Moorman: (background talk, as she discusses it; can't make out)

Hogan: Fairly close.

Moorman: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more (unintell). . . Because I fall behind my camera.

Hogan: This was right at the underpass?

Moorman: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off)

Hogan: Were you up on that grassy bank there?

Moorman: Yes, that's where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car.

Hogan: Uh Huh.

In this transcript, Moorman does not say she took her famous photo from the street. On the contrary, she says “I fall behind my camera” [onto the grass.] When asked where she was standing, she says she was “on that grassy bank there” and goes on to say, “That’s where we were and I stepped out in the street.” Moorman does not say that she “stepped out in the street” to take her photo but only that she “stepped out into the street” at some point. That point could have been significantly before the limousine arrived opposite her or in the seconds after it passed.

In essence, what we have here is a dilemma that commonly surfaces in dealing with eye-witness accounts of an event. The contents of a photo or tape recording does not change over time. A person’s verbal account of what they saw or did, however, often does. In cases like this, one is faced with deciding between two conflicting statements: Was she in the street or in the grass when she took her famous photo?

In like circumstances, we would normally ask what other people observed. One could easily imagine a dialogue occurring like this:

A: Did anyone else see her jump into the street to take her photo?

B: No, none of the several hundred witnesses in the Plaza reported that they saw her jump into the street to take her photo. The two police motorcyclists would have had to dodge around her and they said nothing like that.

A: What about other films and photo? Do they show her jumping into the street?

B: No, they show just the opposite. The Zapruder, Muchmore, Nix and Bronson films all show her standing in the grass calmly snapping her photo as the limousine and motorcyclists cruise by serenely. The Bronson still photo was taken a few seconds before her photo and shows her standing in the grass. The Altgens still photo (taken three seconds before her photo) shows the shadows of Moorman and Hill standing in the grass. A: Well, how about the photo she took? There ought to be internal evidence in it as to where it was taken from... the grass or the street? Is there?

B: There is abundant evidence in the photo itself that shows unequivocally it was taken from the grass.

A: Well, there doesn’t seem to be any doubt does there? It was taken from the grass.

As a matter of fact, this instance provides a fine example as to how the photo record from Dealey Plaza can be used effectively to resolve conflicts in eyewitness reports.

Why would Mary Moorman end up making confusing and conflicting statements as to where she was when she took her famous photo? I have a suggestion. It concerns the position she occupied in taking one – and perhaps two – of her earlier photos that afternoon.

Before the limousine arrived, Moorman snapped two photos of motorcyclists preceding the limousine. The first was of Officer G. C. McBride, a good friend of Moorman’s from high school days, who was riding in the advance guard that day. Her photo of him shows the officer looking straight into the camera with the Depository looming in the background. Internal evidence in the photo shows it was taken from a position in the street, looking up at the 58" high top of McBride’s windscreen.

A second photo was taken by Moorman of another school friend, Officer W. George Lumpkin, who lost the photo after Moorman gave it to him. Richard Trask interviewed Lumpkin in 1978. Lumpkin recalled Moorman taking the photo about two minutes before the assassination. “He thinks he stopped on Elm Street,” wrote Trask, “and briefly spoke with Moorman and Hill.” [NOTE: Trask, op. cit. , p. 234]

The fact that Lumpkin recalls stopping on Elm Street and talking with Moorman suggests that this photo too was taken from the street. If so, two out of the three photos she took that day were taken after she “stepped out in the street.” She may well have confused these two excursions into the street well ahead of the limousine with the taking of her famous photo. What remains in Moorman’s memory must be subject to speculation. What is not subject to speculation, however, is the indisputable fact that internal evidence in the photo itself, as well as abundant other photo and eyewitness evidence, demonstrates that it was taken from the grass not the street.

Edited March 4, 2009 by Josiah Thompson