Robert Prudhomme

The Croft wall path leads to the other pergola entrance

I see now. Thanks, Robin.

Hi Bob!

Well, does that "work" for you?

Does it put Peggy Joyce Hawkins and her red-capped son, Johnny, close enough to "the retaining wall" and Baker's motorcycle's radio soon enough after the assassination? Not soon enough? Just right?

You're welcome, Bobby.

--Tommy

How does one put another member on Ignore?

I'm not sure if this is what is being pointed out but, when we look at the front of the tie knot, we are looking at the length of the tie on its side.

Although it appears we can only see 5 of the 6 pattern emblems on the knot, this is not actually the case. Look closely, and you will see the knot extends above the border of the super imposed knot face. Simply adjusting the slack in the knot will place the nick on the left side of the knot (or on the right side or middle, if you so desire).

In other words, there is absolutely nothing to prove the nick in the tie was away from the left side, and near the middle of the tie. This, of course, still leaves open the possibly this nick was made by an exiting bullet, bullet fragment, bone fragment or 1/4" x 10" drill bit inserted through the rear of the skull.

I asked before if the above photo was of JFK, and I found out it is. Here is the problem. If I am correct, and the nick was on the anatomical left side of the tie, the SBT is completely sunk.

Look again at this gif:

On the button hole side of the collar, note the horizontally striped pattern of the material the button hole passes through. Note also that, when the shirt collar is done up, the point where vertical stripes meets horizontal stripes, on the buttonhole side, is about halfway down the right collar tab, and the horizontal stripes, on the buttonhole side, actually run down on an angle to JFK's right side.

Now, look at the close up of the shirt and tie on JFK above, and you can see that, once the shirt and tie is actually on JFK, the boundary made by the horizontal stripes on the button hole side of the collar and the vertically striped material of the shirt is much higher in relationship to the right collar tab.

What is happening is that, once the shirt and collar is actually on JFK, he fills out the collar and shirt and straightens the collar band out; making the collar band stripes truly horizontal again.

Now, think about what this does to the hole seen in the button hole side of the shirt. By raising the collar band, out past the button hole, and pivoting on the button hole as you do so, you are moving the hole on the button hole side to JFK's anatomical right.While it appears the projectile hole would be lined up with the nick in the tie, it would actually be to JFK's right of the nick in the tie.

If the hole is moved to JFK's anatomical right, and if the nick was on the anatomical left of JFK's tie, the projectile was definitely travelling a right to left path through JFK's neck, and could NOT have been on its way to Connally's right armpit, unless he was sitting in Nellie's lap.

Opinions please as to the location of the "nick" as determined using this photo alone:

TIA for any comments...

Tom

Well, if it is not a hole completely through the tie, the nicked area had to be on the side of the knot. I just wonder why Aston's photo shows the tie knot displaced so far to the anatomical right. Is there historical evidence showing JFK's tie knot off to his right?

Not only is the knot displace to the anatomical left, so is the collar. Maybe that happens when you turn your head?

I don't think so. Try placing your fingers on your throat about where the tie knot goes and turn your head. Not only would the tie knot not turn, your trachea (windpipe) remains in place as well.

"When you say the location of the "nick" is on the anatomical left side of the tie, do you mean when it is completely untied and laying flat, with the wide end down, as it would normally hang? Or do you mean the left side of the knot? If the latter, is it on the side of the knot, or the left half of the front of the knot?"

I meant the left side of the knot, Sandy. I think it would have to be on the extreme side of the knot, or there would be a hole completely through the tie.

Is this a close up view of JFK wearing this shirt and tie? If it is, there is something I would like to point out.

The Croft wall path leads to the other pergola entrance

I see now. Thanks, Robin.

From the HSCA testimony of James Jarman:

Opinions please as to the location of the "nick" as determined using this photo alone:

TIA for any comments...

Tom

Well, if it is not a hole completely through the tie, the nicked area had to be on the side of the knot. I just wonder why Aston's photo shows the tie knot displaced so far to the anatomical right. Is there historical evidence showing JFK's tie knot off to his right?

Different child now. OK, Bob?

The child wearing the red cap and being held by the woman in this Towner frame could very well be Johnny Hawkins, and the woman could very well be his mother, Peggy Joyce Hawkins.

Credit: Robin Unger http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20032

--Tommy

I see what you mean now. Funny, Altgens' telephoto lens makes it look like the woman and man are right next to the TSBD steps, and not out on the concrete island and actually closer to the concrete pillar.

That may be Hawkins and her child, although, at first glance, the child appears small for a four year old. That would certainly place her in the right spot to get behind the retaining wall, as it begins behind her just on the other side of the concrete pillar.

I wonder if she considered the concrete pillar as part of the retaining wall when she gave her statement.

They aren't between the two lamp posts. And it's not likely a boy would be wearing a red hat. (Or maybe it is just pink that is to be avoided.)

Sandy, Sandy, Sandy.

The child is wearing a knitted, pullover-style red cap, ... you know, ... like people wear when it's cold?

--Tommy

Edit: Peggy Joyce Hawkings (formerly Bibler) from her 1956 college yearbook. Note the same chin, cheeks, and hair color.

Might be her. I still think the child looks a bit small for being four years old, though.

motorcade re-enactment ( including R.L.Thornton & Stemmons Freeway signs)

Thank you for the photos, Robin. Now I get it. There was a retaining wall behind the main retaining wall, and a sidewalk separating them, allowing a person wishing to hide behind a retaining wall two easy places to access them.

Any Idea where that sidewalk leads? Onto the side of the Elm St. extension, maybe?

"To me, the greatest surprise would be if it were proven that the CIA organized the assassination of JFK without some medical component in the planning, at least as insurance for a failure of the shooting."

Interesting. I hadn't thought about the assassination quite from that perspective before.

sorry for any misunderstanding.

No problem. I was actually quite curious to see if you had something new.

Different child now. OK, Bob?

The child wearing the red cap and being held by the woman in this Towner frame could very well be Johnny Hawkins, and the woman could very well be his mother, Peggy Joyce Hawkins.

Credit: Robin Unger http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20032

--Tommy

I see what you mean now. Funny, Altgens' telephoto lens makes it look like the woman and man are right next to the TSBD steps, and not out on the concrete island and actually closer to the concrete pillar.

That may be Hawkins and her child, although, at first glance, the child appears small for a four year old. That would certainly place her in the right spot to get behind the retaining wall, as it begins behind her just on the other side of the concrete pillar.

I wonder if she considered the concrete pillar as part of the retaining wall when she gave her statement.

I've used FBI photo of JFK's post-assassination shirt, and have applied basic image enhancement to it to bring out details. In doing so, I've concluded to my satisfaction that the slits are almost exactly the same size and shape, contrary to other conclusions. Here is the enhanced image, enlarged and cropped:

A thread running upward from the hole on the anatomical left (image right) creates an illusion of a longer slit/hole, but it seems clear in the enhanced image that it is a thread, not a further slit.

In this animated gif below, I have done the best I can to move the two sides of the shirt together in an APPROXIMATION of the way the two sides would be placed when worn with a tie. It is utterly impossible to "mold" the rigid photo of the fabric the way it would have fallen or bunched with a man lying in a trauma room, and I make no apologies for not trying, but I have marked the location of the holes/slits in the shirt for these purposes:

I believe that even with the limitations of this photo, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt by any reasonably prudent person that some item made both holes in the shirt, and whatever that item was also made the hole in the throat. The location of the holes/slits in the shirt, and the hole in the throat, were directly behind the knot in the tie at the exact level where the nick in the tie is. Count the "stripes" on the shirt collar.

Ashton

Thanks for doing this, Ashton. A lot of us here do not possess anywhere near the necessary computer skills for this, and we always appreciate it when someone more talented is able to test out our ideas.

Now that you have highlighted the damage to the shirt, the holes are very obvious, and do not (at least to me) look anything like slits at all. In fact, they look so different now, I even went back and looked at the original photo, on the off chance you had Photoshopped it. (sorry about that, we're just not an overly trusting bunch here)

You certainly seem to have blown the lid off this subject, and provided us with enough proof to completely discard the scalpel-blade-through-the-shirt-collar theory. That leaves us with a projectile, as I believe, or a large bore needle, as you have proposed.

One thing I have observed, though. If it was a projectile, it seems that projectile was following a course that would have taken it far to the left of Connally's right armpit. A right to left course is suggested by the damage to the right side of JFK's trachea, the exit wound in the centre of the throat and the nick on the left side of the tie; unless the tie and collar were somehow skewed far to the left at the moment the projectile passed through.

P.S.

By "projectile" I am not necessarily limiting the candidates to a bullet or bullet fragment.

I read the post a while ago. If I am correct, are you saying Mrs. Hawkins' child is on the lower steps?

You may be right Robert

But if not her, then where is Gloria Calvary located in Zapruder ?

No one seems to know. However, simply not knowing does not automatically make the Hispanic looking woman Gloria Calvery. Have you found the article that states Gloria Calvery was Hispanic yet?

The witness statements locate Co-workers Reed, Calvary, Hicks, Dishong and Westbrook standing together in the same location. ?

who else in that group could be Gloria Calvary. ?

The witness statements of these women look like they were written by one person, with many of the sentences repeated almost word for word.

Sorry, Robin, I just cannot accept that 30-something Hispanic woman is 21 year old Gloria Calvery, who looks anything but Hispanic in her high school photos.

Here's another scenario. I think this one works.

A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip.

The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it.

By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out.

Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie.

Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy.

This idea has already gone through my head also....

Great minds think alike...

"Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ."

Gloria Calvery was also 21 years old at the time of the assassination.

Finally, here she is in the center of the photo, standing on the sidewalk near Millican and looking towards the Grassy Knoll. Is that a partially-obscured small child on the grass in front of her?

simplified and bumped

You have the eyes of an eagle, Tommy. It sure looks like a child. But I have a hard time believing a mother would allow her child to wander around right after watching somebody get shot.

Yes, especially considering Mrs. Hawkins stated she and her child were hiding behind a retaining wall immediately after the shooting.

Here's another scenario. I think this one works.

A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip.

The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it.

By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out.

Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie.

Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy.

As if all of this is not bad enough, how did Baker actually see Oswald through the small pane of glass in the vestibule door?

Click on the diagram below to enlarge it.

If you take a straight edge ruler and line up Baker's position at the top of the stairs with the position Oswald was in when spotted by Baker, you will see that the vestibule door window was nowhere near Baker's line of sight, and that he could not have seen Oswald from the top of the stairs. As he was following hard on Truly's heels, he would naturally make a hard left turn as he left the stairs, and his line of sight would be even further away from being able to see Oswald.

Now, it can be argued that Baker was a good cop, and that he would have made a wide sweep of the landing in his search for bad guys. However, tere are a couple of things wrong with this argument.

First, Baker was in a hurry to get to the roof. As the 2nd floor landing was not a big room at all, would he make a wide sweep, or would he sweep the room with his eyes?

The second problem with the "wide sweep" argument can be seen in the photo below:

This is the view Baker would have had as he emerged from the stairwell onto the 2nd floor landing, although, judging by the angle of the wall, I believe the photographer is actually further away from the stairs than the diagram above shows us as Baker's position.

How did Baker make a "wide sweep" with all of those boxes stacked there?

bump

Okay, I think it is time to counter the arguments Mr. Gilbride has put forth.

Mr. Gilbride's belief that the 2nd floor lunch room encounter between Baker/Truly and Oswald actually occurred is dependent on four things. In reading these four points, remember that Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles, both in 3 inch heels, had to pass through the 2nd floor landing, undetected (and not seeing or hearing Truly and Baker) with nothing more than the vestibule door between them and Baker & Truly.

The points are:

1) That Roy Truly actually went through the vestibule door and allowed it to close behind him.

2) That the automatic closer on the vestibule door was a very fast closer.

3) That the vestibule door was completely soundproof.

4) That Truly and Baker were on the other side of the vestibule door long enough to allow Adams and Styles to pass through the 2nd floor landing, undetected.

Using these four points, I am going to demonstrate why the 2nd floor lunch room did not happen.

1) That Roy Truly actually went through the vestibule door and allowed it to close behind him.

Nowhere in Roy Truly's testimony does he state that he went through this door and allowed it to close behind him.

"Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?

Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23. [vestibule door]

Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?

Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember.

Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?

Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.

Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?

Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?

Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald."

According to Truly, he "opened the door back and leaned in this way." From this, the brilliant sleuth Gilbride has deduced that Truly went through the door and allowed it to close behind him.

2) That the automatic closer on the vestibule door was a very fast closer.

Number 2 is actually tied in very closely with Number 4 (That Truly and Baker were on the other side of the vestibule door long enough to allow Adams and Styles to pass through the 2nd floor landing, undetected) so I will deal with 2 & 4 together.

As may or may not be known by all of you, the weak point in the 2nd floor lunch room encounter is that Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were coming down the TSBD steps at the same time Roy Truly and Marrion Baker were supposedly going up the same stairs, yet neither of these two groups saw the other group passing by them.

To get around this, WC apologists have long maintained that Truly and Baker were in the lunch room, behind the vestibule door (which had to close itself after Truly went through it) long enough for Adams and Styles to pass, unseen and unheard, through the 2nd floor landing.

Once again, we go to the WC testimony of Roy Truly:

"Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?

Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?

Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?

Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.

Mr. BELIN. All right.

Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.

Mr. BELIN. Could you put an "O" where you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?

All right.

You have put an "O" on Exhibit 497.

What did you see or hear the officer say or do?

Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, "This man work here?" And I said, "Yes."

Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?

Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor."

So, Roy Truly opens the vestibule door and leans in. Baker turns back to him (allowing Truly to see into the lunch room and see Oswald) and speaks four words "This man work here?" to which Truly replies "Yes". Then they left Oswald IMMEDIATELY and continued to run up the stairways.

Now, I personally don't believe Truly went any further than leaning in the open vestibule doorway, as he held the vestibule door open. But, for the sake of argument, let's say he did go through the door and let it close behind him.

How long was Truly in the vestibule? How long does it take to say four words, and get a one word reply? Three to four seconds? Could dams and Styles have made it through the 2nd floor landing in three to four seconds? I doubt it.

However, it gets worse for Mr. Gilbride. Not only was Truly's time in the vestibule brief (5-6 seconds tops), was the vestibule door closed for all of that time? I doubt it, unless the automatic door closer on the vestibule door was an EXTREMELY fast closer.

In other words, while Baker was asking Truly if Oswald worked there, the vestibule door would likely still be closing. This would make the door still open, and if Adams and Styles were passing through the landing, they would have no trouble hearing Truly and Baker, and Truly and Baker would have no trouble hearing them.

3) That the vestibule door was completely soundproof.

Let's be generous and concede to Mr. Gilbride, just for the sake of argument, that Roy Truly was in the vestibule long enough to allow the vestibule door to close behind him, before Baker asked him if Oswald worked there. In this scenario, Mr. Gilbride is relying on the vestibule door to be soundproof enough that the two groups will not hear each other.

Let's see what Truly has to say about that:

"Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.

Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?

Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn't following me.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?

Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.

Mr. BELIN. What did you see?

Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.

Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.

Mr. TRULY. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?

Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.

Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?

Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember."

So, Truly comes back to the landing and "heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24."

If Truly could hear voices (or a voice) coming through the vestibule door, it could not have been anything close to being soundproof. And, as it is unlikely Baker lowered his voice at any time during this encounter, I don't believe Adams and Styles would have any trouble hearing him through the vestibule door either.

Now, it can be argued that the vestibule door had not fully closed behind Baker but, that makes the automatic door closer a SLOW closer, and if it closed slowly behind Baker, it would have closed slowly behind Truly, too, and Styles and Adams would have passed by an open door, and heard everything.

No matter how you slice, dice or make Julienne fries out of it, the 2nd floor lunch room encounter did not happen.

P.S.

Note that Truly gets a bit nervous at this point in his testimony:

"Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?

Mr. TRULY. I don't know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don't remember."

I think Truly is beginning to realize the open/closed vestibule door is the weak link in their story.

bump

"Part 1

I'm sorry, Robert, I won't have time to look through your material for several days."

Take your time, Richard. I'll just keep bumping my post so it stays fresh in your mind.

Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza interviewed Buell Wesley Frazier on June 21, 2002 (total running time of 2 hours):

http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-1/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-1

http://www.c-span.org/video/?287933-101/kennedy-assassination-buell-wesley-frazier-part-2

A few notes....

The most interesting parts of the above 2002 interview with Wesley Frazier are when he totally contradicts some of the things he said in 1963 and 1964.

For example:

In the 2002 interview, Frazier actually tells Gary Mack that he saw Lee Harvey Oswald "5 to 10 minutes" AFTER the assassination, as Lee was walking south on Houston Street. Wesley said he then lost Lee in the crowd after Oswald had crossed Houston Street. Frazier said he thought Lee was "going to get him a sandwich or something, so I really didn't think anything about it".

But when we look at Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit (which was written by Wesley within hours of the assassination), we find this:

"I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today [11/22/63], and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor." -- Buell Wesley Frazier

Frazier also completely changed his mind in 2002 about the source of the three gunshots he heard on November 22nd. He told Mack in 2002 that the shots came from "above" him. But in 1964, he told the Warren Commission that the shots came from the railroad tracks on top of the Triple Underpass. Wesley even drew a circle on a Commission exhibit (CE347) to indicate the area where he said he heard the shots coming from:

"These railroad tracks there is a series of them that come up over this, up over this overpass there, and from where I was standing, I say, it is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like it came from over there, in the railroad tracks." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

So much for 39-year-old recollections, huh?

Maybe it would be better to simply not interview witnesses thirty-nine years after an event has taken place. You just never know what a witness is going to "remember" after so many intervening years.

Such "newer" interviews are interesting to see and listen to, but many of the recollections being recounted by the witness become garbled, semi-incoherent, and inconsistent with things the same witness has said in previous interviews and depositions. And such inconsistency only tends to muddy the waters even more when it comes to investigating the JFK murder case.

I'm guessing that Gary Mack was in a mild state of shock when Wesley Frazier told him on 6/21/02 that he had seen Lee Oswald walking along Houston Street "5 to 10 minutes" after the assassination.

If that were true, of course, it would mean that Oswald did not leave the Texas School Book Depository Building by way of the front entrance, but instead he left via the back door of the building.

I, however, place more faith in what Wes Frazier said on the day of the assassination itself, when he said he did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at all "after about 11:00 AM today".

David Von Pein

January 25, 2010

Well, I would certainly say Frazier's 39 year old recollections are all over the place.