Mark Tyler

Baker gave a clearer account of how far the car had passed her position in her 1964 interview: Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell me approximately how far down the street it had gone when you heard the first shot? Mrs. BAKER. I don’t know exactly---I could still see the back of the car---I can’t judge distance so I really couldn’t tell you. Mr. LIEBELER. It hadn’t gone out of sight in your opinion? Mrs. BAKER. No, sir. Mr. LIEBELER. Could you still see the President? Mrs. BAKER. Not too well. Mr. LIEBELER. There is a gradual curve on Elm Street and the car had already started slightly into the curve by the time it had gone by you? Mrs. BAKER. Yes. This is consistent with Z180-Z200 in the animation frame above as the car would indeed have started to curve around Elm Street and go down the hill, with her looking at the back of the cars.

This statement from Skelton is correct but somewhat vague in detail. Helpfully he gave more info when he was interviewed by the FBI a few weeks later: "Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building." https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd/wcd_0087a.gif What I find fascinating about this statement is that if the Z180-Z190 shot came from the TSBD, and hit the road then this proves that the shot that hit the victims Z220-Z230 must have come from another location as the TSBD gun couldn't be operated that quickly. The most important aspect of me comparing Skelton and Baker is that they see the same event but from a completely different angle which helps us confirm things. To be honest, if it was just one witness saying this I wouldn't be certain whether it really happened as described, but these two people were hundreds of feet apart so I feel we can accept this as fact. The animation proves that there was a gap between the cars at that point so there is nothing to stop Baker seeing what she claims. With nothing contradicting what either witness says I feel it's safe to say that the first shot hit the road.

I've become quite interested in the witness statements from Royce Skelton and Virgie Baker. They both remarked that something bounced off the road to the south of the Presidential limo at the time of the first shot. Of particular interest is Baker whose position can be known fairly accurately thanks to her being in the Wiegman, Bell, and Towner films. Several people have already identified her position here, which I agree with: Baker identified the bullet impact area in her Warren Commission testimony at (2) on this map: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_354.pdf I put these positions into my animation and was able to deduce when she was able to see this area. Interestingly it was only visible for about 2 seconds from Z175 to Z215. Before and after this time the cars blocked her view: In other words the first shot must have been after Z175 and before Z215 (give or take a few frames for margin of error). This ties in very neatly with Gloria Calvery and Karen Westbrook who said that the limo was in front of them when the first shot was fired which was circa Z200 as per this frame: John Connally also mentioned he heard the first shot 2 seconds before he was hit: He is seemingly hit at Z225 of the Zapruder film, so 2 seconds before this is Z188. Then there is the noticeable blurring of the Zapruder film Z190-Z210, which is consistent with a startle reaction to an unexpected gunshot noise. Finally we have the Willis 5 photo which was taken at Z202, which he said was taken as a reflex reaction to the first shot. This all is consistent with the first shot being fired around Z180-Z190, and I'm struggling to think of a reason to discount it. One witness can easily be mistaken but when so many people independently report evidence consistent with the same half of a second I feel obliged to accept it all at face value. With two shots fired in two seconds at Z185 and Z220 it is impossible for the gun in the TSBD to have fired both: there must have been a second gun!

I think touring through the photos helps follow the two teenagers in the post assassination chaos. At the beginning these two are in the Bronson photo (one with a light blue shirt showing): After the shooting they retreat to the pergola shelter as shown in the Bothun photo: Then Grant captures them head on, showing one with a light shirt exposed and the other zipped up (matching the Bronson photo, but sadly in black and white so we don't see the blue of the shirt): Notice the white markings on the shoulders. The first two Cabluck photos show the boys running across the knoll chasing Haygood: The best quality image of all is Cancellare who gets the detail of the boys wearing spectacles: Notice that boy A has slightly lighter trousers in these photos which matches the Bronson boy on the left: Getting the verified identity of these two is another matter but this is the photographic record. Allen Smith probably just made a mistake when he said "Main Street", as his description of being 10 feet away at the fatal shot means it was Elm Street and those two teenagers in the photos above will be the best match.

Hopefully a new 3D model will explore the angle of fire from all gunman locations (buildings from behind high or low, knoll, etc) and by doing so will not cherry pick a favoured scenario. That way the strengths and weaknesses of all theories can be assessed relative to the physical evidence. The other problem with past 3D animations is that their data was never published for peer review so we had to just assume they had created an accurate model. Although these old 3D models always made nice TV presentations, the accuracy could not be verified independently.

Assessing witness reliability and quality is a very important question and worthy of an explanation. In the case of this witness survey it is a very specific set of criteria relating to witness statements that have been made public. The best quality witnesses tick these boxes: Gave statements in 1963 or 1964. Gave enough information to measure the timing of the first shot heard. Gave enough information to measure the timing of the last shot heard. The statements were clear and unambiguous. For example if someone didn't put a statement onto the record until an interview in 1985, I regard this as less reliable due to human memory being fallible and open to suggestion from media reports. This judgement is only with respect to the individual witness, so I may regard two different witnesses as high quality but they completely disagree about what happened in Dealey Plaza (e.g. James Altgens and Jean Hill who were at great variance regarding the shots fired). Corroboration with other witnesses, films and photos is useful but not necessary to regard a witness as good quality. For the purposes of the survey I am judging the witness in terms of how much useful information they give regarding the shots. Typically if a witness goes into some detail this probably means they were paying more attention and are therefore more reliable. The films and photos that you mention are just the same as the human witnesses in the sense that they given us information, but not the full story. For example the Zapruder film is useful for certain measuring purposes (e.g. the cars moving along Houston Street at the top of the frame), but it can be over-analysed such as with the so called jiggle analysis making us think that a shot was fired. Maybe a jiggle was really Abraham Zapruder wobbling for some innocent reason on his pedestal? I am especially skeptical of the early jiggles Z133-Z160 because he had only just started his camera and was setting the framing in those first two seconds. At frame Z190 the limo was roughly at the corner of the main TSBD building, and just moving in front of the walled extension area to the west. For frame Z160 here is an animation frame which is my best estimate: The limo looks to be perpendicular to roughly the final 2 windows of the TSBD out of 7 windows in total, which is in the final third of the building.

The angle of trajectory for the head shot is tricky to judge due to the slightly leftward direction of JFK's head at frame Z312: However, I do agree with you that a shot entering the rear centre of the skull would indeed exit the right side in this scenario (especially if it was fired from a different angle such as the Dal-Tex building). This is also consistent with what you seen in the Zapruder frames Z314-Z320, and also the autopsy photos. It's also the reason that I don't think this shot came from the right hand side on the grassy knoll as the head damage was entirely on the right hand side. If a shot was fired from the knoll it would have damaged the left side also, but that's not what we see in the film, the autopsy photos, or what the Parkland doctors and Dealey Plaza witnesses reported. The Dal-Tex is also mentioned regarding JFK's back and throat wound because the trajectory seems too flat to come from a high position like the sixth floor TSBD window. Ultimately what is required to sort this out is a high quality 3D rendering of Dealey Plaza that can explore each of these potential sniper locations and see which one is most consistent with the physical evidence. Each of the 3D models I have seen over the years has been purely to bolster the sixth floor sniper scenario, thus wilfully ignoring all other lines of inquiry. Perhaps even more grievous is that these models very often get the wound locations wrong such as the entrance wound being placed in the neck when it should be lower down on the back. The other "trick" is where JFK is made to lean forward to raise the back wound above the throat wound, as the HSCA did: None of these contortions are consistent with the photos and films such as the Croft photo just a few seconds before the wound was inflicted: I look forward to @Lawrence Schnapf and his colleagues shedding light on this part of the case and allowing us all to judge what the most likely shooting trajectories were in 1963:

In terms of the assassination narrative it's very hard to say. I don't feel a late shot helps or hinders any particular theory (conspiracy or lone gunman). My real goal with this work is to separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e. establish where the real evidence lies and where the red herrings are. Maybe in a year or two when I have completely finished studying the evidence I may come off the fence, but at the moment there are still unresolved areas that could affect my thinking (e.g. the single bullet theory which which may help us locate the position of the assassin somewhere other than the sixth floor window). This is the most common response to a late shot people have given me over the last year: "why would the assassin bother to shoot again if he hit his target at Z313?". As with all questions it has various assumptions and preconceptions baked into it: The assassin saw what we see in the Zapruder film at Z313. The assassin knew JFK was mortally wounded. The assassin had time to weigh up whether to shoot again. There was only one assassin (and one target as you say). I feel some of these assumptions are wrong (possibly all of them), but ultimately it's hard to know for sure as the assassin never came forward to explain his actions. We can deduce that a 5 second gap between shots implies 2.5 seconds to operate a bolt action gun, 2 seconds to line up the target, and 0.5 seconds to squeeze the trigger. This matches the gap between the known victim reactions in the Zapruder film to two of the shots fired at Z220 and Z310. With a large majority of witnesses describing three shots, when was the third fired? Logically it must be before Z220 by about 5 seconds, or after Z310 by 5 seconds. I favour the latter because of the dozens of witnesses who say that's what happened, compared to the almost zero reliable witnesses who support a very early shot at Z160 or before. If the third shot was fired between Z220 and Z310 as some witnesses claim, we have two guns firing as there wouldn't have been enough time to accurately fire 3 shots in 5 seconds. However, this creates a loose end because many witnesses say the shooting lasted about 10 seconds, and Z220 to Z310 is only 5 seconds. By contrast, if a witness missed the first or last shot it would explain why those witnesses say the shooting lasted just 5 seconds (e.g. James Altgens). A return of fire scenario is interesting and worth considering as Jean Hill suggested this is what she thought was happening after the head shot as the secret service agents were all brandishing guns (and she said the shots came too quickly for a single gunman). However, none of the agents said this is what happened and no other witnesses volunteered this idea so I suspect it's probably not what happened. If more than one gun was fired that day I suspect it was either another assassin or maybe a decoy shooter to distract from the "real" assassin who may not have been located in the TSBD. My best estimate of when the final shot was fired is circa Z400 which is about 5 seconds after Z313 so I don't think this is close enough to be mixed up with the previous shot. Any witness can be wrong of course, but for so many to be wrong in exactly the same way seems unlikely. When studying the witness statements my general attitude is to accept what the witnesses say happened unless there is a conflict or contradiction. In this part of the case there are witnesses who did not hear a shot after Z313 such as James Altgens who I mentioned earlier, so we have a conflict between the witnesses which must be resolved somehow. In the case of Altgens I explained that he was distracted in the time Z370-Z430 by: A loud siren 20-25 feet away. Noisy bikes and cars whizzing past. He was taking a photo at the time (the so called Altgens 7 photo). The gruesome head shot moments before. By contrast the Houston Street witnesses mentioned earlier had no such distractions so I consider them to be in a better position to recall a shot or shots fired in the time frame Z370-Z430. In summary, some of the witnesses must have been mistaken. Either there was or there wasn't a late shot. I think there was a late shot because of the high number of quality witnesses who say there was a shot in the circa Z400 time frame, including the Camera Car #3 witnesses whose observations can be clocked using the known car positions relative to the Zapruder film from Z190 to Z400 which contains the three shots they reported.

So this concludes my tour of statements from the Camera Car #3 witnesses. As with all witnesses in Dealey Plaza they disagree on one or two details (e.g. the spacing of the shots), but they mostly corroborate each other in terms of the timing of the last shot. They also seem to corroborate the statements from other witnesses who are certain there was at least one shot well after the head shot (Brehm, Moorman, Hill, Hudson, Dishong, Bowers, etc). The final proof that Z313 can't be time of the final shot is to look at the position of Camera Car #3 at that point and look through the eyes of the witnesses. Here is the Google street view from roughly that point: Judging from the statements above, none of the witnesses said this is where the shooting stopped (Underwood actually said this is where he was when the shooting started!). I think this proves that at least one shot was fired well after Z313, and is the final coup de grace for the oldest myth in town. Whether you are a conspiracy theorist, a lone gunman theorist, or a fence sitter like me, challenging the "last shot was the head shot" orthodoxy has profound implications for the most popular theories (i.e. they are wrong!). The information I have used was available in 1963 and 1964, and in several cases was being broadcast to the world within hours of the assassination so I consider these to be the honest views from those witnesses. I have just updated the witness spreadsheet for this latest analysis, and also the names of a few policeman in the Dealey Plaza area who are slightly less well known. I also put "Jim Braden" on the list as he was acting suspiciously in the Dal-Tex building, and the three unidentified tramps. Despite none of these new witnesses providing useful information regarding the shooting I have included them as they were in the Dealey Plaza area around the time of the crime. As always, if I have made any mistakes please let me know so I can clear them up.

Robert Jackson was in the back seat of Camera Car #3, and was quoted in an FBI report from an interview on the day of the assassination: He advised the car in which he was riding was proceeding north on Houston Street, between Main and Elm Streets, and the presidential car had already turned left on Elm Street (off Houston Street) when he heard three loud reports which sounded like shots from a gun. He stated that there was a "pause" after the first shot, which was followed by the second and third shots in rapid succession. Jackson advised that upon hearing the three shots, he looked upward and straight ahead at a window in the Texas School Book Depository building, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, in time to see the barrell of a rifle being pulled inside the window. Jackson said he was unable to see the person holding the rifle and therefore could not describe such individual. CD5 : https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0069a.gif No exact timings or positions were given, but note that after the final shot he saw the gun being withdrawn from the sixth floor window. More detail was given in his 1964 deposition to the Warren Commission: Mr. JACKSON. Well, as our reporter chased the film out into the street, we all looked back at him and were laughing, and it was approximately that time that we heard the first shot, and we had already rounded the corner, of course, when we heard the first shot. We were approximately almost half a block on Houston Street. Mr. SPECTER. Will you identify for me on Commission Exhibit 347, precisely as possible, where your automobile was at the time you heard the first shot? Mr. JACKSON. Approximately right here, I would say the midpoint of this building. Approximately where we heard the first report. Mr. SPECTER. Now, will you mark in a black “X” on 347 the spot where your car was at the time you heard the first shot? 2H158 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Jackson.pdf Sadly I can't spot the X in this exhibit to make his testimony clearer, but I assume it's halfway down the block as he said (if anyone has a clearer version let me know!): https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0484b.htm However the timing of the first shot relates to someone speaking in the car: Mr. JACKSON. Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did sneak up and make that comment and before he actually finished the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought that it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President’s car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle or what looked like a rifle approximately half of the weapon. I guess I saw, and just as I looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn’t even see a form in the window. As quoted earlier Dillard described a "torpedo" as the noise of the first shot, so this it could be him, or it could be Underwood as he mentioned a "firecracker". Sadly due to this ambiguity I'm not sure which shot he is referring to for certain as Underwood's first shot was Z310 and Dillard's was Z220. However the timing of the last shot can be deduced by his reference in this quote: "I said 'There is a gun' or it came from that window. I tried to point it out. But by the time the other people looked up, of course, it was gone, and about that time we were beginning to turn the corner." As with the other witnesses he is saying the final shot was fired just before they started to turn the corner. This statement is especially useful because we can peg the final shot to a time no later than Camera Car #3 beginning its turn onto Elm Street, which is about Z400-Z440. Jackson confirms this timing as he saw the Presidential limo leave Dealey Plaza: "As we turned the corner--or we stopped where the intersection, actually we stopped before we began to turn left onto Elm Street, or rather I would say we hesitated and we were all looking down towards the President's car and I could see two cars going under the underpass. I barely saw the President's car. I would say just the rear end of it as it disappeared under the underpass." Here is the Google street view from a similar position at the intersection showing what would have been visible as he looked down the Elm Street incline: Here is the animation frame of this time with an arrow showing his view as the limo went under the bridge: The time the limo left under the underpass was Z460-Z486, which was indeed the same time that Jackson's car stopped, which adds credibility to this witness statement. It all happened very quickly of course, but all of the claims he makes seem correct from a physical perspective. In terms of shot timings he said: Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the time span between the first shot you heard and the last shot you heard? Mr. JACKSON. I would say 5 to 8 seconds. Mr. SPECTER. Can you give us a breakdown between the shots which you heard as to how many seconds elapsed between each one? Mr. JACKSON. I would say to me it seemed like 3 or 4 seconds between the first and the second, and between the second and third, well, I guess 2 seconds, they were very close together. It could have been more time between the first and second. I really can’t be sure. In summary, there are a few ambiguities and uncertainties with Jackson's testimony but I would say the pattern of two shots in quick succession at the end was closer to Underwood's description than the equally spaced shots that Dillard mentioned.

James Underwood was in the front seat of Camera Car #3, and was quoted in an FBI report from 25th November: Mr. Underwood states the car in which he was riding was approaching the corner of Houston and Elm Streets, Dallas, Texas, when he heard a loud noise sounding similar to a gunshot. He states that upon hearing the second noise he realized it was a gunshot and that at the sound of the next shot the car in which he was riding was almost directly in front of the Texas School book Depository Building located on Elm and Houston Streets. He stated at this time the car in which he was riding had been stopped, and he overheard Bob Jackson of the Dallas Times Herald say "There’s a rifle." Then Jackson pointed upward toward the Texas School Book Depository building. CD5 : https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0024a.gif Once again, notice how the final shot was fired when the car was "almost directly in front of the Texas School book Depository". Apart from this, it's rather vague about detail like timings, but the 1964 Warren Commission deposition helps out somewhat: Mr. UNDERWOOD. After we turned onto Houston Street, the car I was in was about, as far as I can remember, about in the middle of the block or a little bit north of the center of the block, which is a short block, when I heard the first shot. Mr. BALL. Between Houston and Elm? Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes; between Main and Elm, closer to the Elm intersection, Elm and Houston intersection, when I heard the first shot fired. I thought it was an explosion. I have heard many rifles fired but it did not sound like a rifle to me. Evidently must have been a reverberation from the buildings or something. I believe I said to one of the other fellows it sounds like a giant firecracker and the car I was in was about in the intersection of Elm and Houston when I heard a second shot fired and moments later a third shot fired and I realized that they were by that time. The last two shots, I realized they were coming from overhead. 6H169 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Underwood.pdf When the first shot he heard was fired, the position of the car was about halfway along Houston Street which is later than Couch and Dillard said. Here is that point in the animation showing his car (25) halfway: Notice that the time is Z309, which is exactly the time that the assassin was depressing the trigger for the fatal head shot. Underwood said the second and third shots were fired when the car was in front of the TSBD which would be around Z400 before it stopped circa Z450-Z480. In summary, James Underwood heard two shots after the head shot and he seems to have missed the first shot around Z190-Z220 that the other occupants of the car reported just after the turn onto Houston Street.

Tom Dillard was in the front seat of Camera Car #3 and was quoted in an FBI report from 25th November 1963: Mr. Dillard stated the car in which he was riding had not approached the corner of Houston and Elm Streets when he heard a noise sounding like a "torpedo" (a large firecracker). He states upon hearing another sound similar to the first he realized it was gunfire. He states that upon hearing the third shot the car in which he was riding was stopped almost in front of the Texas School Book Depository building. He states at that time he heard Bob Jackson of the Dallas times Herald exclaim "I see a rifle. It’s up there in the open window." Then Jackson pointed toward the Texas School Book Depository Building located at Elm and Houston Streets. Mr. Dillard stated he looked upward toward the building and saw nothing resembling a rifle protruding from an open window. He states he did, however, take two photographs of the building at that time. CD5 : https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0049a.gif Sadly there aren't any specific timings, but please note that the third shot was fired when his car was directly in front of the TSBD, which closely resembles what Malcolm Couch said. Helpfully his deposition to the Warren Commission in 1964 gives much more information: Mr. DILLARD. Yes; I heard an explosion which I made the comment that I believe, in my memory, I believe I said, “My God, they’ve thrown a torpedo” and why I said “torpedo”, I don’t know. If you wish, I’ll go ahead. Mr. BALL. Go ahead with your story. Mr. DILLARD. Well, then I later estimated, immediately later, estimated, oh, 4, about 3 or 4 seconds, another explosion and my comment was, “No, It’s heavy rifle fire,” and I remember very distinctly I said, “It’s very heavy rifle fire.” Mr. BALL. How many explosions did you hear? Mr. DILLARD. I heard three--the three approximately equally spaced. Mr. BALL. What is the best estimate of the position of your car with reference to the turn at Main and Houston when you heard the first explosion? Mr. DILLARD. Perhaps, oh, just a few feet around the corner and it seems we had slowed a great deal. It seems that our car had slowed down so that we were moving rather slowly and perhaps just passed the turn when I heard the first explosion. 6H163 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Dillard.pdf Just after the final shot the car stopped and Dillard took two pictures of the TSBD where others in the car said the gun was withdrawn from: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/45067/image-of-the-top-floors-of-the-texas-school-book-depository In summary Dillard says: Three equally spaced shots. 4 seconds between shots. The first shot was fired just after the turn onto Houston Street. The last shot was fired when the car was directly in front of the TSBD. This is a very similar story to Couch, only varying in minor detail.

The pool of blood is a strange observation, and probably the same pool that Jean Hill mentioned, who later said it was a spilt drink. Couch located the area in the same place that Hill did: "This was the little walkway - steps and walkway that leads up to the corner, the west corner, the southwest corner of the book Depository Building. Another little sidewalk, as I recall, turns west and forms that little parkway and archway right next to the Book Depository Building." I agree with you about the violent event affecting peoples judgement, as everyone would have been extremely distressed, especially those like Jean Hill who were so close to the limo. The sound of gunshots may have also had a psychological effect in terms of people smelling gunpowder, as even Earle Brown 100 yards away from Dealey Plaza could smell it. In the Camera Car #3 Tom Dillard also mentioned smelling gunpowder when his car stopped by the TSBD.

Malcolm Couch gave an eyewitness report on WFAA radio on the day of the assassination: "Just as the President's car turned the corner, I heard a loud shot that sounded like at first a backfire. And then I heard another one. And then finally a third shot. We naturally took this third shot as a rifle shot because we figured by the third shot that this was not a backfire, that it was not a motorcycle backfiring, but it was actually someone taking a crack at the President. Just as our car rounded the corner we saw the President's car speed off." On 27th November 1963 Malcolm Couch had an interview with the FBI which was reported as: "he heard two loud noises about ten seconds apart which sounded like a motorcycle backfire. He said as they turned the corner onto Elm from Houston, he heard another noise, and Robert Jackson yelled to look up at the window. He said he immediately turned his head toward the area of the Texas School Book Depository building, and around the fifth or sixth floor he observed what appeared to be a rifle being withdrawn from a window. He said by this time the car was approximately in front of the window in question, but he could not observe any figure behind same." CD5 : https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0045a.gif Curiously only two shots were mentioned here for some reason, but the time frame of 10 seconds is of some value (as will be shown later). In 1964 he gave a more detailed explanation to the Warren Commission: Mr. BELIN. Do you remember about where your car was at the time you heard the first noise? Mr. COUCH. I would say--uh--15 or 20 feet from the turn--from off of Main onto Houston. Mr. BELIN. Fifteen or 20 feet from the turn? Mr. COUCH. We had already completed the turn. 6H156 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Couch.pdf From this statement we can deduce that the Z190 Hughes frame above is around or just before Couch heard the first shot (i.e. Z190-Z220 is when the shot was fired). Couch also gives more useful data on the other shots: Mr. COUCH. As I recall, nothing--there was no particular reaction ; uh-nothing unusual. Maybe everybody sort of looked around a little, but didn’t think much of it. And--uh--then, in a few seconds, I guess from 4-5 seconds later, or even less, we heard the second shot. And then we began to look--uh, not out of thinking necessarily it was a gunshot, but we began to look in front of us--in the motorcade in front of us. And, as I recall, I didn’t have any particular fears or feelings at the second shot. By the third shot, I felt that it was a rifle. Almost sure it was. And, as I said, the shots or the noises were fairly close together they were fairly even in sound--and--uh, by then, one could recognize, or if he had heard a high-powered rifle, he would feel that it was a high-powered rifle. You would get that impression. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember where your vehicle was by the time you heard the third shot? Mr. COUCH. I’d say we were about 50 feet from making-or maybe 60 feet from making the left-hand turn onto Elm. Mr. BELIN. Did you hear more than three shots? Mr. COUCH. No. With 5 seconds between each of the three shots we get to the 10 seconds that Couch mentioned in the FBI interview. By saying he was 50-60 feet from making the turn when he heard the final shot, I think he is referring to roughly this animation frame: Just to help readers with distance, the car labelled 23 is about 50-60 feet away from Couch (car 25) and it has just about made the turn onto Elm Street. This frame also indicates that a few seconds later Couch would indeed have seen the Presidential limo as it sped away as his car turned the corner, just as he said on the day of the assassination. In other words his judgement and testimony seems to be reliable and closely resembles the measurable events in Dealey Plaza. In summary, Malcolm Couch heard three shots in a 10 second period somewhere in the range Z190 to Z400 of the Zapruder film, and immediately following this he saw a gun being withdrawn from the sixth floor window.

One of the nice things about exhaustively going through the hundreds of witness statements is that you find some rather obscure witnesses who are helpful in establishing some of the basic facts about the shooting. For example the witnesses on Houston Street were largely oblivious to the events on Elm Street because they couldn't see what was going on in the Presidential limo. However, they could still hear the shots and they weren't emotionally affected in quite the same way as the people on Elm Street (which is helpful as it wouldn't have affected their judgement). With the help of these witnesses I shall now challenge one of the most longstanding and pernicious myths of the crime scene. Here is a frame from the Hughes film which was exposed at about Z150 relative to the Zapruder film: About two seconds later the Hughes film stops circa Z190: If you look closely you can see the silver Camera Car #3 just ahead of the Congressman Car #1. Here is the equivalent animation frame: So this sets the scene. I can now go through the witness statements from the occupants of Camera Car #3 to understand their impressions of the shooting as they trundled along Houston Street.

Moving west down Elm street from Jean Hill and Mary Moorman we then see James Altgens who took some iconic photos in the Dealey Plaza crime scene. He was also a very useful witness who deserves to be studied in detail. He was quoted in an AP broadcast within 10 minutes of the shooting: "Altgens said he heard two shots but thought someone was shooting fireworks until he saw blood on the President. Altgens said he saw no one with a gun." Altgens is one of about 14-20% of witnesses who heard fewer than three shots. If the vast majority of witnesses who heard more than two shots are correct, this raises the issue of when the other shot was fired (or possibly shots plural if he missed more than one). His Warren Commission testimony provides some useful information about the timing of the first and last shots he heard: "I made one picture at the time I heard a noise that sounded like a firecracker-I did not know it was a shot, but evidently my picture, as I recall, and it was almost simultaneously with the shot-the shot was just a fraction ahead of my picture, but that much-of course-at that time I figured it was nothing more than a firecracker, because from my position down here the sound was not of such volume that it would indicate to me it was a high-velocity rifle." "I wasn’t keeping track of the number of pops that took place, but I could vouch for No. 1, and I can vouch for the last shot, but I cannot tell you how many shots were in between. There was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head. That was the last shot-that much I will say with a great degree of certainty." 7H517 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Altgens.pdf The photo he is referring to is the Altgens 6 photo which was taken at about Z253-Z255 relative to the Zapruder film. The first shot he heard was just before this, so I would deduce that he is referring to the shot which hit the victims who are reacting at Z225-Z230 in the Zapruder film (which is just over a second before he took his photo). With the head shot being the last shot he heard he is saying all of the shots were fired within about 5 seconds of time. He vaguely says "I cannot tell you how many shots were in between", so another shot could have been fired between the first and last. With many other witnesses so adamant that at least one shot was fired after the head shot, why did Altgens miss this shot? I think that the clue is what was happening to Altgens in the time frame immediately after the head shot at Z313: He took a photo (Altgens 7) at about Z400: There was a siren blaring at just after the head shot, which was emanating from the Secret Service follow up car and was about 20-25 feet away from Altgens around Z370-Z410. There was a lot of noise from nearby traffic, e.g. a noisy bike passed him during Z350-Z390. Here is an animation frame depicting Altgens (53) and his immediate surroundings at Z390 with all of this noise at its peak just before he took his photo: In other words he was busy taking his photo and his senses were probably being overloaded by the noise of bikes, sirens, and screaming witnesses so he was simply distracted. The people who did hear the final shot(s) were further away from the noisy bike and siren, and they weren't busy trying to take a photo so they would have been able to hear the shot more clearly with fewer distractions. This is just my theory of course and others may well have an alternative explanation of which shot he didn't hear and why, so feel free to comment if you think I'm wrong!

I've just updated the survey spreadsheet with info from JC White who was on the triple underpass bridge: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_JCWhite.pdf He's not a useful witness as he said he didn't hear anything and his view of Elm Street was blocked due to a long freight train travelling across the bridge. However, I have added him to the list for the sake of completeness.

Thanks for the tip Mark. I had a look around and found some forum threads that mentioned the lamb chop doll: It seems to be a rather hot topic about whether it was a fluffy toy or a bunch of white flowers. I guess if we still don't really know nearly 60 years on, maybe thats why Jean Hill didn't really know in those few brief seconds. The moral of the tale is that witnesses can be both right and wrong at the same time. Hill was wrong in saying it was a dog, however when pushed to explain in more detail she said it was something white and fuzzy that she saw (which is consistent with either flowers or a toy doll). I feel this probably explains many of the discrepancies between witness statements, such as shot timings. Humans aren't recording devices and so when a witness recalls something it is more their general impression rather than specific measurable detail.

I've not seen this exhibit before, so thanks for sharing it. I see this is in the Warren Commission volumes 20H158: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0089b.htm It was referenced in the rather long testimony Jean Hill gave to the Warren Commission: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hill.pdf If anyone hasn't read this testimony, it's well worth looking at. Hill has received a very bad press over the years, but I feel she gives a very good account of her view of the assassination. Some of the more controversial statements she has made do actually have rather simple explanations in the above document: She found blood on the ground on the knoll. As explained on page 212: "this is embarrassing, but it turned out to be Koolade or some sort of red drink." She saw the Secret Service men fire shots at the man running away on the knoll. As explained on page 212: Mr. SPECTER. You thought that perhaps the second burst of shots you heard were being directed toward him by the Secret Service? Mrs. HILL. I just thought, “Oh, goodness, the Secret Service is shooting back.” Later on page 213: Mr. SPECTER. And you had the general impression that the Secret Service was firing the second group of shots at the man who fired the first group of shots? Mrs. HILL. That’s right. Mr. SPECTER. But you had no specific impression as to the source of those shots? Mrs. HILL. No. Just to recap, after the fatal head shot a man on the knoll starts running up the steps, as can be seen in the final frames of the Muchmore film, which is who Hill is presumably talking about: To the right of the frame is the follow up Secret Service car where the agents are all reacting by pulling out guns which Hill would have seen very clearly. With bullets being fired and then the sight of a man running away and agents brandishing guns was enough to give her the impression that the man on the knoll was the assassin and the agents were firing back. It's an honest and understandable impression, but as she said she didn't know the specific source of the shots. She was certain that more than one gun was firing though as she explained on page 213: Mr. SPECTER. Any conscious impression of where this third shot came from? Mrs. HILL. Not any different from any of them. I thought it was just people shooting from the knoll--I did think there was more than one person shooting. Mr. SPECTER. You did think there was more than one person shooting? Mrs. HILL. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What made you think that? Mrs. HILL. The way the gun report sounded and the difference in the way they were fired--the timing. She saw a dog in the limo. As explained on page 214: "Between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and they kept asking me what kind of a dog and I said, "I don't know, I wasn't interested in what was in the seat," but I said, "It was white and fuzzy," and I said, "It was something white and kind of fuzzy and it was in the seat between them," and I said, "I just got to thinking---it must be a small dog," because I had remarked to my girl friend as they were taking us in the police station, I said, "Why?" I said, "I could see Liz Taylor or the Gabors traveling with a bunch of dogs, but I can't see the Kennedys traveling with dogs. Why would they have a dog with them on tour?" And, when we remarked about that she and I both--and I said, "Did you see it? What kind of a dog was it? Why were they taking a dog?" I found out later that it was those roses in the seat, but I knew they were looking at something and I just barely glanced and I saw this." She said "barely glanced" so it's not surprising that she interpreted the white and fuzzy object as a dog in that split second. She saw Jack Ruby on the knoll. As explained on page 215: Mr. SPECTER: Do you think he was, in fact. Jack Ruby? Mrs. HIIL: That, I don’t know. In other words, the man she briefly saw simply looked like Jack Ruby. In summary, Hill was merely passing on the impressions of what she saw, and while not always perfectly accurate, everything did indeed have some basis in fact. As so often in this case a phrase or two is taken out of the original context and people misunderstand what the witness is really trying to say. Considering that bullets were being fired in her direction, and how quickly it all happened, we are lucky to have any information. Lest we forget many witnesses were so terrified they never came forward, so I'm very grateful that Hill had the gumption to say her piece.

The photos in Dealey Plaza contain many optical illusions, and as a result can easily mislead us regarding the spectators on the so called mannikin row. For example when looking down Elm Street from the corner such as via the Willis or Betzner photo we get the illusion of people lining up shoulder to shoulder down towards the Stemmons freeway sign: However the Bronson photo is taken at a perpendicular angle and we see the true spacing between people which is much more patchy and nowhere near as dense as we would think from the other angle: The most graphic and common illusion that tricks people is the Altgens 6 photo: Viewing Altgens 6 in isolation you might think that Jim Chaney on the police bike on the left hand side was beside the limo and looking directly at JFK. However, the Bronson photo above shows us that the bikes are way behind the limo. The Bronson photo was taken circa Z225-Z230, and the Altgens photo was taken circa Z253-Z255 so there is only just over a second between the two photos so there is not enough time for the bike to catch up the limo so we can deduce that its just a trick as per this line of sight here from both camera angles at Z253: As we see, the diagram matches Altgens 6 as the bike is in line with the corner of the limo and also the lamppost behind (and the concrete pillar is to the right of both). However the Altgens photo does not tell use where the bike is depth wise, which is where the Bronson photo comes in and tells us that the bike is behind the limo and not beside it. When a 3D scene is condensed into a 2D photo a great deal of information is lost and the human imagination tries to fill in the gaps. Sometimes this results in optical illusions as shown above, but helpfully the large number of photos and films taken from different angles allows us to see beyond the illusion.

My view of Jean Hill is that her statements became less reliable as the years went by, and by 1990 or so she was directly contradicting her own early clear statements such as not seeing the assassin: Her statements on the day and for the 1964 Warren Commission interview regarding the shots are consistent and corroborated by others in the Plaza so I am inclined to accept them. I don't judge her too harshly about her change of views as other witnesses changed over time also. I think the best thing to do is to use the earliest statements and simply ignore the later ones. Many researchers disregard Hill's testimony completely, which I think is a mistake as her early statements are entirely consistent with dozens of other witnesses. It pays to discriminate, and separate the wheat from the chaff. Disregarding Hill's testimony entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Ultimately a lot of these things boil down to trust, so if a researcher doesn't trust the photos, films, or individual witnesses then judgements based on them will always be questionable in their mind. For me, trust in Dealey Plaza evidence can be found by corroborating between different and independent sources such as the photos, films, and witnesses. This method can't resolve all issues (e.g. how many shots were fired), but cross referencing and corroborating evidence can still help debunk weak witness statements or weak theories based on them. Although I don't see any evidence of wholesale fabrication of photos and films, it's good to be skeptical and alert to possible tampering. For example one photo that I am convinced has been tampered with is the shoe hanging over the side of the limo: Different versions of this photo exist, and is proof of some kind of retouching. A full discussion of this photo is here for those interested:

There are now 82 witnesses who say something different. This is not what they saw or heard. You are right John, the witnesses do vary tremendously with regards to the shot patterns that they report. However, this is the value of a spreadsheet because you can use a pivot table to quantify the permutations and see if any patterns emerge. Here is the pivot table for the current data: Note that the 95 number is the number of high quality witnesses who gave information in 1963-1964 and who gave enough information to deduce when the shots were fired (e.g. the witness referred to a measurable event such as JFK raising his arms). Most of the 400 odd witnesses did not give enough information to be certain, but 95 is a large enough sample to get a good feel for what the witnesses think happened in Dealey Plaza. As we can see the most common shot patterns are: 1-1-1 1-1-0 1-2-0 The three sections represent times in the Zapruder film chronology: Z240 or before Z280-Z330 Z370 or later Where there is a .5 in the table the witness statement can be interpreted as 0 or 1 shots, or 1 or 2, so it depicts a certain leeway in the interpretation (e.g. Zapruder and Sitzman saying there may have been a third shot after the head shot, but they were not certain). A surprisingly high number of people only heard two shots (28 people from 241 who gave a shot total is 12%). My theory here is that they missed the final shot due to the loud siren and the other chaos after the head shot (e.g. people running away and screaming). The other interesting pivot table is the one that measures "bursts" of shots, which is where the witnesses reports shots in quick succession which implies a second gunman is at work: If you were to accept this at face value a majority (58%) of witnesses reported shots that must have involved a second gunman (mostly around the head shot, hence the 1-2-0 pattern above). Alternatively the witnesses may have been confused by echoes and reverberations, so I shall leave that value judgement to the reader!

Continuing my study of interesting witnesses, about a hundred feet or so to the south west of the Willis family was Charles Brehm who gave some very useful evidence about the shots. Two days after the assassination he was interviewed by the FBI: "According to Brehm, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. Kennedy was apparently pulling him in that direction. Brehm said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. Brehm stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed his opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can manouver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots." 22H837 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0434a.gif With the help of Brehm's timings, observations, and the Zapruder film, he believes the shots were fired circa: Shot 1 - Z220 Shot 2 - Z310 Shot 3 - Z400 This looks to be a candidate for the lone gunman scenario, but not the early missed shot variety as the first two shots hit their target. This is what many witnesses seem to say in the survey, with far more people hearing a shot after the head shot at Z313 than a shot before Z180 as the post 1979 lone gunman theorists suggest. Here is a Zapruder frame depicting Brehm on the left with his son Joe: To his left was Jean Hill in her red coat. Here is an interesting interview she gave on the day: She also gave a statement to the Sheriff's department on the same day: "Just as the president looked up toward us two shots rang out and I saw the President grab his chest and fall forward across Jackies lap and she fell across his back and said 'My God he has been shot'. Three was an instant pause between the first two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant and three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away. I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur and Mary was pulling on my leg saying 'Get down they are shooting'". 24H212 : https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0115b.htm Both Brehm and Hill neatly summarise the conflict between witnesses who heard three shots consistent with a single bolt action gun and those who heard more rapid shots which are inconsistent with a single gunman. Both witnesses give a lot of lucid detail and were giving information to the media and the authorities within hours of the event so it's hard to question their authenticity. However, they can't both be right, so who was wrong? Or perhaps they were both right in some areas, but wrong in other areas?

I think that's right, the HSCA is probably the first mainstream early shot theory, but I'm always happy to be corrected if I have missed something in the 15 years before 1979. Max Holland's early shot theory is very original, and does avoid a number of the problems regarding a shot fired Z133-Z160. However, unless the noise was suppressed for some reason it seems unlikely that those dozens of people close by would miss it (especially the Secret Service guys who clearly reacted within 2 seconds of the known shot at Z220 in the Altgens 6 photo at Z253-Z255).

It's all about lines of sight from where the photographs were taken. If you look at the Bronson photo the 5 people are behind the limo. If you look at the Zapruder frame the 5 are just to the left of the Stemmons sign, which is all exactly what the animation frame shows here (black line for Zapruder, yellow transparency for Bronson): It's a perfect example of triangulation which verifies both the Zapruder film and the Bronson photo as authentic at that specific moment in time. The blue scarf lady is just visible in both at one end, and then the lady in the yellow dress on the other side. Here is a blow up of the Bronson photo compared to the Zapruder frame: Also, notice how the red haired lady is clapping and has her hands slightly raised in both photos. Here is the Moorman Polaroid you mentioned: Sadly it's rather grainy, but I think you can just make out the two teenage boys on the left who appear in the Bronson photo just to the right of the umbrella man. Alas with grainy or blurred photos it's not ideal for analysis. It's rather irritating that it didn't come out as clearly as the other Moorman photos: