New article on Winston Lawson

[Joseph Backes]

See - http://hamptonroads.com/2010/06/do-you-remember-where-you-were-he-does-jfk#rfq

Also - http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/06/virginian-pilot-article-on-winston.html

[Ron Ecker]

I'm surprised to read that Lawson (like two dozen or so other witnesses) saw "a huge hole in the back of the president's head." I was doubly surprised (well, no, not really) that he says categorically that there were no shots from the front or side. I wonder where he thinks the huge hole came from.

I was curious to see if he told the WC about seeing the huge hole, so I checked his testimony. After he states that he and others put JFK on a stretcher and entered the emergency area, there is a "Discussion off the record." Aw, shucks.

[David Lifton]

I'm surprised to read that Lawson (like two dozen or so other witnesses) saw "a huge hole in the back of the president's head." I was doubly surprised (well, no, not really) that he says categorically that there were no shots from the front or side. I wonder where he thinks the huge hole came from.

I was curious to see if he told the WC about seeing the huge hole, so I checked his testimony. After he states that he and others put JFK on a stretcher and entered the emergency area, there is a "Discussion off the record." Aw, shucks.

I'm "surprised" too (to put it mildly). I have no idea when Lawson made the statement. If he knows anything about guns, he knows the oft quoted statement that (usually) a bullet "goes in small" and "comes out big." So I don't understand why, at this late date, he is claiming (on the one hand) that he saw a large hole at the back of JFK's head, and yet insists there were no shots from the front.

On the other hand, any statement made decades later--when he never included such information in his original report--is really not of very much use, from the standpoint of evidence.

DSL

6/17/10 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Joseph Backes]

I'm surprised to read that Lawson (like two dozen or so other witnesses) saw "a huge hole in the back of the president's head." I was doubly surprised (well, no, not really) that he says categorically that there were no shots from the front or side. I wonder where he thinks the huge hole came from.

I was curious to see if he told the WC about seeing the huge hole, so I checked his testimony. After he states that he and others put JFK on a stretcher and entered the emergency area, there is a "Discussion off the record." Aw, shucks.

I'm "surprised" too (to put it mildly). I have no idea when Lawson made the statement. If he knows anything about guns, he knows the oft quoted statement that (usually) a bullet "goes in small" and "comes out big." So I don't understand why, at this late date, he is claiming (on the one hand) that he saw a large hole at the back of JFK's head, and yet insists there were no shots from the front.

On the other hand, any statement made decades later--when he never included such information in his original report--is really not of very much use, from the standpoint of evidence.

DSL

6/17/10 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

David,

Don't discount evidence merely because it comes late to the party. The people of Derry in Ireland can tell you that.

What I think happened here is one of two things, either the writer put this in, or it's the ol' cognitive dissonance. This will probably be brought to Lawson's attention at some time and he will correct the record saying the writer of the article got something wrong, or more likely we have something that has happened over and over again in this case. People dig their heels in and say "no conspiracy, no conspiracy," and "the Warren Commission was right," and then they tell their story which is in conflict with some aspect the Warren Commission version. Many are completely ignorant that the story they are telling is in conflict with the WC version.

The Connallys believed in the WC but always gave a version of the shooting that was in direct conflict with it. They always said JFK was hit, then John (Connally) was hit then JFK was hit in the head. They never understood that was not the WC version, that their version did not support the WC version.

Perhaps Lawson really doesn't know that his statement, if this is indeed what he said to the writer of the article, has never been said before by him. Perhaps we are dealing with yet another witness who had his testimony altered, or dropped into the black hole of "discussion off the record."

I think we should call for the 6th Floor to open up and invite JFK researchers to this Secret Service get together. At least allow us to ask questions. This is an important issue that should be pursued. Exactly what did Lawson see?

Joe Backes