What Mary Moorman and Jean Hill first said

[John Butler]

I feel that I need to review this controversy over what Jean Hill first said.

Jean Hill and Mary Moorman’s first statements on 11-22-63 at the Sheriff’s Office

 

Jean Hill was a much maligned and discredited witness to some, mainly those who believed in the Official Story.  She was accused of misrepresenting the truth.  It is true that Jean did say things in her first testimony that fueled these beliefs.

On the other hand, there were many who held Jean Hill to be an honest and truthful witness.  In 1992 Jean Hill and Robert Sloan published a book called JFK The Last Dissenting witness.  On the first or front page of the book there were many renown researchers who held a positive opinion of Jean Hill.

Oliver Stone was particularly complimentary In JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness:

So, what caused these divergent opinions?  It is what Jean Hill is reputed to have said in the first statement she made at the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office directly after the assassination.  She said that she was down by the Grassy Knoll (she may have coined this term) with Mary Moorman.  She said they were halfway down to the railroad bridge. 

Mary Moorman said essentially the same thing as far as their location is concerned.  As far as I know Mary Moorman never changed this location.  Jean Hill did.  And, that is where some of the controversy surrounding Jean Hill begins.

Location, Location, Location

As we have seen from these two, first day statements, both Mary and Jean agree they were in the grass across Elm Street from the Grassy Knoll.  Jean later begins to change her testimony to something different.  In this FBI report of 11-23-63 she states she was in the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository. 

 

And, in March she made another FBI statement on the 18^th.  In this statement she was more explicit in locating herself nearer to the TSBD than the Grassy Knoll.

Again, on the 24^th of March, 1963, while making a statement for the Warren Commission, she gave a location different than the one she originally gave on 11-22-63 at the Sheriff’s Office.  This statement was more explicit than the March 18, 1964 FBI statement.

At this questioning for the WC, she said in her book this was an extreme, adversarial interview with the WC’s interrogator, Arlen Specter.  From her Warren Commission testimony we have this:

Jean Hill- WC testimony, 24 March 1964

…

Mr. SPECTER - Would you draw a diagram for me in rough outline, starting with Houston Street---
Mrs. HILL - Yes; but I can't do this very well.
Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to draw an outline, then, to get your bearing here and realizing that I want your recollection, and I'll ask you the questions. Assume that Houston Street is the street which I am marking Houston. Assume that this is Main Street. Assume that Elm Street curves down in the manner that I am drawing and marking.
Mrs. HILL - All right.
Mr. SPECTER - Assume that the Texas School Book Depository is this large building which I will mark "TSBD." Now, would you place with the letter "A" where you were at the time the President went by?
Mrs. HILL - Well, I would have to place the President first.
Mr. SPECTER - Fine---place him with the letter "X".
Mrs. HILL - All right--if he were here---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, was he in the center of the street or on the side of the street?
Mrs. HILL - He was on the side he wasn't just completely over there, but he was past the center of the street and we were---
Mr. SPECTER - Now, place yourself with the letter "A".
Mrs. HILL - Right there [indicating].
Mr. SPECTER - Make it a big printed "A" for us.
Mrs. HILL - Okay. [Complied with request of counsel Specter.]
Mr. SPECTER - Now, would you place the position you ran to after the President's car went by?
Mrs. HILL - By that time, I'm sure the car was here it was on down a little way and I ran behind here.
Mr. SPECTER - Draw a line to where you ran.
Mrs. HILL - All right--I don't know whether I've got this just right--but I ran approximately right up through here.
Mr. SPECTER - Put a "B" here where you were when you came to a stop on the other side of the street.
Mrs. HILL - These steps.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, where were you when you first noticed the
Mrs. HILL - These steps that go up--I guess you've looked at the site, there are some steps down there that go up to that promenade, or whatever you call it.
Mr. SPECTER - That go in a generally westerly direction?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Beyond the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes; and I was just on this side
Mr. SPECTER - "This side"---you are meaning---the east of it?
Mrs. HILL - The east of it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you beyond the westernmost point of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - No.
Mr. SPECTER - You were still in front of that building?
Mrs. HILL - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, is the letter "B" now in the position where you were when you first saw that man?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Where was that man, indicating with the letter "C," where he was? He was very close to you?
Mrs. HILL - Well, he was at the top of this hill---you don't leave me any space in here I mean, there's a distance in here greater than what is shown here.
Mr. SPECTER - He was between Elm Street and the Depository Building?
Mrs. HILL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see him going?
Mrs. HILL - I saw him go toward the tracks, toward the railroad tracks to the west?

…

Mr. SPECTER - For the purposes of the record, this diagram which was used during the deposition of Mrs. Hill will be marked Hill Exhibit No. 5.

(Instrument referred to marked by the reporter as Hill Exhibit No. 5, for identification.)

This is what Hill Exhibit No. 5 looks like:

There is some controversy in how this exhibit is seen and analyzed.  This is my interpretation and the one that I think is correct.  Jean places herself and Mary across Elm Street from the SW Corner of the TSBD.  If you look at this crop of the exhibit you will see that she places herself across from a crowd of people “D” under the trees at the TSBD’s SW corner and not the extension of the TSBD.

This is quite a bit different then her first statemen down by the Grassy Knoll with Mary.  Why did she change her location?  And, a more important question is why did she change her location in later years back to her first statement?

Going back to this “across from the TSBD location”, if we looked at the Zapruder film we would see the location she described in Z frame 138 and see someone who does not look like Mary or Jean, but acts out what they said they did.  If Jean Hill’s Hill Exhibit No. 5 is true then Z 138 will show the true location:

No one believes what Jean says in these later testimonies.  No one believes that the tall, grey-haired lady with a hat is Jean Hill.  No one believes that the shorter lady with the reddish hair is Mary Moorman.

Mary Moorman consistently said she was down by the Grassy Knoll throughout the years.  Jean changed her testimony to what she originally said in her first statement at the Sheriff’s Office on her location.  This location, down by the Grassy Knoll, is repeated several times in her book, JFK The Last Dissenting Witness.

So, why did Jean change her location in the first instance?  She said in her book on page 32 the following:

Was confused, naïve Jean Hill manipulated into signing a statement she did not make?  What part did Mary Moorman play in this?  Was she too manipulating Jean Hill through her Sheriff’s Office friends?  Did she ask Jean Hill to wear her red raincoat that day? 

Or, was this something Jean Hill made up to explain her change in testimony location?  All of these questions are speculative, but are ones that could be asked.

Is there any evidence to support Jean Hills change of location from the Grassy Knoll?

1.     The WC testimony in which she fought Arlen Hill to say she was in front of the TSBD and not the Grassy Knoll. 

2.     She began to change her testimony on location in other statements such as the FBI statement of 3-18-64.

3.     If the tall, grey-haired woman in Z 138 is Jean Hill, then you can see she is in the grass or on the lawn as she said.  You can also see "Mary Moorman" coming to the sidewalk from the street.  These two women act out the testimony of the two.  Zapruder shows that these two were essentially motionless as the p. limo passed by. 

4.     Vickie Adams on the 4^th floor said she heard someone call out to the President as the p. limo was passing by.  Was this Jean Hill with “Hey, Mr. President?”.

5.    If Jean Hill was down by the Grassy Knoll Vickie Adams would not have heard her to the distance, and crowd, and motorcade noise.

All of this is cancelled when she later said in her book and in film and on TV that she was in front of the Grassy Knoll.

This is just one thing that made Jean Hill and consequently Mary Moorman controversial.  There are other things that were said in their first statement that need to be discussed.

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by John Butler

[Joseph McBride]

I met Jean Hill in Dealey Plaza on one of

my research trips to Dallas. She agreed to an interview with me. I planned to

confront her with all the changes in her accounts. The day

before the scheduled interview, she canceled it, without

an explanation. Her changed accounts make her a dubious

witness, unlike Mary Ann Moorman, who has been consistent

and honest in her recollections and statements.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[John Butler]

Joseph,

Was she ever questioned on her changed stories, and if so what did she say?  I felt sympathy for her because of the hard time she was given in telling her story.  I think most of her problems were her own fault by telling one story and then later repudiating that story by agreeing with what Mary Moorman and others said.  Was it fear that made her change her story or simply peoples disbelief in what she was saying in her changed story?

There is another problem with the first reports of Mary and Jean.  As soon as I write that I will post it.

 

[Joseph McBride]

I don't know the answer about whether

Jean Hill was challenged on her frequent

changes of story. I was going to do that.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Jamey Flanagan]

I think one of the major things in her first day testimony that people latched on to and used to discredit her entire story was what she said about JFK and Jackie looking at a little dog between them in the seats. Some of what she said obviously didn't go along with the "official" story so they grabbed that dog story and ran with it and said if she'd lie about that then she'd lie about the rest of it. But that part has been proven true over the years. At Love Field, Jackie was given a little Lambchop doll by a little girl. On a thread somewhere I had posted a pic of Jackie holding the doll. I actually ran across a pic somewhere on here too, apparently earlier in the motorcade, of JFK holding up the doll to the crowd. Looks like it was a puppet style doll and he had his hand inside it. I didn't save the pic and can't remember exactly what post it was in but that was the first time I ran across a pic like this. Lying in the seat between them once they reached Dealey Plaza, I'm sure it did look like a little dog. I find Jean Hill's first day testimony (not the written report if she's saying she just signed a blank form, but her TV and radio interviews) pretty credible myself. It's the later stories and changes in her story that are questionable. Like many witnesses who tend to embellish over time I find it's always best to find the earliest accounts, preferably first day accounts. You can't completely dismiss later changes, especially with the fear and the threats coming their way. But you have to take it with a grain of salt I think.

[Pat Speer]

22 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I met Jean Hill in Dealey Plaza on one of

my research trips to Dallas. She agreed to an interview with me. I planned to

confront her with all the changes in her accounts. The day

before the scheduled interview, she canceled it, without

an explanation. Her changed accounts make her a dubious

witness, unlike Mary Ann Moorman, who has been consistent

and honest in her recollections and statements.

I had the same thing happen with Gerry Hemming. A man of means decided it was best to put out a video of Hemming telling his stories, but also include an interview of Hemming in which he was confronted on some of his nonsense. For some reason, I was asked to do the interview. I did a lot of homework, studying Hemming's Church Committee testimony and comparing it to what he told Twyman, and what he said here on the forum...and what he told me in private emails... I flew down to Key West for the interview, but guess what? He wasn't feeling up to it, and didn't come down. Now, he was in poor health at the time, but I don't believe he even offered to reschedule. On the forum he used to call me the "noticer" because I was always noticing things that others missed. Presumably, he was afraid that I'd "noticed" he was full of ca-ca. 

I still have regrets about it. I had a long talk with him on the phone while I was down there and I suspect I tipped my hand that I was gonna give him the third degree should we ever meet up on camera. And it's too bad. Although I'd concluded his stories were 90% nonsense, I wasn't sure about the other 10. It's not beyond the pale that Oswald did in fact have some contact with the likes of Sturgis and Hemming. But unfortunately, it appears we'll never know. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by Pat Speer

[John Butler]

3 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I think one of the major things in her first day testimony that people latched on to and used to discredit her entire story was what she said about JFK and Jackie looking at a little dog between them in the seats. Some of what she said obviously didn't go along with the "official" story so they grabbed that dog story and ran with it and said if she'd lie about that then she'd lie about the rest of it. But that part has been proven true over the years. At Love Field, Jackie was given a little Lambchop doll by a little girl. On a thread somewhere I had posted a pic of Jackie holding the doll. I actually ran across a pic somewhere on here too, apparently earlier in the motorcade, of JFK holding up the doll to the crowd. Looks like it was a puppet style doll and he had his hand inside it. I didn't save the pic and can't remember exactly what post it was in but that was the first time I ran across a pic like this. Lying in the seat between them once they reached Dealey Plaza, I'm sure it did look like a little dog. I find Jean Hill's first day testimony (not the written report if she's saying she just signed a blank form, but her TV and radio interviews) pretty credible myself. It's the later stories and changes in her story that are questionable. Like many witnesses who tend to embellish over time I find it's always best to find the earliest accounts, preferably first day accounts. You can't completely dismiss later changes, especially with the fear and the threats coming their way. But you have to take it with a grain of salt I think.

Jamey,

Yep.  I didn't really want to challenge Jean's creditability on the little dog/ toy dog/ flowers aspect.  What she first said and later said is one of the things I thought was suspicious.  The second thing is their account of the shooting of the president.  I'll have more to say on that in another post.  

Jean has been challenged on a number of things.  Her testimony and Mary's is not shown in the Zapruder film or any other.  About Jean calling out to the president and waving and Mary being in the street is not shown in Zapruder or any other film.  Hill Exhibit No. 5 has importance.  Or, at least Arlen Specter thought so when he classified it Top Secret.  This clearly gives Jean and Mary's location in another area, the SW corner of Elm and Houston. 

I am of two minds about this.  One mind agrees with you and the other doesn't due to the reasons above.  I guess I will always be on the fence on this or until convincing evidence comes out.

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I had the same thing happen with Gerry Hemming. A man of means decided it was best to put out a video of Hemming telling his stories, but also include an interview of Hemming in which he was confronted on some of his nonsense. For some reason, I was asked to do the interview. I did a lot of homework, studying Hemming's Church Committee testimony and comparing it to what he told Twyman, and what he said here on the forum...and what he told me in private emails... I flew down to Key West for the interview, but guess what? he wasn't feeling up to it, and didn't come down. Now, he was in poor health at the time, but I don't believe he even offered to reschedule. On the forum he used to call me the "noticer" because I was always noticing things that others missed. Presumably, he was afraid that I'd "noticed" he was full of ca-ca. 

I still have regrets about it. I had a long talk with him on the phone while I was down there and I suspect I tipped my hand that I was gonna give him the third degree should we ever meet up on camera. And it's too bad. Although I'd concluded his stories were 90% nonsense, I wasn't sure about the other 10. It's not beyond the pale that Oswald did in fact have some contact with the likes of Sturgis and Hemming. But unfortunately, it appears we'll never know. 

Pat,

Here's another thing we can agree on.  I watched a tape of an interview of Gerry Hemming.  He struck me as a pure BS artist, the military kind.

Edited April 5, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I had the same thing happen with Gerry Hemming. A man of means decided it was best to put out a video of Hemming telling his stories, but also include an interview of Hemming in which he was confronted on some of his nonsense. For some reason, I was asked to do the interview. I did a lot of homework, studying Hemming's Church Committee testimony and comparing it to what he told Twyman, and what he said here on the forum...and what he told me in private emails... I flew down to Key West for the interview, but guess what? he wasn't feeling up to it, and didn't come down. Now, he was in poor health at the time, but I don't believe he even offered to reschedule. On the forum he used to call me the "noticer" because I was always noticing things that others missed. Presumably, he was afraid that I'd "noticed" he was full of ca-ca. 

I still have regrets about it. I had a long talk with him on the phone while I was down there and I suspect I tipped my hand that I was gonna give him the third degree should we ever meet up on camera. And it's too bad. Although I'd concluded his stories were 90% nonsense, I wasn't sure about the other 10. It's not beyond the pale that Oswald did in fact have some contact with the likes of Sturgis and Hemming. But unfortunately, it appears we'll never know. 

Pat,

Here's another thing we can agree on.  I watched a tape of an interview of Gerry Hemming.  He struck me as a pure BS artist, the military kind.

[John Butler]

A problem with Mary and Jean’s first statements

Another problem with Mary and Jeans first statements at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 involves the shooting of President Kennedy.  They described the shooting in a way that is different from other witnesses and as portrayed in film.

Mary said that when she snapped her picture of the President, later known as the Moorman Polaroid, she heard a shot.  In all, she heard 3 or 4 shots.  The problem is that the first shot she heard had to have been the shot to President Kennedy’s head.  Her shot is either paired with Zapruder frame 312 just a small part of a second before the headshot or with frame 313 and the head shot.

That leaves 2 or 3 shots to come after the headshot.  This is not the way the majority of witnesses and films show how President Kennedy was shot.  This witness statement by Mary does not seem to invalidate the Moorman Polaroid, or call it into question.  Mary’s statement is either held to be inaccurate, or of no importance.

As far as I known nothing is said by others about Jean Hill saying the same thing.  She said in her first statement at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 basically the same thing that Mary said about the first shot.

Jean Hill says something somewhat different than Mary the wound caused by the first shot.  Mary’s first shot has to be the head shot as it is portrayed by witness statement and Dealey Plaza media.  Jean said that when the p. limo was close and as Mary was taking the photo a shot rang out and the President grabbed his chest and fell across Jackie’s lap.  Mary also said when the shot rang out the President slumped over, but not into Jackie’s lap.

Jean says he grabbed his chest as the first shot was fired.  This would not have been the head shot due to the horrendous wound inflicted upon the President head.  He may not have stopped breathing as they say at Parkland, but he was essentially dead from that wound.

The shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film as the first shot strikes President Kennedy in the back and exits his throat.  Some say the first shot missed entirely and the back/throat shot was the second shot.  We can see the throat shot in Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  Neither show the President grabbing his chest or slumping over or falling into Jackie’s lap.  Perhaps Jean Hill saw this movement of his arms as seen in Altgens and Zapruder as grabbing his chest.

Altogether Jean said there were 4 to 6 shots.  That means 4 to 5 shots occurred after the first shot.  This also is not the way that the shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film and the conclusion of the Warren Commission.

So, why is their testimony different from other witnesses?  Many people conclude from this testimony that the Moorman Polaroid #5 has been tampered with.  These are the conclusions of John Constella in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax on page 274, the 2003 edition.

He says in his 2^nd and 3^rd conclusions that there is no way to tell where Mary and Jean were at in Dealey Plaza.  They could have been further up the street.  The 3^rd conclusion is that the first photo, which may have been two photos, may have contained more explosive imagery than the head shot photo.  And, these 1 or 2 photos were not taken after #5, the near head shot or head shot photo. 

The first photo taken may have contained more explosive imagery.  This is the Glen McBride Polaroid.  It has been tampered with by enlarging the trees near the TSBD to cover the upper floor windows.  And, it may have shown the next consideration.

If Mary and Jean were truly across the street from the TSBD on the SW corner of Houston and Elm as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5, that photo could very well have shown Harvey Oswald, the Prayer Man under the trees by the TSBD.

The John Martin film shows Prayer Man under the trees taking pictures as the motorcade pass that spot.  There is even a camera flash to indicate picture taking.  That spot would be exactly across the street from Mary and Jean as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5. 

And, across the street according to Elsie Dorman:

 

The two women indicated by the red arrow are in the Zapruder film.  But, not where they are standing in Elsie Dorman.  This frame is no more than 1 or 2 seconds from the p. limo showing up here.  None of the other people, including Pierce Allman and Terry Ford appear in Zapruder. 

In Zapruder Z 063 we see 4 women of interest.  The two pictured above plus two others that are not seen in Elsie Doorman.

The two women we don’t see in Elsie Dorman, but do see in Zapruder are in the place of the two women orginally shown in the first Dorman frame.  The two women there must have moved further east and the other two women are shown in Zapruder and not Dorman, all in a second or so.  The two women in black are standing there at the same time Elsie Dorman was filming, but they are not in her film nor are the other folks filmed by Dorman are in the Zapruder film.

I don’t believe John Costella knew about Hill Exhibit No. 5.  It may have changed his conclusions.  I don’t think he knew about the importance of the Elsie Dorman film in showing who was on the SW corner of Houston and Elm in comparison to the Zapruder film as the p. limo passed through that area.   I don’t think he knew about the John Martin film and who it showed under the trees taking pictures in front of the TSBD as the p. limo passed by.  I don’t believe he knew about approximately 90 witnesses who said they heard shooting when the p. limo passed the TSBD.

To me all of this calls into question the validity of the Zapruder film and Mary Moorman’s Polaroids as reliable assassination information.

[Jonathan Cohen]

11 minutes ago, John Butler said:

To me all of this calls into question the validity of the Zapruder film and Mary Moorman’s Polaroids as reliable assassination information.

Once again, you are making something out of nothing. So Jean Hill was not 100% correct about the number of shots that were fired and her impressions of what happened inside the car. So what? Why do you jump to the conclusion that this must correlate to massive alteration of the Dealey Plaza film and photo record? Plenty of assassination witnesses said they saw things that weren't completely accurate, like Bill Newman, who said JFK's ear "blew off." Does that mean they are all part of some sinister plot? Of course it doesn't. Why you fail to even consider a simple, non-conspiratorial explanation for these things is truly baffling.

I won't bother dignifying Costella and Jack White's ridiculous claims about the Moorman photo alteration or where they were physically located. As has been discussed on this board numerous times, Josiah Thompson definitively debunked Costella and White's theory that Moorman took her Polaroid while standing in the street.

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, John Butler said:

A problem with Mary and Jean’s first statements

Another problem with Mary and Jeans first statements at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 involves the shooting of President Kennedy.  They described the shooting in a way that is different from other witnesses and as portrayed in film.

Mary said that when she snapped her picture of the President, later known as the Moorman Polaroid, she heard a shot.  In all, she heard 3 or 4 shots.  The problem is that the first shot she heard had to have been the shot to President Kennedy’s head.  Her shot is either paired with Zapruder frame 312 just a small part of a second before the headshot or with frame 313 and the head shot.

That leaves 2 or 3 shots to come after the headshot.  This is not the way the majority of witnesses and films show how President Kennedy was shot.  This witness statement by Mary does not seem to invalidate the Moorman Polaroid, or call it into question.  Mary’s statement is either held to be inaccurate, or of no importance.

As far as I known nothing is said by others about Jean Hill saying the same thing.  She said in her first statement at the Sheriff’s Office on Nov. 22, 1963 basically the same thing that Mary said about the first shot.

Jean Hill says something somewhat different than Mary the wound caused by the first shot.  Mary’s first shot has to be the head shot as it is portrayed by witness statement and Dealey Plaza media.  Jean said that when the p. limo was close and as Mary was taking the photo a shot rang out and the President grabbed his chest and fell across Jackie’s lap.  Mary also said when the shot rang out the President slumped over, but not into Jackie’s lap.

Jean says he grabbed his chest as the first shot was fired.  This would not have been the head shot due to the horrendous wound inflicted upon the President head.  He may not have stopped breathing as they say at Parkland, but he was essentially dead from that wound.

The shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film as the first shot strikes President Kennedy in the back and exits his throat.  Some say the first shot missed entirely and the back/throat shot was the second shot.  We can see the throat shot in Altgens 6 and the Zapruder film.  Neither show the President grabbing his chest or slumping over or falling into Jackie’s lap.  Perhaps Jean Hill saw this movement of his arms as seen in Altgens and Zapruder as grabbing his chest.

Altogether Jean said there were 4 to 6 shots.  That means 4 to 5 shots occurred after the first shot.  This also is not the way that the shooting of President Kennedy is portrayed by witness and film and the conclusion of the Warren Commission.

So, why is their testimony different from other witnesses?  Many people conclude from this testimony that the Moorman Polaroid #5 has been tampered with.  These are the conclusions of John Constella in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax on page 274, the 2003 edition.

He says in his 2^nd and 3^rd conclusions that there is no way to tell where Mary and Jean were at in Dealey Plaza.  They could have been further up the street.  The 3^rd conclusion is that the first photo, which may have been two photos, may have contained more explosive imagery than the head shot photo.  And, these 1 or 2 photos were not taken after #5, the near head shot or head shot photo. 

The first photo taken may have contained more explosive imagery.  This is the Glen McBride Polaroid.  It has been tampered with by enlarging the trees near the TSBD to cover the upper floor windows.  And, it may have shown the next consideration.

If Mary and Jean were truly across the street from the TSBD on the SW corner of Houston and Elm as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5, that photo could very well have shown Harvey Oswald, the Prayer Man under the trees by the TSBD.

The John Martin film shows Prayer Man under the trees taking pictures as the motorcade pass that spot.  There is even a camera flash to indicate picture taking.  That spot would be exactly across the street from Mary and Jean as indicated by Hill Exhibit No. 5. 

And, across the street according to Elsie Dorman:

 

The two women indicated by the red arrow are in the Zapruder film.  But, not where they are standing in Elsie Dorman.  This frame is no more than 1 or 2 seconds from the p. limo showing up here.  None of the other people, including Pierce Allman and Terry Ford appear in Zapruder. 

In Zapruder Z 063 we see 4 women of interest.  The two pictured above plus two others that are not seen in Elsie Doorman.

The two women we don’t see in Elsie Dorman, but do see in Zapruder are in the place of the two women orginally shown in the first Dorman frame.  The two women there must have moved further east and the other two women are shown in Zapruder and not Dorman, all in a second or so.  The two women in black are standing there at the same time Elsie Dorman was filming, but they are not in her film nor are the other folks filmed by Dorman are in the Zapruder film.

I don’t believe John Costella knew about Hill Exhibit No. 5.  It may have changed his conclusions.  I don’t think he knew about the importance of the Elsie Dorman film in showing who was on the SW corner of Houston and Elm in comparison to the Zapruder film as the p. limo passed through that area.   I don’t think he knew about the John Martin film and who it showed under the trees taking pictures in front of the TSBD as the p. limo passed by.  I don’t believe he knew about approximately 90 witnesses who said they heard shooting when the p. limo passed the TSBD.

To me all of this calls into question the validity of the Zapruder film and Mary Moorman’s Polaroids as reliable assassination information.

Yikes. Hill exhibit 5 places hill across from the steps.  And the Dorman frame you show, which includes many of the same people as in the Zapruder frame, was taken 30 seconds or so after the Zapruder frame. 

[Vince Palamara]

Jean Hill has been a much-maligned witness thru the years, but her first-day story (and the essence of what she espoused from the get-go) is solid. Includes an excellent confirming detail from researcher Wallace Milam on 11/22/1993.