The (laughable) SBT

[Mark Knight]

DVP also fails to note that Spector's "reenactment" of the SBT with the wooden dowel and the chalk marks was made in the "Queen Mary," the '56 Cadillac in which the SS was riding on 11/22, rather than SS-100, in which JFK and Connally were riding.

Of course, the measurements of the interiors of the two cars were not identical, as Spector 'reenactment" implies.

What lines up "perfectly" in the Caddy won't necessarily line up as well in the Lincoln.

But that apparently doesn't matter, because Spector said it didn't matter.

[Tony Krome]

13 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

But that apparently doesn't matter, because Spector said it didn't matter.

Who came up with the SBT? Was it a forensic ballistic expert or a lawyer?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Who came up with the SBT? Was it a forensic ballistic expert or a lawyer?

The SBT pretty much presents itself as the truth. There's really no need for any one person to "come up with it" at all.

Why is this so, you ask?

Because of all these things I mentioned two days ago:

1. The alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting;

2. The location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza (in the TSBD, on the sixth floor, in the southeast corner window);

3. The fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body;

4. The fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken;

5. The fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to being shot at the exact same time on the Zapruder Film.

With the above 5 things in place (despite the protests from CTers, who disagree with all of the points above, except for perhaps #3), the SBT practically solves itself.

 

Reprise.....

Quote

Who came up with the SBT? Was it a forensic ballistic expert or a lawyer?

"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it. .... Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it? .... When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg"." --Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 302-303 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tony Krome]

42 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

2. The location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza

At least you leave room for an unknown shooter. Your starting to come round.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

Because of all these things I mentioned two days ago:

1. The alignment of the two limo victims at the time of the shooting;

2. The location of the only known shooter in Dealey Plaza (in the TSBD, on the sixth floor, in the southeast corner window);

3. The fact that no bullets were found in JFK's body;

4. The fact that a whole bullet which positively came out of the gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was found inside the hospital where the two victims were taken;

5. The fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to being shot at the exact same time on the Zapruder Film.

 

1. Even the WC couldn't say with certainty whether the positions they assumed JFK and JC had was without a margin of error. Although they could get close I'm sure, an error of a few inches or degrees could easily alter the trajectory of the bullet or the source location I'd think. Variations on the position of the vehicle, elevation, and any other factors could accumulate to the extent that the WC is off by a relatively large amount.

3.., 4. Combined with what appears to be a botched post event handling of evidence and crime scene investigation (remember some random pedestrian had to bring in half his skull the next day after he picked it up off the street) and a comically inept autopsy (by many accounts - again including JC) and the whole of the WR conclusions seems to accept whole issues that needed more investigation. It's almost as if a conclusion had already been drawn that the report needed to be tailored to in a large degree.

5. No. This is your opinion so quit stating it as some sort of imperical fact. John and Nellie completely disagree with your take on Zapruder and theirs is not an opinion. It's experience. They heard the shots and felt them too. You're flat out wrong about that.

Why anyone who has had ANY experience in that time period in the South would be mystified with the idea that the DPD, many of whom while out of uniform were donning white robes and burning crosses, could engage in shenanigans and cook up problems is beyond me. FCS they marched LHO out into a garage in a police station and had him executed on national TV! Bad break! Who would have guessed that could happen? Call in Sherlock? But much of the WR is  based on their investigative 'powers' hahaha! Or Hoover's? Egads..

Edited October 1, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

From 2012.....

PAT SPEER SAID:

Thanks, John [McAdams], for pointing out that the HSCA FPP's report was at odds with Baden's testimony and subsequent claims. He said they'd concluded Connally's back wound "had to have been" caused by a bullet first striking something else, when they'd only concluded it "probably" was caused by a bullet hitting the back while out of alinement.

That's quite the difference, and suggests that he was unduly impressed with Lattimer, while others were not.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You are SLOW getting this.

The HSCA FPP knew perfectly well that the wound was 1.5 cm. at its
longest diameter WHEN it concluded that the bullet was tumbling.

The link I posted [this one] shows that.

During Baden's testimony, this document was entered into evidence.

I can't find where Baden said what the dimensions of the back wound were. If he told the HSCA 3.0 cm., you need to post a link.

But given the links I posted above, that's grossly implausible.

I did find where Baden and two HSCA staffers pressed Lattimer on whether a 1.5 cm. wound would be the result of tumbling, and he said yes:

http://history-matters.com/HSCA Volume 7

So your essay gives the entirely FALSE impression that the judgment of a tumbling bullet was the result of the HSCA buying the 3.0 cm. figure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The topic of the size of the entry wound in John Connally's back and whether or not the bullet was tumbling as it entered Connally is, indeed, interesting. Dr. John Lattimer's tests clearly indicate that a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet that has passed through a simulated JFK neck will nearly always tumble before reaching the Connally target and, hence, result in a larger-sized entry hole in the Connally target:

Quoting Dr. Lattimer:

"Five cardboard skins simulating Connally were placed the same distance from Kennedy's neck as Connally was seated in the automobile in front of the President. The Carcano bullets that made the holes in these targets had passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, striking only soft tissues. Five of the six bullets tumbled end over end after leaving the neck and struck Connally's skin traveling almost sideways. .... These results confirmed our previous observations that these bullets almost always tumbled after passing through a neck.

[...]

An oval hole in our simulated back of Connally was caused by our test bullet that had first passed through a simulation of Kennedy's neck, causing that bullet to wobble and start to tumble end over end. Connally's wound of entry was elongated, like the one in the center of [the test] target. The punctate round hole, with black margins, of the type that always occurred when our test bullets struck the Connally target without hitting something else first, can be seen to the right of Connally's outline in the photograph [via Figure 106 on Page 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"]. These bullets never wobbled or tumbled spontaneously; they were stable in their flight to the target UNLESS THEY HIT SOMETHING ELSE FIRST [DVP's emphasis], such as Kennedy's neck, whereupon they turned almost completely sideways." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages 237 and 265 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)

-------------

The thing that has me scratching my head somewhat is this:

The longest dimension of John Connally's back wound was determined to be approximately 1.5 centimeters (15 millimeters), which is exactly the same size of the lengthiest portion of the wound that was in the back of President Kennedy's head (although, to be perfectly frank, the entry wound in JFK's head doesn't look particularly elliptical or egg-shaped to me; that is to say: it doesn't look to me as if the "north/south" dimension of the wound is more than TWICE the size of the width of the wound, which is what the autopsy report says [15 x 6 mm.] and is confirmed in the Clark Panel report, which also states that the measurement for that wound is 15 x 6 millimeters, so I have no choice but to adhere to those corroborative figures, but the wound doesn't look that egg-shaped to me):



So, according to official reports, we've got JFK's head entry wound being the exact same size (15 mm.) as the wound in Connally's upper back. But only ONE of those bullets could have possibly been tumbling when it reached its destination. The bullet which struck JFK's head was certainly not tumbling before it hit his head, and that bullet almost certainly did not hit anything else before striking the back of Kennedy's head.

So the retort made by conspiracy theorists over the years has been --- Why are you so certain that the Connally bullet HAD to be tumbling and why are you certain that bullet had to have hit JFK first, when a bullet that had NOT hit anything first struck JFK in the head and left a wound that was the exact same size?

It's a fair enough question. And I don't have the exact answer. Perhaps the answer could be the position of JFK's head at the moment when Oswald's 6.5-mm. bullet struck the back of his skull.

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say in his JFK book:

"It should be noted that a bullet striking at such a sharply acute angle—as suggested by the ovoid shape of the entrance wound [in Connally's back]—from the right (no one, not even the conspiracy theorists, allege that the gunman was to Kennedy’s and Connally’s left rear) could not have exited, as it did, from the right side of Connally’s chest, unless it had been deflected from its leftward direction immediately after entering the governor’s body.

Yet, the only bone struck by the bullet, before it exited, was a relatively soft rib located near the exit point on the right side of Connally’s chest, the bullet hitting the bone as it was about to exit. In other words, the known path of the bullet precludes the possibility that the ovoid shape of the entrance wound was the result of a bullet striking the governor at a tangential angle (i.e., from the side). (7 HSCA 144; see also FBI Record 124-10029-10010, FBI Laboratory Report, April 22, 1964, p.3)

However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the moment of impact.

Either situation (a bullet coming from the right, which we can be very confident never happened, or a bullet hitting Connally at an angle only because we know Connally was turned to the right) would explain why the bullet causing the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat, which was believed to be around a quarter of an inch in diameter (the tracheotomy precludes us from knowing for sure), just approximately two feet later (distance between Kennedy and Connally) caused an entrance wound to Connally’s back that was around six-tenths of an inch in diameter, over twice the size of the exit wound to Kennedy’s throat." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 287 of Endnotes (footnote) in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

----------------

Regarding JFK's head (entry) wound, Bugliosi said this:

"As to the long length of the wound, the bullet [quoting from page 86 of the Warren Report] "struck at a tangent or an angle causing a fifteen-millimeter cut. The cut reflected a larger dimension of entry than the bullet's diameter of 6.5 millimeters (about a quarter of an inch), since the missile, in effect, sliced along the skull for a fractional distance until it entered"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 391 of "Reclaiming History"

---------------

To reiterate my earlier thought -- I'm thinking that the angle of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact could have been a contributing factor to explain why the entry wound wasn't more circular in shape. Yes, that's just a guess on my part. But I think it's worth contemplating since we know that JFK's head was tilted considerably forward (and to the left) when the fatal bullet struck.

Another line of reasoning that could be utilized by LNers is this one:

After Bullet CE399 exited JFK's throat, it DID NOT tumble into John Connally's back at all, and the reason for the elongated (15 mm.) size of Connally's back wound was due merely to a tangential strike,* which is exactly the same explanation given by the Warren Commission on page 86 of its Final Report to explain the 15-millimeter size of the entrance wound in Kennedy's head (see the text in Bugliosi's book also cited above).

Hence, there was also a very small wound of exit in Kennedy's throat--which, given the "tangential strike" explanation for Connally's back wound, would "solve" another supposed problem that conspiracists often bring up -- i.e., Why did the bullet suddenly start to tumble into Connally's back even though it left a nice round wound in Kennedy's throat, which is more indicative of a NON-tumbling bullet that it is a tumbling missile?

The above scenario is, however, in conflict with the majority of Dr. Lattimer's tests, which are tests that resulted in 5 out of 6 bullets that tumbled into the Connally target after having gone through a simulated Kennedy neck.

But, anyway, it's some food for "Tumbling vs. Tangential" thought, I think.**

----------

* Vince Bugliosi, in one particular section of his book, seems to be advocating a combination of a tumbling bullet AND a tangential strike. It's possible, however, that I have misinterpreted what Vince means when he is discussing the various possibilities for why Governor Connally's back wound was "ovoid" (i.e., egg-shaped).


** And there's very likely something in the official Warren Commission and/or HSCA volumes which focuses more light on this subject and provides some reasonable (and scientific) explanation for why we have a 15-millimeter entry wound in Governor Connally's back that was allegedly the result of a tumbling bullet, while at the same time we also have a 15-millimeter wound in the back of President Kennedy's head which was obviously not caused by a tumbling bullet.

David Von Pein
October 21-22, 2012

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1147.html

Z-226 above

DVP--

However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the moment of impact. VB

---30---

This is not true. 

This is Z-226. JBC's body is facing straight forward, and is not turned sharply to the right.  Moreover, he is sitting nearing ramrod straight. 

Why VB would be so confused about such an obvious arrangement of bodies...I cannot say. 

And there still is no answer to the question of the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

Sure seems like JBC was shot alone and separately from JFK. 

Baden, Blakey and Bugliosi (great alliteration) seem rather clueless on basic facts of the case. 

 

[Pat Speer]

15 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

DVP also fails to note that Spector's "reenactment" of the SBT with the wooden dowel and the chalk marks was made in the "Queen Mary," the '56 Cadillac in which the SS was riding on 11/22, rather than SS-100, in which JFK and Connally were riding.

Of course, the measurements of the interiors of the two cars were not identical, as Spector 'reenactment" implies.

What lines up "perfectly" in the Caddy won't necessarily line up as well in the Lincoln.

But that apparently doesn't matter, because Spector said it didn't matter.

If I recall, they tried to account for the differences by having the JFK figure sit on book or some such thing. In any event, the re-enactment cast great doubt on the SBT. This was one of the prime reasons those supporting the SBT later cooked up some bogus animation--to demonstrate what the WC could not when using live figures. 

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Z-226 above

DVP--

However, the same tangential effect could have been caused not by a bullet from the right, but by a bullet exiting Kennedy’s throat and proceeding on a straight line into Connally’s body, which, we know from the Zapruder film, was turned fairly sharply to the right at the moment of impact. VB

---30---

This is not true. 

This is Z-226. JBC's body is facing straight forward, and is not turned sharply to the right.  Moreover, he is sitting nearing ramrod straight. 

Why VB would be so confused about such an obvious arrangement of bodies...I cannot say. 

And there still is no answer to the question of the small round bullet hole in the rear of JBC's shirt. 

Sure seems like JBC was shot alone and separately from JFK. 

Baden, Blakey and Bugliosi (great alliteration) seem rather clueless on basic facts of the case. 

 

I just ate, so my stomach is not in the best condition to read through all this. But it appears that you think the Clark Panel actually concluded the red spot in the cowlick was the shape of the wound measured at autopsy, and was therefore this wound.

And this while your own eyes tell you that that measurement is incorrect...

Let's use some common sense, shall we? The Clark Panel was tasked with refuting the "junk" in Thompson's book. Among this "junk" was that a trajectory from the sniper's nest through the EOP entrance and exiting the top of the head at Z-313 made no sense. 

So VOILA! the Clark Panel "discovered" a red spot in the cowlick area that they said must be the actual location for the entrance. 

But there was more than one measurement for this wound. They couldn't all be wrong, could they?

Well, no, they knew they needed to say the measurements were accurate, but for one 4 inch mistake... OOPS.

So they pretended/lied that this red spot was 6 by 15 mm, the size of the wound measured at autopsy. (This can be readily observed in the photos they thought you'd never see.)

And they pretended/lied that it was one inch to the right of the midline, when it was nowhere near that far to the right.  (This can be readily observed in the photos they thought you'd never see.)

It was a HOAX, David. Such a hoax even that die-hard LNers like John Canal and Max Holland came to see it as such, and published an article on Max's site proclaiming it as such. 

 

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

14 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

1. Even the WC couldn't say with certainty whether the positions they assumed JFK and JC had was without a margin of error. Although they could get close I'm sure, an error of a few inches or degrees could easily alter the trajectory of the bullet or the source location I'd think. Variations on the position of the vehicle, elevation, and any other factors could accumulate to the extent that the WC is off by a relatively large amount.

3.., 4. Combined with what appears to be a botched post event handling of evidence and crime scene investigation (remember some random pedestrian had to bring in half his skull the next day after he picked it up off the street) and a comically inept autopsy (by many accounts - again including JC) and the whole of the WR conclusions seems to accept whole issues that needed more investigation. It's almost as if a conclusion had already been drawn that the report needed to be tailored to in a large degree.

5. No. This is your opinion so quit stating it as some sort of imperical fact. John and Nellie completely disagree with your take on Zapruder and theirs is not an opinion. It's experience. They heard the shots and felt them too. You're flat out wrong about that.

Why anyone who has had ANY experience in that time period in the South would be mystified with the idea that the DPD, many of whom while out of uniform were donning white robes and burning crosses, could engage in shenanigans and cook up problems is beyond me. FCS they marched LHO out into a garage in a police station and had him executed on national TV! Bad break! Who would have guessed that could happen? Call in Sherlock? But much of the WR is  based on their investigative 'powers' hahaha! Or Hoover's? Egads..

Just wanted to add something to your 1st point. for every 1/2 inch difference in the position of JFK's neck or J.C's back you get 1 degree change in trajectory back to the shooter position. At the TSB window 1 degree results in a 3 ft. change of the shooter position.
  I assume both men could change the trajectory by up to 1 1/2 inches(3 degrees) each just by combining slight changes in lean or arching the back, sliding forward slightly or a couple degrees of rotation. That could mean 3 inches total change and result in an 18ft difference in the shooter location at the TSB.
 If you centered the 18ft circle on Oswald's 6th floor perch a portion of it lands to the right side of the building in mid air. what is interesting is if you extend that part of the circle another 130 ft it continues upward and lands at the roof of the Dal Tex building. It proves a shooter on that roof would be able to create a trajectory to the limo that would be so close to the 6th floor trajectory(within the yellow cone) that it could not be distinguished from shots from the 6th floor. A nice way to get a shot in and still set up a patsy on the TSB 6th floor window.
 The graphic below was a skeptics attempt to show the shots must have come from the 6th floor but it actually proves the Dal Tex is a second possible shooter position.

[Bob Ness]

59 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

Just wanted to add something to your 1st point. for every 1/2 inch difference in the position of JFK's neck or J.C's back you get 1 degree change in trajectory back to the shooter position. At the TSB window 1 degree results in a 3 ft. change of the shooter position.
  I assume both men could change the trajectory by up to 1 1/2 inches(3 degrees) each just by combining slight changes in lean or arching the back, sliding forward slightly or a couple degrees of rotation. That could mean 3 inches total change and result in an 18ft difference in the shooter location at the TSB.
 If you centered the 18ft circle on Oswald's 6th floor perch a portion of it lands to the right side of the building in mid air. what is interesting is if you extend that part of the circle another 130 ft it continues upward and lands at the roof of the Dal Tex building. It proves a shooter on that roof would be able to create a trajectory to the limo that would be so close to the 6th floor trajectory(within the yellow cone) that it could not be distinguished from shots from the 6th floor. A nice way to get a shot in and still set up a patsy on the TSB 6th floor window.
 The graphic below was a skeptics attempt to show the shots must have come from the 6th floor but it actually proves the Dal Tex is a second possible shooter position.

Yeah I haven't done the math but it seems to me that could be true. Researching the buildings and slopes etc to create a 3d model is more than I'm will to commit to the idea, but I'd imagine it's been done before. The idea of reconstructing the scene to verify a desired result and then to conceal or camouflage the margin of error seems dubious. I haven't looked into it enough to conclude that is what happened but I reject the stance that the eye-witness testimony has no value.

That statement seems designed to cement a foregone conclusion to me. "Don't listen to them! Here's what actually happened!!" Follow that with a convoluted tapestry of rationalizations based on flimsy mathematical assumptions by propellor-heads. Nah. I like the people who saw and heard it a foot away from the event.

[Ron Bulman]

21 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I think somebody has even suggested that splintering of a foot long piece of rib would not be noticed for a few seconds. What a joke.

Ha. Concise.  Not to mention the ouch in the arm pit entrance, out by the nipple exit, Smashing the wrist bone.  Which alone in tests severely deformed what some call a magic pristine bullet in evidence today, CE399.

[Pamela Brown]

 

[Benjamin Cole]

DVP:

"5. The fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to being shot at the exact same time on the Zapruder Film."

Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

JBC is ramrod straight and upright in the Z-frames, right after JFK is apparently shot in the throat. 

As stated many times, after JFK is shot, JBC then turns to looks over his own right shoulder, pauses, then begins to turn forward and then appears to be pushed suddenly forward, at ~Z-295.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

We also have the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC shirt. 

My estimation is the WC was not a trial, and had no defense counsel, or even anyone playing serious devil's advocate. The purpose was to find LHO guilty (a format akin to the 1/6 committee, btw) and that LHO was a leftie-loner-loser. 

A government truly investigating itself?---not likely. No matter how august the body, a convenient answer had to be found. 

JBC's testimony may be inaccurate. But I would say the odds of that are low. Witness statements are iffy---but about what happened after one is shot in the back? 

So, let's say JBC's testimony about what happened to him on 11/22 is accurate. Moreover, JBC's version appears to be confirmed by the Z-film, and the small bullet round hole in his shirt:

Then what?

I think you have to accept there were at least two gunman on 11/22. 

PS. My view is that Specter had to work backwards. That is, his premise (and his career depended upon it) was there was a lone gunman, so how to explain it?

As a lawyer (not a detective) Specter knew only one man had been arrested for the crime, and investigative agencies said no one else was involved. 

Specter's job as a government lawyer was to argue the case, that is to explain how a lone gunman armed with a single-shot, bolt-action rifle could have accomplished all the wounds. 

He developed the best explanation possible, if the premise is a lone gunman.

Specter spoke as a lawyer who accepted the lone gunman as a premise, and spoke the way a lawyer presents a case to trial, which is entirely different from how an earnest scientist or detective, or JFKA buff, looks at evidence.  

If one reviews JBC's testimony and the Z-film without any premises...very hard to call the 11/22 event a lone gunman with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

DVP: In my view, you are essentially starting with the premise of a lone gunman. 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DVP:

"5. The fact that the two injured limo victims reacted to being shot at the exact same time on the Zapruder Film."

Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

JBC is ramrod straight and upright in the Z-frames, right after JFK is apparently shot in the throat. 

As stated many times, after JFK is shot, JBC then turns to looks over his own right shoulder, pauses, then begins to turn forward and then appears to be pushed suddenly forward, at ~Z-295.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

We also have the indisputable small, round bullet hole in the rear of JBC shirt. 

My estimation is the WC was not a trial, and had no defense counsel, or even anyone playing serious devil's advocate. The purpose was to find LHO guilty (a format akin to the 1/6 committee, btw) and that LHO was a leftie-loner-loser. 

A government truly investigating itself?---not likely. No matter how august the body, a convenient answer had to be found. 

JBC's testimony may be inaccurate. But I would say the odds of that are low. Witness statements are iffy---but about what happened after one is shot in the back? 

So, let's say JBC's testimony about what happened to him on 11/22 is accurate. Moreover, JBC's version appears to be confirmed by the Z-film, and the small bullet round hole in his shirt:

Then what?

I think you have to accept there were at least two gunman on 11/22. 

PS. My view is that Specter had to work backwards. That is, his premise (and his career depended upon it) was there was a lone gunman, so how to explain it?

As a lawyer (not a detective) Specter knew only one man had been arrested for the crime, and investigative agencies said no one else was involved. 

Specter's job as a government lawyer was to argue the case, that is to explain how a lone gunman armed with a single-shot, bolt-action rifle could have accomplished all the wounds. 

He developed the best explanation possible, if the premise is a lone gunman.

Specter spoke as a lawyer who accepted the lone gunman as a premise, and spoke the way a lawyer presents a case to trial, which is entirely different from how an earnest scientist or detective, or JFKA buff, looks at evidence.  

If one reviews JBC's testimony and the Z-film without any premises...very hard to call the 11/22 event a lone gunman with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

DVP: In my view, you are essentially starting with the premise of a lone gunman. 

 

 

Ben, do you need your new friend the coaches' approach in dismantling DVP?  Seems a bit of an oxymoron among you all in the bigger picture.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ben, do you need your new friend the coaches' approach in dismantling DVP?  Seems a bit of an oxymoron among you all in the bigger picture.

Not sure I follow...am I missing something?