The Shallow Back Wound: Possible Explanation

[Benjamin Cole]

In the above interview, James Robenalt (co-author, sort of, of the new Paul Landis book) seems a sensible smart guy, and he contends Landis is telling the truth, and had valid reasons for silence or half-truths over the years. 

I had been skeptical, of course, of both Landis and Robenalt, for different reasons. 

But Robenalt seems to play it straight, and he regards Landis as earnest. 

So, as a premise, let us posit Landis is telling the truth:  Landis found a slug, which looked like CE-399, near or on top the top of the rear seat of the Presidential limo on 11/22, in the aftermath of the JFKA. 

Three autopsists on 11/22 tried to probe the JFK back wound, unsuccessfully, although two were inexperienced, and the other (Finck) had seen a couple years of peace-time service in Germany. The resulting JFK autopsy was travesty of errors and lapses. 

So let us posit two facts: Landis found the slug on 11/22, and the autopsists were correct, the back wound was shallow. 

An explanation: 

Many witnesses described the first 11/22 shot sound as different in pitch and volume from the succeeding and rapid shots.

Perhaps the first shot that struck JFK was undercharged.

Some have contended an undercharged shot would not have penetrated JFK by just two inches.  Or that an undercharged shot would have fallen short of target, sinking too low. 

Maybe.

But if the gunman behind the undercharged shot had inadvertently aimed a mite too high, and was shooting at a downward trajectory, maybe it pans out. After all, the distance was only about 75 yards, and a less at the time of the first shot. 

Evidently, a .38 special bullet travels at only 700 fps, while the Mannlicher Carcano fired bullets near 2300 fps (although I have seen a report that the Mannlicher Carcano fired rounds at under 2000 fps, and thus is not a true high-powered rifle).  

In any event, even an under-charged bullet is very dangerous. 

Here is a blurb: 

"The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps, both of which are quite low, so other factors are more important in producing damage."

 

Here is another blurb: For example, a .177 airgun pellet traveling at 500 feet per second (FPS) will typically penetrate about 1/4 to 3/8 inch into the skin. "

 

So...an undercharged Mannlicher Carcano bullet, traveling at perhaps 700 fps, might be in the ballpark, and could have caused the shallow one-inch to two-inch back wound to JFK. 

 

OK, another complaint about the undercharged bullet explanation is that the slug would "drop" or fall below its target. As a bullet travels, gravity is pulling the slug down.  Long distance shooters have to make large adjustments for this factor. 

 

But this does not seem a problem in the JFKA. The distance was rather short, for one. 

 

Handguns are (generally) less powerful than rifles, and fire at lower fps. Gundata lists Federal 124 gr from a “pistol” (no real specification given) as dropping 12.03 inches at 100 yards.

 

The short story: A lot handguns fire around 1000 fps, and you get about one-foot of drop at 100 yards. 

 

So again, this is in the ballpark: One could expect an undercharged bullet fired from the TSBD to "drop" perhaps 9-10 inches at 60-75 yards, perhaps a little less in aiming downhill.

 

That actually works out, and would place an undercharged shot into JFK's upper back, assuming it was an accurately aimed intended head shot.

 

The case for an undercharged shot striking JFK in the back is reasonable, if the wound was in fact shallow. 

 

Could such a slug then eject from JFK's body?

 

The Mannlicher Carcano slug is one-and-a-quarter long. Assuming it was traveling at 700 feet per second, it might go in an inch. 

 

Perhaps a shock wave from the second bullet to strike JFK ejected the first bullet. 

 

Interesting, plausible. 

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Jean Ceulemans]

An undercharged bullet is possible. And there is a case where it becomes more possible

1) US dealers start to buy M-C and ammo

2) that ammo was not just Western Cartridge Co made ammo, but also the older Italian made ammo (made for the 6.5 MC the US dealers were importing)

3) that old WWII ammo was unreliable by the 1960's, but some of it still around (perhaps given away or discarded... LHO comes to mind...)

4) that is why I would very much like to see a headstamp of the 3 empty shells found in the TSBD 

5) they are often referred to as  M-C 6.5 hulls AS made by WCC for the M-C 6.5

6) if those would show Italian marks, an undercharged bullet is very plausible

7) so, why no pictures of those 3 headstamps ?   

It's a long shot... I know...  But I can find no reason whatsoever for not having taken pictures of those headstamps

For all I know LHO (or someone else) found some very very cheap Italian ammo with his very very cheap Italian rifle...

No ?

[Jean Ceulemans]

And an even longer shot (...) IF Italian ammo was in use, one can not exclude a whole range of different bullets the Italians made for the 6.5 MC, from pure lead (or at least a lead alloy without jacket, see picture)  to brass-jacketed and copper-plated (as shown by my Italian friend, I now have in my collection an Italian made M-C clip and bullets)..... 

Anyway, different bullets could explain the often rare findings of the bullet fragments 

I know... this is a very long shot, but for now I can not fully exclude it...

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

And an even longer shot (...) IF Italian ammo was in use, one can not exclude a whole range of different bullets the Italians made for the 6.5 MC, from pure lead (or at least a lead alloy without jacket, see picture)  to brass-jacketed and copper-plated (as shown by my Italian friend, I now have in my collection an Italian made M-C clip and bullets)..... 

Anyway, different bullets could explain the often rare findings of the bullet fragments 

I know... this is a very long shot, but for now I can not fully exclude it...

 

 

This FBI teletype may be of interest: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62263#relPageId=77

I’m not sure when the WCC thing was first reported by the DPD, etc., but FBI HQ was reporting that the ammo was from WCC by early Saturday morning. The FBI as a whole  kept investigating the ammo issue well into Saturday evening - but that appears to have been due to a lack of communication between HQ and the field offices. 

Regarding the headstamp thing, it might be worth trying to trace the source of the FBI’s information. The earliest FBI sources I know of reference the FBI Lab, so it looks like the Lab determined the shells were from WCC when they received the initial evidence dump from Vince Drain: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62256#relPageId=131

There should be a lab report and examiner’s notes in the main FBI JFK HQ file - I’d look for that to see what they say about headstamp markings, etc. A lot of the lab notes in the HQ file also have attached photos, working papers, etc. but the versions on MFF of that sort of thing are usually atrocious copies and near impossible to read. A lot of the notes don’t show up with the search function too, so you have to dig through the individual folders. I’d assume any lab notes/reports from the initial evidence exams should be in Section 1, 2 or 3 of the file.. FBI files are chronological, but the documents appear in the order they were included in the file, so sometimes they’re a bit spread out. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Thank you for helping, I have been looking, but nu luck so far...

WCC ammo have a very clear headstamp, hard to miss

The Italians used all sorts of different headstamps, often hard to read

[Cliff Varnell]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps a shock wave from the second bullet to strike JFK ejected the first bullet. 

 

From Secret Service SA Glenn Bennett's contemporaneous notes written on AFI on the flight back to DC.:

<quote on>

...The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse.  At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded of a firecracker. Immediately upon hearing the so called firecracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head.

<quote off>

Bennett accurately described the location of the back shot.  Willis 5 shows Bennett looking to his right at Z202.  Altgens 6 (Z255) shows Bennett in the back seat of the follow-up car with blurred facial features, consistent with head movement.

Did JFK raise his fists in front of his throat to protect against another back shot?  Maybe in some parallel universe.

Was the soft tissue no-exit wound in the throat also under-charged?  Both rounds removed prior to the autopsy?

I find it amusing that some would posit a military-style ambush featuring defective Italian ammo.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Jean Ceulemans]

I find this exchange of information rather odd if they were simply Western Cartridge Co manufactured (those are clearly stamped)

Or were they using indeed Italian shells en filled/loaded them in the USA ???

I'm beginning to think there really was more to it than simply "bullets made by WCC"

If they were using Italian stuff, there is no telling what bullets were fired..

As it seems the stuff also got mixed up, my Italian friend says that the M-C 6.5 ammo was very popular in Italy in the 1970's because they were very cheap and easy to get.  One could spend an entire day at the gun range for little cost.  They bought the cheap old-army-stock ammo in bulk boxes and every now and then there would be boxes with "odd" bullets among them (like the ones he showed on the picture).  

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Pat Speer]

From chapter 20:

 

The Low Down on the Short Shot

A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location.

Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO.

If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed.

So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so.

Let's check the math.

1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high.

2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target.

3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target.

Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem?

Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm...

While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot.

So, how's that?

Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect.

Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect

And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect.

Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc. I mean, that goes too far.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards.

SSA Glen Bennett’s contemporaneous written account destroys this scenario.

JFK was shot in the back “immediately” before the head shot(s).

Bennett’s account is corroborated by the location of the bullet holes in the clothes, Willis 5, and Altgens 6.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Gram]

53 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I find this exchange of information rather odd if they were simply Western Cartridge Co manufactured (those are clearly stamped)

Or were they using indeed Italian shells en filled/loaded them in the USA ???

I'm beginning to think there really was more to it than simply "bullets made by WCC"

If they were using Italian stuff, there is no telling what bullets were fired..

As it seems the stuff also got mixed up, my Italian friend says that the M-C 6.5 ammo was very popular in Italy in the 1970's because they were very cheap and easy to get.  One could spend an entire day at the gun range for little cost.  They bought the cheap old-army-stock ammo in bulk boxes and every now and then there would be boxes with "odd" bullets among them (like the ones he showed on the picture).  

 

Here’s another one that’s kind of interesting. This teletype was sent at 3:15 a.m. CST. on Nov. 23rd, and is not available online. I ordered it from NARA. I don’t have the actual document handy since I’m on my phone, but I do have a transcription: 

To Director, FBI and SACs Dallas, New York and Albany

From SAC, Richmond

RE: New York and Dallas Tels Nov. 22 Last

William F. Syle and Thomas Nelson InterArmCo Limited 10 Prince St. Alexandria, VA., advised that based on info furnished by Dallas and from observation of rifle on TV this weapon believed to be 1938 Model Mannlicher Carcano. No Italian rifles imported by InterArmCo which contain printing “Made In Italy” in English and no calibre 6.5 mm with 26.5 inch barrel length handled by InterArmCo. 

InterArmCo officials advised rifles similar to weapon this case have been imported by Crescent Firearms Co. NYC and by Century Arms Inc. 54 Lake Street St. Albans, Vermont. New York is checking Crescent Co and if not already done Albany check records of Century Arms regarding rifle this case and sutel Bureau and Dallas.

Dallas send Richmond 8x10 photograph of instant rifle for display at InterArmCo to make certain no such rifle imported by this concern. Also furnish full descriptive data of ammo and or shell casings. 

What’s interesting is as far as I can tell, Dallas never sent a rifle photo or a description of the shell casings to Richmond. I might have missed a teletype in the Richmond or Dallas field office files, but the next communication I have from Dallas to Richmond is an admonishing cable from around 6 p.m. ordering Richmond and Albany to shut down their investigation into the rifle and ammo: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62263#relPageId=124

Now, the reason this was sent was because William Waldman from Klein’s had called the Chicago Field Office an hour or so earlier  and said he found a record showing that Klein’s had received the rifle from Crescent Firearms. Chicago reported that phone call to Dallas literally twenty minutes before the above teletype was sent to Richmond:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259#relPageId=64

This is quite a can of worms, since it had already been reported at 12:45 a.m., unequivocally and to the entire FBI, that Crescent did not sell the rifle to Klein’s, and Waldman’s information was reported via phone call and the Klein’s records appear to have been unverified by the FBI at that time. Worse is that the corresponding records from Crescent were not discovered and verified for another 10 hours, but I digress. 

Regarding the ammo, the point is that Dallas must have been informed by FBI HQ that the shells had been traced to WCC. Waldman’s phone call had nothing to do with the ammo, so I can’t think of any other reason why Dallas would order the cancellation of such a promising investigation into the provenance of the shells. 

It’s just another thing to possibly look for: teletypes from FBI HQ to Dallas describing the shell examination results from the FBI Lab. 

[Jean Ceulemans]

543 - 544 - 545 are the 3 empty cartridges, no picture of the headstamp there...

But there are pictures of comparisons made of 543 and 545 to test-fired Western Cartridge Co cartridges 

544 was not used in a test - at least not that I can find - probably because it had been lying in Fritz' desk drawer for too lang and it's value as evidency was zero by then....   Problem is that in the pictures were they compare 543 and 545, it's very hard to tell what part is 543/544 and what is the WCC testcartridge

The WCC test cartridges are clearly marked WCC 6.5 mm 

BUT there is picture of the headstamp of 543 (attached) that has an officers ID mark I believe    If that is indeed 543 then I can assume they were marked WCC

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Jean Ceulemans]

2 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Here’s another one that’s kind of interesting. This teletype was sent at 3:15 a.m. CST. on Nov. 23rd, and is not available online. I ordered it from NARA. I don’t have the actual document handy since I’m on my phone, but I do have a transcription: 

To Director, FBI and SACs Dallas, New York and Albany

From SAC, Richmond

RE: New York and Dallas Tels Nov. 22 Last

William F. Syle and Thomas Nelson InterArmCo Limited 10 Prince St. Alexandria, VA., advised that based on info furnished by Dallas and from observation of rifle on TV this weapon believed to be 1938 Model Mannlicher Carcano. No Italian rifles imported by InterArmCo which contain printing “Made In Italy” in English and no calibre 6.5 mm with 26.5 inch barrel length handled by InterArmCo. 

InterArmCo officials advised rifles similar to weapon this case have been imported by Crescent Firearms Co. NYC and by Century Arms Inc. 54 Lake Street St. Albans, Vermont. New York is checking Crescent Co and if not already done Albany check records of Century Arms regarding rifle this case and sutel Bureau and Dallas.

Dallas send Richmond 8x10 photograph of instant rifle for display at InterArmCo to make certain no such rifle imported by this concern. Also furnish full descriptive data of ammo and or shell casings. 

What’s interesting is as far as I can tell, Dallas never sent a rifle photo or a description of the shell casings to Richmond. I might have missed a teletype in the Richmond or Dallas field office files, but the next communication I have from Dallas to Richmond is an admonishing cable from around 6 p.m. ordering Richmond and Albany to shut down their investigation into the rifle and ammo: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62263#relPageId=124

Now, the reason this was sent was because William Waldman from Klein’s had called the Chicago Field Office an hour or so earlier  and said he found a record showing that Klein’s had received the rifle from Crescent Firearms. Chicago reported that phone call to Dallas literally twenty minutes before the above teletype was sent to Richmond:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62259#relPageId=64

This is quite a can of worms, since it had already been reported at 12:45 a.m., unequivocally and to the entire FBI, that Crescent did not sell the rifle to Klein’s, and Waldman’s information was reported via phone call and the Klein’s records appear to have been unverified by the FBI at that time. Worse is that the corresponding records from Crescent were not discovered and verified for another 10 hours, but I digress. 

Regarding the ammo, the point is that Dallas must have been informed by FBI HQ that the shells had been traced to WCC. Waldman’s phone call had nothing to do with the ammo, so I can’t think of any other reason why Dallas would order the cancellation of such a promising investigation into the provenance of the shells. 

It’s just another thing to possibly look for: teletypes from FBI HQ to Dallas describing the shell examination results from the FBI Lab. 

Thank you ! Very interesting, there were some weird things going on there.

All this confusion for a mark that is clearly visible "WCC 6.5 MM" impossible to miss really..

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

SSA Glen Bennett’s contemporaneous written account destroys this scenario.

JFK was shot in the back “immediately” before the head shot(s).

Bennett’s account is corroborated the location of the bullet holes in the clothes, Willis 5, and Altgens 6.

Bennett, ahh yes, Bennett.  From Chapter 5b:

 

Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head.  I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.” (Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.) (1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” 

Analysis: due to Bennett's suggestion, in his 11-23 report, that the President was hit in the back by the second shot, Bennett is a star witness for LPM theorists. He is not deserving of this star status, however. One problem is that he said the bullet struck Kennedy 4 inches below his shoulder—too low to support the single-bullet theory. He also said the limo was heading down a grade when the first shot rang out, and that the crowd was very sparse--a description far more in line with a shot at 190-224 than at 160. He also said the third shot immediately followed the second. While Bennett was later to tell the HSCA that there was more space between the second and third than between the first and second, there is reason to believe this was simply his adjusting his memory to fit the single-assassin scenario. After all, if he’d really witnessed the second bullet striking Kennedy at Z-224 but didn’t yell “he’s hit!” until after the President was shot in the head five seconds later, he would have to have been the worst Secret Service agent in history. There’s also the problem that the Willis photo at Z-202 shows Bennett still staring to his right. If there’d been a shot at Z-160 and had Bennett immediately turned to his left, as pushed by those claiming Bennett's statement the Rosetta Stone, he should already be looking at Kennedy in the Willis photo. This suggests instead that Bennett heard a shot at 190, not 160. Another problem, as pointed out by researcher Robert Harris, is that the Altgens photo shows Bennett still looking to his right at Z-255. This might make one suspect he heard an early shot, turned to face the President after Z-255, and heard two more shots ring out, associating the first shot with the "nick" in the president's back he first noticed at this time, and the second with the bullet striking Kennedy in the head. This possibility is further supported by the fact that Bennett--in opposition to most every other witness to the president's first being struck--failed to note his subsequent lurch to the left or lean forward. It is also supported by the fact that when speaking to the HSCA's investigator, Bennett backtracked from claiming he saw the bullet hit Kennedy and said instead that he'd noticed a nick in the back of the President's coat. There's another possibility, however. In Bennett's original notes he does not say that he saw the second shot hit the president, or that he heard a shot when he looked at the President and noticed his back wound. He says he saw "a shot that hit the boss". He then writes that "A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head". This suggests the possibility that when Bennett looked at the President he saw "that a shot had hit the boss" and that he then saw a second shot hit Kennedy in the head. This would mean that he'd heard but two shots, which would put his words in line with fellow Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis. Should one doubt that Bennett would change his impressions overnight, and go from hearing two shots to the by-then politically-correct three shots, or that someone else would write his 11-23 report and correct his impression, one should consider that in his original notes, Bennett asserted that he'd yelled to Hickey to get the AR-15 rifle, and that only a day later he reported that he tried to get the rifle himself, but Hickey beat him to it. The notes written before Bennett knew the official story also reflect that he turned to his left after hearing the shots, while the typed up report the next day leaves this out. These changes then reflect either Bennett's confusion or his desire to bring his story in alignment with what he'd been told. Maybe someone typed-up Bennett's 11-23 report based on his notes, and made a few changes. No matter what, however, we just can't be sure what he saw. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Bennett, ahh yes, Bennett.  From Chapter 5b:

Ahh yes, witness bashing follows bad pet theories like B follows A.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head.  I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.” (Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.) (1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) 

 I couldn’t link this file, and found nothing on Mary Ferrell.  What HSCA investigator, Pat?  One clearly trying to spin Bennett’s inconvenient contemporaneous account.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

“He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back

He didn’t write what he “thought” he saw, or what he “hoped” he heard; he described a bullet strike in the same location as the bullet holes in the clothes.   

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” 

“Doesn’t recall”

“believes...believes...believes.”

Spin, spin, spin...

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Analysis: due to Bennett's suggestion, in his 11-23 report, that the President was hit in the back by the second shot, Bennett is a star witness for LPM theorists. He is not deserving of this star status, however.

So the guy who accurately described his movements (as per Willis 5 and Altgens 6) and the location of the bullet defects four inches below the bottom of the collars is not credible because...?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

One problem is that he said the bullet struck Kennedy 4 inches below his shoulder—too low to support the single-bullet theory.

How is that a problem, Pat??  

It’s a problem for your silly theories, true.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He also said the limo was heading down a grade when the first shot rang out, and that the crowd was very sparse--a description far more in line with a shot at 190-224 than at 160.

Compared with earlier crowds Dealey Plaza was sparse.

Cite Bennett's statement that there was more time between the second and third shot than the first and second.  Was he counting the firecracker sound as a shot?

Pat, your smear of Glen Bennett is egregious.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

25 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ahh yes, witness bashing follows bad pet theories like B follows A.

 I couldn’t link this file, and found nothing on Mary Ferrell.  What HSCA investigator, Pat?  One clearly trying to spin Bennett’s inconvenient contemporaneous account.

He didn’t write what he “thought” he saw, or what he “hoped” he heard; he described a bullet strike in the same location as the bullet holes in the clothes.   

“Doesn’t recall”

“believes...believes...believes.”

Spin, spin, spin...

So the guy who accurately described his movements (as per Willis 5 and Altgens 6) and the location of the bullet defects four inches below the bottom of the collars is not credible because...?

How is that a problem, Pat??  

It’s a problem for your silly theories, true.

Compared with earlier crowds Dealey Plaza was sparse.

Cite Bennett's statement that there was more time between the second and third shot than the first and second.  Was he counting the firecracker sound as a shot?

Pat, your smear of Glen Bennett is egregious.

Yes, of course, it is "witness bashing" to point out problems and inconsistencies with a witness' statements. It's clearly much much smurter to cherry-pick one line from one statement and interpret it in a manner that feeds into one's pet theory. 

Bennett is not a problem for my theories, Cliff. He was consistent on a few points we can take to the bank, namely, that the bullet creating the back wound impacted before the bullet creating the head wound, and impacted at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory. As to the number and spacing of the shots, he was not so reliable. 

But if you insist on believing the back wound was inflicted a spilt second before head wound, as it appears, then how do you explain JFK's reaction circa Z-224. Oh, I remember...an ice bullet. I get it. Much as Lifton with his response to "surgery to the head" you had an aha moment when you read Bennett's statement suggesting the possibility the back wound was inflicted after JFK first reacted. Except he didn't say that, did he?