John Simkin Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 You can see Paul K. O'Connor being cross-examined by Vincent Bugliosi here: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoconnorPK.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Mr Lifton, You don`t know this but,you Sir are someone that I have only imagined what it would be like to be able to talk to.The thought of speaking to the man who`s book had such an incredible impact on my life would be something that I would truely cherish.I do realize that what I say may seem odd and that a person such as yourself has to look out for people with "hidden agendas" or someone with "sinister intentions" but,I assure you, that I am a man of my word and have nothing to gain but, to be able to say that I have corresponded with the person that I admire and have the upmost respect for. If you do decide to talk to me,we can do it openly on this forum,or by any method of your choice(E-mail or Phone) My contact information is TheDropper@yahoo.com * I would be more then happy to communicate in anyway at no cost to you. Respectfully Michael Crane *Edited for correctness Sorry for this much delayed response. I have not been on the LEF for quite some time. If you wish to communicate, just send me an email addressed to DSL74@Cornell.edu Sincerely, DSL 2/7/14; at 4:30 AM PST Los Angeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) "Paul O'Connor was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. O'Connor told Law: 'We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.' " In other words, O'Connor pegged the back wound shot as coming from a tall building on JFK's right hand side, yes? Any thoughts on angle and building location? Any other autopsy evidence or medical testimony for this wound angle? I can't recall any. A building more "high" than the sixth or seventh floor of the TSBD, or the TSBD roof? Could a bullet from there penetrate the heart and sternum, depending on which lane Greer had the limo in at a proposed shot time? It's a shame that no one asked O'Connor if the building would need to be taller than the TSBD, or asked for a shot angle based on the autopsy probe angle. Edited February 8, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Oops.Nevermind. Sorry. Edited February 9, 2014 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 "We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant....." -O'Connor In other words, O'Connor pegged the back wound shot as coming from a tall building on JFK's right hand side, yes? Dave... beg to differ.... he was TOLD the shot's origin FROM WHICH he arrived at his statement... "we found out" - iow no other conclusion was going to be allowed.... he also said a bullet was retrieved from the intercostal muscle on the right side of the ribcage... the short shot. yet that would be to the right of the entry... JFK would had to be turned to his left for a bullet to travel right, after that entry... yes? The path to the heart requires that bullet at Parkland to have really fallen out of JFK's back... and could not have gone thru... while the intercostal bullet would have come from yet a different source... maybe the throat entrance wound's bullet... Dave - if the Doctor was Rose and not Humes, we'd know the paths and number of bullets... we'd know. Admiral Burkley and Admiral Galloway made sure of that.. once Kellerman obtained the evidence. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) "We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant....." -O'Connor In other words, O'Connor pegged the back wound shot as coming from a tall building on JFK's right hand side, yes? Dave... beg to differ.... he was TOLD the shot's origin FROM WHICH he arrived at his statement... "we found out" - iow no other conclusion was going to be allowed.... he also said a bullet was retrieved from the intercostal muscle on the right side of the ribcage... the short shot. yet that would be to the right of the entry... JFK would had to be turned to his left for a bullet to travel right, after that entry... yes? The path to the heart requires that bullet at Parkland to have really fallen out of JFK's back... and could not have gone thru... while the intercostal bullet would have come from yet a different source... maybe the throat entrance wound's bullet... Dave - if the Doctor was Rose and not Humes, we'd know the paths and number of bullets... we'd know. Admiral Burkley and Admiral Galloway made sure of that.. once Kellerman obtained the evidence. DJ I see now the implication that trajectory was inferred from an accepted fact. I suppose that, since O'Connor disputed the arrival coffin and body wrapping, if he had reason to believe the shot came from the left he would have said so, and if from the left it couldn't have been in line to penetrate heart and sternum as he said. Thanks, DJ. Edited February 9, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 I see now the implication that trajectory was inferred from an accepted fact. I suppose that, since O'Connor disputed the arrival coffin and body wrapping, if he had reason to believe the shot came from the left he would have said so, and if from the left it couldn't have been in line to penetrate heart and sternum as he said. Thanks, DJ. Cool... I think we're on the same page... yet, "inferred from an accepted fact" - that the shots came from above, behind and to the right.... ?? Hate to be so picky Dave... but even the autopsy report INFERRED this "fact" without supporting it... Or imposed upon restriction that the evidence MUST support... and still we have the incredible statement from Redlich to Rankin in April '64: If the picture was not yet clear by April, and the WCD298 is completely wrong...and none of it was changed... we are arguing "facts" that were never established as "facts".... I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. If they came from the 6th floor, the trajectory carries the shot into the heart.. Yet the hole was determined to be shallow without a bullet in it... and the resting place of the bullet is to the RIGHT of the entrance... I do not see how O'Connor - at the time in 1963 - would think it was a shot from the right and behind traveling LEFT thru the body.... As I see his drawing, the back wound HAS to be the cause of the bullet in the body... or do you think it was the throat? DJ http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=389587%C2'> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) we are arguing "facts" that were never established as "facts". DJ - "accepted facts" means "unsubstantiated beliefs presented as facts." Another rendering is "received wisdom." Sorry to be unclear. What is the source of the finding that the empty wound track terminated to the right of the back entrance? Edited February 10, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) "Paul O'Connor was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. O'Connor told Law: 'We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.' " In other words, O'Connor pegged the back wound shot as coming from a tall building on JFK's right hand side, yes? Any thoughts on angle and building location? Any other autopsy evidence or medical testimony for this wound angle? I can't recall any. A building more "high" than the sixth or seventh floor of the TSBD, or the TSBD roof? Could a bullet from there penetrate the heart and sternum, depending on which lane Greer had the limo in at a proposed shot time? It's a shame that no one asked O'Connor if the building would need to be taller than the TSBD, or asked for a shot angle based on the autopsy probe angle. we are arguing "facts" that were never established as "facts". DJ - "accepted facts" means "unsubstantiated beliefs presented as facts." Another rendering is "received wisdom." Sorry to be unclear. What is the source of the finding that the empty wound track terminated to the right of the back entrance? To All JFK Researchers - - David Andrews, and others reading this post: Paul O'Connor was interviewed by Purdy (of HSCA) on 8/25/1977, and I interviewed him--by phone--exactly two years later, on 8/25/79. A very detailed word-for-word account of part of my 8/25/79 O'Connor interview is Chapter 26 of Best Evidence (titled, appropriately, "The Recollections of Paul Kelly O'Connor"). In late October, 1980 (when my book was already into the publication process, and its release was just about 2 months away) I flew to Gainesville, Florida, and did a filmed interview with O'Connor--and high points from that interview can be viewed in the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO (first released in 1989). Now, about the other times O'Connor was interviewed. . . : In February, 1981, a few weeks after the release of Best Evidence, a detailed interview with Paul O'Connor appeared in the Gainesville, Florida newspaper. In 1988, Paul O'Connor was interviewed for a major documentary aired on KRON-TV (San Francisco) by Sylvia Chase and Stanhope Gould. In 1989, I (along with Pat Valentino) did a very leisurely and detailed interview with O'Connor, using a "hi-8" camera. In connection with the TV show HARDCOPY, Paul O'Connor (and Aubrey Rike) were both flown to Los Angeles. They were interviewed by the show, and then, in someone's home, another joint "Rike/O'Connor" was conducted. I bring all this up because the movie "JFK" wasn't released until December 1991, and it was in 1991 that we had the first "ASK" conventions, and 1995 (or 1996) marked the first Lancer convention. Note: was in connection with those conventions that Paul O'Connor --for the first time--began making public appearances, himself, before audiences who had various conspiracy theories. When the ARRB came into existence (summer of 1995) and it was arranged --largely as a result of the effort of Doug Horne--for various autopsy witnesses to testify under oath, Jeremy Gunn specifically vetoed permitting O'Connor or James Jenkins to be called. (That's a shame, but that's a whole other story). William Law did not interview O'Connor until about 2000--over 20 years after I interviewed O'Connor (for the first time, of several). ABOUT THE "Later" Interviews of O'Connor: I caution anyone reading these posts to tread carefully in evaluating what O'Connor says in these later interviews because, by that time, he was no longer in the mode of genuinely recollecting, for the first time, what resided in his memory; but rather, was repeating--again and again--what he had already said before, and also, and perhaps more important--was reading various books on the assassination. On this point: I know for a fact--from speaking directly to Paul in 1990-1992--that Harrison Livingstone was calling him up and attempting to talk him out of the fact that the body arrived in a body bag. Another person engaged in that sort of behavior was James Jenkins, who was trying to tell him that there really was a brain, and that he removed it (when Jenkins had said completely different things to me, when I interviewed hin in 1979, and then on camera in 1980). So "beware," is all that I'm saying. And, of course, you can also see the mess made by Bugliosi, who had O'Connor flown to London (in 1985), and then tried to confuse him with a tricky cross examination, completely unaware that O'Connor was on the record, in his original 1977 HSCA nterview with the HSCA, unequivocally stating these three critically important things about the arrival of JFK's body at the Bethesda morgue: 1, The body arrived in a shipping casket 2. the body came in a body bag, which was inside the shipping casket 3. The cranium was empty. All of this is in O'Connor's original HSCA statement, and was repeated to me ---verbatim--in my very first (telephone) interview with him on August 25, 1979. Because Bugliosi got it all wrong, he then had to put a footnote at the bottom of the page, in effect apologizing to O'Connor for having misrepresented his account, and conceding that he had already said these essential things to the HSCA in 1977! (And then tried to "blame the victim"--i.e., blame O'Connor for not pointing out to Bugliosi what he had already said some eight years previously!) One other thing, and that concerns the HSCA and Robert Blakey. After going to all the trouble to get the military gag order (dated 11/26/63, see Chapter 27 of B.E.) lifted, and after having Purdy (and FLanagan) dispatched to go around the country and interview such people as O'Connor and Jenkins (1977) and others, Blakey then had the gall to lock up this material for 50 years--meanwhile going on (with Billings) to write his "mob-did-it" book! Bottom line: I interviewed the people Blakey locked up in 1979 over the phone; and then on camera in 1980, and the essense of those interviews were published in January, 1981, with the release of Best Evidence, and generous filmed excerpts appeared throughout public appearances on my book tour. Meanwhile, in January, 1981, Blakey--having locked up the accounts of these critical autopsy witnesses---was pushing his 'mob-did-it' book and making condescending remarks about my work. And all this occurred after I was in contact with the HSCA about 5 times, and explained the whole business of body alteration to him in a 1-2 hour phone call in October, 1978 (See Chapter 24, of B.E.) Below my typed signature, I am pasting in a post on the Interview that I wrote in February, 2003, which lists the 10 times (that I know of) when Paul O'Connor was interviewed. DSL 2/9/14, 6:50 PM PST Los Angeles, California POSTSCRIPT --with my February, 2003 Post on the Internet DSL Note, 1/27/14 – The post below outlines the 10 times that I know of when Paul O’Connor was interviewed. The “apology” that Bugliosi was forced to add to Reclaiming History apparently resulted from Bugliosi’s relying on whatever it was that PKO said in London, and unaware that he said something quite different (and supportive of what he said in B.E.) in his original 8/25/79 HSCA interview. DSL Post on Newsgroup Alt.assassination.jfk; Date: 2/6/03 From: dlifton@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Subject: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth Message-ID: 460446c1.0302060051.2f3d1ffb@posting.google.com I am certain Paul O'Connor told the truth when I interviewed him in August, 1979. At that time, he told me three things about the JFK autopsy: 1) The body arrived in a shipping casket 2) Inside the casket, the body was inside a body bag 3) The cranium was empty. Elaborating, he explained that the normal procedure didn't have to be followed in this case--because the cranium was empty. As students of this case know, there is no brain weight listed on the autopsy chart. Also, on the diagram of the skull made by Boswell, the word "missing" appears--which may refer to the skullcap, but may also refer to the contents of the cranium--i.e., the brain. Paul O'Connor had no idea, when he spoke with me, that these facts--the three numbered observations above-- completely contradicted the official version of the JFK autopsy. He was just telling it like it was. Moreover, Paul O'Connor had already related the same facts to Andrew Purdy, of the House Select Committee--who was so ignorant of the implications--that he had no idea what a body bag was. When I received the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in July 1979--via Express Mail, and within days of its public release--I certainly understood the implications of the fact that the body had arrived in a body bag, as reported in Vol 7 of that report, and footnoted to the O'Connor account, written by Purdy, but which was not released for some 14 years, under the auspices of the JFK Records Act. In other words, although the OCR was written in 1977/78, I didn't get to see it until 14/15 years after I spoke with O'Connor on the phone. In Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, I described what happened when I confronted Purdy with this information. "What's a body bag?" he wanted to know. Apparently, he wasn't watching too much TV, during the Vietnam war years. Obviously, he had not served in Vietnam. But Purdy, albeit embarrassed, was helpful, and it was because of Purdy that I was able to locate and interview O'Connor, by phone, in August 1979. I did not have the privilege of reading O'Connor's account until about 1994. I realized the importance of what he was telling me; I also realized it should be preserved on film. But interviews cost money. Back then, a film shoot such as the one I did with O'Connor was done on 16 mm negative film, involved a crew of about 3 people, and cost about $4,000 (1980 dollars). In order not to have him ruminating about political implications, I maintained my own composure on the telephone; but told O'Connor I would like for him to repeat on camera what he had told me. He agreed---and some 14 months later, in October 1980, just 2-3 months before Best Evidence appeared in the book stores, and when I received financial support from the publisher for the project, I re-interviewed O'Connor in Gainesville, Florida--and he said the exact same thing. Shipping casket; body bag; empty cranium. Only now, on camera, I pulled out all the stops--I cross examined O'Connor as hard as I could, challenging him, pointing out contradictions between what he saw that night and what had been seen earlier in Dallas, and also what was in the Warren Report. On every point, O'Connor held his ground. It is exactly for that reason why the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO has such power. Because O'Connor (a) didn't understand the implications and (b ) was challenged on the implications of his observations, and without any rehearsal. I stress: without any rehearsal. There was absolutely no "pre-interview prep." I didn't show O'Connor any record of the August 1979 interview. I didn't show him the chapter I had written in BEST EVIDENCE, and which was due to come out within about two months. The only conversation we had after August 1979, was one sometime prior to the October 1980 interview, for the purpose of setting up an appointment, in Florida, for the interview. So when O'Connor went on camera in October 1980 and repeated the same account he had given me in August 1979, my confidence in him only increased. And at that time, of course, I had no access to the Outside Contact Report that Purdy had written back in 1977 or 1978. Subsequent to my Florida visit, I learned--possibly from O'Connor—of the Florida newspaper interview, back at the time of the Purdy interview, which said the same thing. So the "O'Connor data"—if you will—involves these separate interviews: •1977/78-Purdy: •Same (approx) Florida Newspaper •August 1979--My telephone interview •October 1980--my filmed interview Then Best Evidence was published (first available late December 1980); and then came another, much more elaborate, Florida newspaper interview. •1981 – (post B.E. Publication) – PKO in Gainesville, Florida, newspaper So, by this time, we have 5 separate interviews--in which O'Connor was consistent. At some point, O'Connor was flown to England and was interviewed in connection with the Bugliosi/Spence program called the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. The production company was London Weekly Television. I have no idea why, on that occasion, O'Connor gave a version of events that was different. I would certainly like to know what kind of pre-interviewing was done by the production company, or Bugliosi, or whoever. Because it seems inexplicable that O'Connor, having given the same account some 5 times, would change it for any reason in 1985. And then there is this footnote: In the fall of 1988, KRON-TV--with Sylvia Chase as the interviewer, and Stanhope Gould (who had been the CBS producer, under Cronkite, responsible for their ground-breaking Watergate coverage) interviewed O'Connor. I was there. Again, he gave the same account he had given me in 1980--but, as Stanhope said to me, it didn't have the same sense of drama that my footage did, because it was perfectly clear, in my October 1980 interview, that O'Connor didn't understand the implications of what he was saying. By 1988, he certainly did. •Fall 1988 –Stanhope/Sylvia Chase interview. . . To move on: In 1989, I returned with another professional film crew, and this time we did an interview that was over an hour, perhaps two hours, in length. Again, the same account, only in much greater detail. Also, on that occasion, O'Connor swore out a statement--on camera--to these same facts. And then, there is one other interview: Around 1990, O'Connor and Aubrey Rike appeared on HARDCOPY, a production of Paramount TV, here in Los Angeles. Again, O'Connor went through the same facts, only now he met Aubrey Rike for the first time. Also, On that occassion, and never before having had O'Connor and Rike together before, I arranged to have an elaborate joint interview, in the evening. Again, the same facts. So let's see now. . .we have how many interviews? 1. House Select Committee; 1977/78 2. Florida Newspaper: around the same time 3. August, 1979--David Lifton, via telephone 4. October, 1980-David Lifton, on camera 5. 1981, after publication of B.E.: Florida newspaper 6. 1985; London Weekly Television (Bugliosi, etc.) 7. 1988: KRON-TV (Sylvia Chase/Stanhope Guild) 8. 1989: David Lifton, 2 hr detailed interview, with signed statements 9. 1990: Hardcopy; O'Connor and Rike 10. 1990: same Los Angeles visit--detailed interview There is only one data point in these ten events that doesn't fit—and that is the Bugliosi interview. I have no idea what was said to O'Connor in London. I doubt very much that the program flew O'Connor to London and put him up in a hotel, and did all this without any pre--interviewing. And pre-interviewing can completely vitiate the validity of what is shown on camera. It is, basically, a rehearsal. Naturally, I would like to know what the pre-interviewing consisted of--who conducted it, and what was said. All I can tell you is that, as the above record indicates, Paul O'Connor has been consistent, throughout my experiences with him, and they began with that first phone interview in August, 1979. The Johnnie-Come-Latelies who come forward at this very late date, trying to discredit O'Connor by pointing to the one anomalous 1985 TV interview, and without any firm knowledge of what pre-interviewing preceded that interview, have a weak case. Harry Livingstone once tried to twist O'Connor's words around, and attempt to misrepresent what he experienced that night, and what he said about it. After that experience, O'Connor and I had a phone conversation, in which he expressed his own dismay at Livingstone's antics. He remembered exactly how it was, and repeated it all over again—the same basic facts--just as described in the HSCA document, and as related to me in August 1979, on the phone; and then again on camera in October 1980. Paul O'Connor is a truth teller. It is others who are attempting to twist his account around, and pretend it is all false. It is they, not O'Connor, who are promoting an urban legend. O'Connor saw some rather important things on the night of November 22. That is why, within a day or so of the autopsy, he was ordered not to talk—subject to court martial. Those on this news group who are placing their bet with Bugliosi's version of O'Connor are backing a losing proposition with little credibility. DSL Edited February 10, 2014 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Thank you David. I will consider. Edited February 10, 2014 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Gallup Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I noticed on CTKA that James DiEugenio humbly put his book Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Ed., as one of the ten best books ever written on the Kennedy Assassination. It may indeed be a very good book, but the revelations unearthed In Best Evidence, especially Paul O'Connor, are so significant, and DiEugenio's conspicuous ignoring of this contribution and others contained in Best Evidence so blatant, that it is no wonder the case remains such an unsolved mess. What Lifton did was to interview individuals before they understood the significance of what they had to say. This of course includes the medical evidence but also the Z-film interviews conducted in 1971, before the film ever became public. Debra Conway did the same thing with Toni Foster, whose testimony to the limo stop was so certain and matter-of-fact, because she had no idea it contradicted the official version. Anyway, that is why David Lifton's work is so historically important. One has only one chance to interview someone before they understand the significance of what they have to say, and are tempted to change or have their testimony twisted, or are simply ignored because their view doesn't "fit." Given the governmental malfeasance in this case-- all the fraudulent evidence--those first responses are all the more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well said, Daniel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 "Paul O'Connor was interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. O'Connor told Law: 'We found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.' " In other words, O'Connor pegged the back wound shot as coming from a tall building on JFK's right hand side, yes? Any thoughts on angle and building location? Any other autopsy evidence or medical testimony for this wound angle? I can't recall any. A building more "high" than the sixth or seventh floor of the TSBD, or the TSBD roof? Could a bullet from there penetrate the heart and sternum, depending on which lane Greer had the limo in at a proposed shot time? It's a shame that no one asked O'Connor if the building would need to be taller than the TSBD, or asked for a shot angle based on the autopsy probe angle. Adding to what DSL posted... this interview published in 2004 by Kim Reinholt has O'Connor saying something different from what LAW writes: (Was this one of the 10 DSL mentions - it does not appear to be on that list?) "Would have exited BELOW THE RIGHT NIPPLE and would have missed the heart..." When Law has him saying the bullet would have traveled LEFT instead of RIGHT.... EARLIER than the 2004 interview where he states the opposite along with much more detail... While I agree with DSL that he is a reliable witness... the info from the 2004 interview is alos completely consistent with his previous statements.... DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Does anybody have a copy of the O'Connor's Florida newspaper interview(s)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 "..... and we also realized that this bullet - that hit him in the back - is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile - the bullet-clear through the body." Do any of you still think there is anything believable about this statement? (outside of an FMJ bullet being capable of passing through JFK's chest) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now