The John F. Kennedy (JFK) assassination thread - 22 November 1963

porscheguy

Ostrich
I wouldn't say Oswald lived a playboy lifestyle except for his time in Russia. Most of the time he appeared to be scraping by. They sort of touched on the subject matter in the book. They said you don't want your guys going from wearing threadbare hand me downs, to wearing custom made suits. Part of maintaining cover was not having major changes to your lifestyle. I always wondered why he never had a car. I thought that would make his life a lot more difficult and inconvenient especially in most of these places where public transportation was lacking. The only reason he wouldn't have had a car, is because he was told to not buy one. Not even a piece of shit that someone of his meager means could have acquired on his wages. I think they did that to make sure they could catch up with him and hang him out to dry.

The most poignant observation in the book even applies to the wikileaks dump yesterday. He said that when an agency is permitted to operate in total secrecy with minimal or no checks and balances, it ultimately breeds a culture of carelessness and incompetence.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
Kid Twist said:
He was duped? He just went up to the depository on a day in which the president was rolling around in a motorcade? Then he shot a policeman leaving the scene?

He was duped???

Do your homework.
He was an official employee of the book depository already and had a normal job moving and stacking books for a few weeks.
He did not shoot the policeman until way later in the day in a totally different part of Dallas....if he shot him at all, which he probably didn't.



Garrison claimed on the day of the assassination Oswald was told (by the intelligence agencies he probably worked for) to wait in the book depository for an important phone call, which never came.
 

Kid Twist

Hummingbird
This is what make people like me annoyed by all the conspiracy crap:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/tip.htm

So the guy knows who killed Tippit, but "He won't say"

Is all that stuff possible? Yes, but it's just not likely, especially when people who supposedly "know" won't say a gosh darn thing about it. The odds are overwhelmingly these are made up stories for ... you choose the reason.

(I just followed up on the Helen Markham testimony and of course that has "holes" too ... I'm quite sure almost every testimony in the history of man isn't completely accurate to the events, it's the whole point of lawyers telling you to NEVER give a statement to police, the only thing than can happen is bad to you if you are implicated in something)
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Kid Twist said:
This is what make people like me annoyed by all the conspiracy crap:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/tip.htm

So the guy knows who killed Tippit, but "He won't say"

Is all that stuff possible? Yes, but it's just not likely, especially when people who supposedly "know" won't say a gosh darn thing about it. The odds are overwhelmingly these are made up stories for ... you choose the reason.

(I just followed up on the Helen Markham testimony and of course that has "holes" too ... I'm quite sure almost every testimony in the history of man isn't completely accurate to the events, it's the whole point of lawyers telling you to NEVER give a statement to police, the only thing than can happen is bad to you if you are implicated in something)

Agreed and fair enough. The flawed nature of human testimony can be established from the fact you have varying testimonies about the number of shots they heard fired, from three up to about nine. Which is why I focus on the physical evidence which can't be easily manipulated, i.e. ballistics.

Tippit's murder is a separate issue, I might add: the principal evidence against him is eyewitness identification, one of the least reliable forms of identification, if the person is not familiar to the identifier and the opportunity for viewing is short. It can apply even if the opportunity for viewing is long: look up the case of Beck, an innocent man claimed to be a swindler by about five separate women when Beck had in fact been in custody the entire time they were swindled. That case, and many others, have led courts to instruct juries to be very, very careful when it comes to eyewitness identification.
 

Dallas Winston

Ostrich
Gold Member
Devil's advocate post here. Vincent Bugliosi, the famous attorney, is certain Oswald acted alone. He proves some pretty convincing, legalistic evidence as to why it was Oswald:


Here's the "53 pieces of evidence for Oswald killing Kennedy" including witnesses:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Among some of the compelling witness testimony is # 11 on the list, which is a witness who saw a man, resembling or actually Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the building, including the kill shot, so he says. (he provides many others) Here's # 11:

11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
robreke said:
Devil's advocate post here. Vincent Bugliosi, the famous attorney, is certain Oswald acted alone. He proves some pretty convincing, legalistic evidence as to why it was Oswald:


Here's the "53 pieces of evidence for Oswald killing Kennedy" including witnesses:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Among some of the compelling witness testimony is # 11 on the list, which is a witness who saw a man, resembling or actually Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the building, including the kill shot, so he says. (he provides many others)


I read through the list....many of those suspicious activities can be explained by theory that Oswald (working for the intelligence services) was told to be there (possibly with a weapon) to infiltrate the real conspirators and either help stop them or report on their activities. This is the theory Jim Garrison put forth in a court of law.

Prior to the assassination people looking like Oswald were sighted all over Dallas acting very strangely. It's possible they planted someone looking like him in the window at the moment of shooting.

A few witnesses said they saw Oswald on the 2nd floor lunchroom both before and after the shooting (waiting for a phone call ?) giving him no time to fire the shots on the 6th floor.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
robreke said:
Devil's advocate post here. Vincent Bugliosi, the famous attorney, is certain Oswald acted alone. He proves some pretty convincing, legalistic evidence as to why it was Oswald:


Here's the "53 pieces of evidence for Oswald killing Kennedy" including witnesses:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Among some of the compelling witness testimony is # 11 on the list, which is a witness who saw a man, resembling or actually Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the building, including the kill shot, so he says. (he provides many others) Here's # 11:

11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.

LOL. Bugliosi knew, as well as any lawyer educated in the West over the past hundred years or so, that eyewitness identification was problematic. Had Gerry Spence gone a bit harder or with a bit more commitment we might have spared a lot of investigators a lot of time filleting Bugliosi's arrogant fit-up.

Let's start with the circumstances of the viewing.

Brennan claims his viewing distance is "only" 120 feet. That's roughly 36 metres. I wish I could find a better way to indicate the sort of distance involved, but here's a handy reckoner to make the point:

Wjp30.jpg


That yellow line is said to be 10 metres. Brennan would have seen Oswald at close to four times that distance away. Get out on a street and measure the distance for yourself and then ask yourself: could you make out anything distinctive about the person viewed at that range?

This is why we have Brennan's description of "white male, early 30s, fair complexion, slender." Judge the distances and tell me whether that description is credible at that distance. I don't think he gave a description of the guy's height. That being because: if Oswald is meant to be leaning out of the window shooting at the time, how the hell do you get any sort of meaningful estimate possible of a person's height?

And the next question: how much time was there to get a "good look" at the guy? On the first occasion Brennan sees him, Oswald presumably is not leaning out with a gun, so there's presumably no reason to take particular notice of him or anything about him. It does not strengthen the later impression.

On the second occasion, the opportunity for viewing is, by definition, about five seconds. That timing comes from the fact the Warren Commission estimates the time between the neck and head shots as 4.6-5.8 seconds. Brennan only claims to see Oswald fire the final shot, so therefore he must, at best, only see Oswald for about five seconds: the lineup for the final shot and then Oswald pulling back from the window.

Would you want to bet someone's life on a five second glance? Lots of courts have stridently replied "No" to that answer. It would take a pretty fucking cavalier jury to convict off the strength of that alone.

The next point -- again something Bugliosi knew quite well but chose to omit -- is that it is sheer biological fact that memory doesn't get better with time. It fades. The initial impression, the initial identification, is the one that generally counts. And Brennan's initial identification is not, in fact, an identification. He says Oswald looked like the guy he saw, not that he was the guy. The later "firming up" of the identifications is quite common in erroneous identification cases: we tend to fill in gaps in memory, not regain more memory as time goes on. And remember your Cialdini: once you have made a public stance, you will generally hold to that stance even if it is ill-considered because we have an inherent bias to remaining consistent with our earlier statements.

Next point: the identification parade.

The general standard on ID parades is that you put several guys together who look like the suspect. You also don't tell the person doing the identification that the suspect is in the lineup. These are basic requirements to try and make the identifier's indication as independent as possible. Fail to do either and you basically render the parade worthless.

And, as with a lot of other what-can-best-be-called-police-SNAFUs, Brennan's identification parade was fucked up.

(1) Remember Brennan's description of the suspect? "white male, early 30s, fair complexion, slender"? Brennan was shown an ID parade with four people, including Oswald. The other three guys in the parade, as a matter of record?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2685-Were-the-Oswald-lineups-valid#.WMQAlvLiPus

Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair dark complexion ( 7 H 235, 7 H 168 )
Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 239, 7 H 168 )
Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 )

It's not quite putting the black guy in a liuneup of Asian students, but it's about as amusing and valid as an ID parade. The psychological tendency is to identify the person who most resembled the person you saw as the guy, not say "That's the guy."

(2) Brennan had already seen Oswald on TV in police custody before he went to the ID parade. This was a monumental fuckup because knowing that tainted the parade's results irretrievably. As with the famous "courtroom identification" which always happens on TV and never in real life, the psychological pressure and tendency is to identify the guy who is most likely the suspect.

These are not pseudoscience. As I said, there is a good century of legal precedent and scientific study, across the entire Western judicial system, backing how these factors can lead people to identify the wrong suspect. At best Brennan's opportunity to identify Oswald is extremely problematic, at worst it's completely weightless and a modern, unbiased jury would have been instructed to ignore that evidence entirely. Bugliosi would have known that quite well.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
The most interesting theory I read was that SOME (not all) of the shots were actually fired from the 7th floor, not the 6th floor where Oswald was suppsoed to be. At the time of the assassination the 7th floor was apparently closed off for storage and open plan without any walls....meaning you could walk all across the floor.

Another thing most people don't know....just before and shortly after the president's limo passed the electrical power was cut to the buildings in Dealey Plaza. This was documented by many witnesses. The elevators in the Texas School Book Depository stopped working.

According to the theory I read, right after the shooting happened, the real shooters got out of the building by going down the elevator shaft with ropes.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
Kid Twist said:
But Oswald got out without a problem, anyway. Seems like another nothing "lead" on something irrelevant.

Not every plot goes exactly according to plan.

If Oswald got away before they could arrest him, this might explain why the police officer had to be shot later in the day in a totally different part of Dallas.
 

Dallas Winston

Ostrich
Gold Member
Paracelsus said:
robreke said:
Devil's advocate post here. Vincent Bugliosi, the famous attorney, is certain Oswald acted alone. He proves some pretty convincing, legalistic evidence as to why it was Oswald:


Here's the "53 pieces of evidence for Oswald killing Kennedy" including witnesses:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=6085.0;wap2

Among some of the compelling witness testimony is # 11 on the list, which is a witness who saw a man, resembling or actually Oswald, shooting from the 6th floor of the building, including the kill shot, so he says. (he provides many others) Here's # 11:

11. After the first and second shots rang out in Dealey Plaza, a motorcade witness, Howard Brennan, sitting on a short concrete wall directly across the street from the sixth-floor window, looked up and actually saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle. Only 120 feet away from Oswald, he got a very good look as he watched, in horror, Oswald (whom he had seen in the window earlier, before the motorcade had arrived) take deliberate aim and fire the final shot from his rifle.29 At the police lineup that evening, Brennan picked Oswald out, saying, “He looks like him, but I cannot positively say,” giving the police the reason that he had since seen Oswald on television and that could have “messed me up.”30 However, Brennan signed an affidavit at the Dallas sheriff’s office within an hour after the shooting and before the lineup saying, “I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.”31 On December 18, 1963, Brennan told the FBI he was “sure” that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window.32 And he later told the Warren Commission that in reality at the lineup, “with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man” but did not do so out of fear. “If it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I…might not be safe.”33 Although Brennan did not positively identify Oswald at the lineup, he did say, as we’ve seen, that Oswald looked like the man. And we know Brennan is legitimate since the description of the man in the window that he gave to the authorities right after the shooting—a slender, white male about thirty years old, five feet ten inches—matches Oswald fairly closely, and had to have been the basis for the description of the man sent out over police radio just fifteen minutes after the shooting.

LOL. Bugliosi knew, as well as any lawyer educated in the West over the past hundred years or so, that eyewitness identification was problematic. Had Gerry Spence gone a bit harder or with a bit more commitment we might have spared a lot of investigators a lot of time filleting Bugliosi's arrogant fit-up.

Let's start with the circumstances of the viewing.

Brennan claims his viewing distance is "only" 120 feet. That's roughly 36 metres. I wish I could find a better way to indicate the sort of distance involved, but here's a handy reckoner to make the point:

Wjp30.jpg


That yellow line is said to be 10 metres. Brennan would have seen Oswald at close to four times that distance away. Get out on a street and measure the distance for yourself and then ask yourself: could you make out anything distinctive about the person viewed at that range?

This is why we have Brennan's description of "white male, early 30s, fair complexion, slender." Judge the distances and tell me whether that description is credible at that distance. I don't think he gave a description of the guy's height. That being because: if Oswald is meant to be leaning out of the window shooting at the time, how the hell do you get any sort of meaningful estimate possible of a person's height?

And the next question: how much time was there to get a "good look" at the guy? On the first occasion Brennan sees him, Oswald presumably is not leaning out with a gun, so there's presumably no reason to take particular notice of him or anything about him. It does not strengthen the later impression.

On the second occasion, the opportunity for viewing is, by definition, about five seconds. That timing comes from the fact the Warren Commission estimates the time between the neck and head shots as 4.6-5.8 seconds. Brennan only claims to see Oswald fire the final shot, so therefore he must, at best, only see Oswald for about five seconds: the lineup for the final shot and then Oswald pulling back from the window.

Would you want to bet someone's life on a five second glance? Lots of courts have stridently replied "No" to that answer. It would take a pretty fucking cavalier jury to convict off the strength of that alone.

The next point -- again something Bugliosi knew quite well but chose to omit -- is that it is sheer biological fact that memory doesn't get better with time. It fades. The initial impression, the initial identification, is the one that generally counts. And Brennan's initial identification is not, in fact, an identification. He says Oswald looked like the guy he saw, not that he was the guy. The later "firming up" of the identifications is quite common in erroneous identification cases: we tend to fill in gaps in memory, not regain more memory as time goes on. And remember your Cialdini: once you have made a public stance, you will generally hold to that stance even if it is ill-considered because we have an inherent bias to remaining consistent with our earlier statements.

Next point: the identification parade.

The general standard on ID parades is that you put several guys together who look like the suspect. You also don't tell the person doing the identification that the suspect is in the lineup. These are basic requirements to try and make the identifier's indication as independent as possible. Fail to do either and you basically render the parade worthless.

And, as with a lot of other what-can-best-be-called-police-SNAFUs, Brennan's identification parade was fucked up.

(1) Remember Brennan's description of the suspect? "white male, early 30s, fair complexion, slender"? Brennan was shown an ID parade with four people, including Oswald. The other three guys in the parade, as a matter of record?

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2685-Were-the-Oswald-lineups-valid#.WMQAlvLiPus

Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair dark complexion ( 7 H 235, 7 H 168 )
Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 239, 7 H 168 )
Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 )

It's not quite putting the black guy in a liuneup of Asian students, but it's about as amusing and valid as an ID parade. The psychological tendency is to identify the person who most resembled the person you saw as the guy, not say "That's the guy."

(2) Brennan had already seen Oswald on TV in police custody before he went to the ID parade. This was a monumental fuckup because knowing that tainted the parade's results irretrievably. As with the famous "courtroom identification" which always happens on TV and never in real life, the psychological pressure and tendency is to identify the guy who is most likely the suspect.

These are not pseudoscience. As I said, there is a good century of legal precedent and scientific study, across the entire Western judicial system, backing how these factors can lead people to identify the wrong suspect. At best Brennan's opportunity to identify Oswald is extremely problematic, at worst it's completely weightless and a modern, unbiased jury would have been instructed to ignore that evidence entirely. Bugliosi would have known that quite well.

Those are good points and I tend to agree with that argument.

However, what about the fact of the multiple witnesses that either saw Oswald shoot Officer Tippet, or looked up after they heard a shot and saw Oswald. These witnesses were much closer than 120 meters and most apparently, positively identified Oswald. So, what's Oswald out doing shooting cops if he didn't have a good reason to? ( he was running from the law because he shot the President) Sure I suppose he could have known he was a patsy and avoiding the cops, but going to the extreme of killing a cop? Here's the info from the list:

24. Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit on Tenth Street near Patton in the Oak Cliff area, only about nine-tenths of a mile from his rooming house. One witness, Helen Markham, identified Oswald in a lineup later in the day as the man she saw shoot Tippit.62 (Years later, the HSCA found another witness, Jack Tatum, who saw Oswald shoot and kill Tippit).63 Another witness, William Scoggins, identified Oswald as the man he saw approachTippit’s car after it pulled up alongside Oswald, who was walking on the sidewalk. He lost sight of Oswald behind some shrubbery, but heard the shots that killed Tippit, saw Tippit fall, and then saw Oswald, with a pistol in his left hand, run away south on Patton Street in the direction of Jefferson Boulevard.64 Another witness, William Smith, heard some shots, looked up, and saw Oswald running west on Tenth Street out of his sight.65 Two other witnesses,
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
robreke said:
Those are good points and I tend to agree with that argument.

However, what about the fact of the multiple witnesses that either saw Oswald shoot Officer Tippet, or looked up after they heard a shot and saw Oswald. These witnesses were much closer than 120 meters and most apparently, positively identified Oswald. So, what's Oswald out doing shooting cops if he didn't have a good reason to? ( he was running from the law because he shot the President) Sure I suppose he could have known he was a patsy and avoiding the cops, but going to the extreme of killing a cop? Here's the info from the list:

24. Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J. D. Tippit on Tenth Street near Patton in the Oak Cliff area, only about nine-tenths of a mile from his rooming house. One witness, Helen Markham, identified Oswald in a lineup later in the day as the man she saw shoot Tippit.62 (Years later, the HSCA found another witness, Jack Tatum, who saw Oswald shoot and kill Tippit).63 Another witness, William Scoggins, identified Oswald as the man he saw approachTippit’s car after it pulled up alongside Oswald, who was walking on the sidewalk. He lost sight of Oswald behind some shrubbery, but heard the shots that killed Tippit, saw Tippit fall, and then saw Oswald, with a pistol in his left hand, run away south on Patton Street in the direction of Jefferson Boulevard.64 Another witness, William Smith, heard some shots, looked up, and saw Oswald running west on Tenth Street out of his sight.65 Two other witnesses,

I haven't looked into Tippit's murder as much as Kennedy's, so I'll come back to the circumstances of the witnesses in a while.

For the moment, let's focus on two things:

(1) Kennedy's murder as proving Oswald did Tippit's murder; and
(2) The ID parades for Tippit's murder.

Kennedy and Tippit's murders: a solid defence lawyer would never allow Oswald to be put on trial for both Tippit's murder and Kennedy's at once. The reason for that is because there is a fatal error in the reasoning which a jury might take: Because Oswald murdered JFK, he has motive for killing Tippit.

Can you see the flaw there?

If not, let's step it out: the place of motive in a criminal trial is basically one of probability. If you have a reason to kill someone, it makes it more probable that you are the murderer. It's a piece of circumstancial evidence which in combination with other physical evidence can be used to convict a person.

But if Oswald did not murder JFK, he has no more reason to kill Tippit than anybody else. Just as with Brennan's flawed identification, that evidence is not admissible against Oswald for killing Tippit because it doesn't make it more probable that Oswald killed Tippit.

Therefore, before you can suggest that Oswald had motive to kill Tippit - an important element of the prosecution case, and the insinuation that Bugliosi makes - you have to prove the existence of the motive. You have to prove first that he killed JFK.

The reverse also does not apply: "Because he murdered Tippit, it's more likely that he killed JFK." I trust it isn't necessary to explain why that reasoning is bad unless Oswald is a time traveller.

In short: a competent defence lawyer would have insisted that Oswald be tried first for JFK's murder and then separately for Tippit's murder. If he was found innocent of JFK's killing, he could not have had that element used against him on the trial of Tippit's murder. The two crimes are not one contiguous event which ought to be tried together; they are separate and the evidence relating to them is separate.

Turning to the identification parade:
If you thought Brennan's ID parade was laughable, the parades that Markham and Scoggins participated in were even moreso. (Smith didn't take part in any ID parade. We'll get to him in a second.)

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?2685-Were-the-Oswald-lineups-valid#.WMSXPPLiPut

- Markham said she was under pressure to identify someone. ""When I saw this man I wasn't sure....and they kept asking me, 'which one, which one ? '...."

- On top of that, in the parade Markham saw, Oswald was handcuffed between two police officers. The last guy in the parade was not handcuffed at all. Thus you're left with an impression of the guilty guy with a cop on either side of him, rather than four prisoners handcuffed together. Let's also leave aside that officers testified that the other three guys in the lineup were dressed significantly better than Oswald was - again, something designed to make Markham pick Oswald.

- Let's leave aside that Markham's descriptions of the guy varied wildly. Her description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair, medium build. She also testified that the man who she saw shoot Tippit "wasn't too heavy." She gave a completely different description of the killer to FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum. She told him that the killer was a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion.

- Scoggins had already seen Oswald's picture in the morning paper before going to the ID parade. On top of that, he did the lineup in company with another potential witness -- again, a fuckup because one witness can easily influence another.

- Leaving that fuckup aside, Scoggins described the murderer of Tippit as a white male, light complexion, 25-26, medium height and weight, with either medium brown or dark hair. Surprise, suprise, in this lineup they had John Thurman Horne, 17; David Edmond Knapp, 18; Oswald, and Daniel Lujan, a 26 year old Mexican who was on the heavy side at 5'8 and 170 pounds.

- As for "Smith" ... that would be William Arthur Smith, who described Tippit's murderer as "a white male, about 5'7" to 5'8", 20 to 25 years of age, 150-160, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket and dark pants." Smith told the Warren Commission that the man who shot Tippit was too far away to positively identify him. Smith was shown Oswald's photograph and said this was not the man who shot Tippit. (Per: http://www.harveyandlee.net/November/November_22.htm ) That's before you get into the other witnesses who were definite that Tippit was not shot by Oswald.

- And Jack Tatum, the guy who they found 15 years later for the HSCA investigation in 1978?

Per his own typewritten affidavit to the HSCA: (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tatum.htm )

Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street). At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I heard three shots in rapid (illegible)I went right through the intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back. I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.

Q. Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald, Officer Tippit or anyone else at the scene.
A. No

Q Did you not report this information to the authorities?
A. There were more than enough people there and I could not see what I could contribute.

No identification there. No identification parade. The guy was not asked to turn his mind to what happened, pay attention to details, record what had happened, until more than 14 years after it happened. How good is your memory for something distinctive that happened to you in 2002? As said: memory gets worse with time, not better. In 1986, another 8 years on, Tatum claimed in interview to remember Oswald's distinctive smile. He said "I noticed that same distinctive characteristic when I saw him on TV." If so, this would be an invention of his memory, which we tend to do as time passes on: his impression of the person he saw has been replaced by the guy he saw on TV.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
As for the distances at which Scoggins, Markham and Smith are said to have seen the Tippit murder, here's a very useful layout of where everyone was:

10th%20Street%20Map%20-%20Tippit%20murder%20Holan%20included.jpg


The inset photo simulates the view from Scoggins' car to the police vehicle where Tippit was shot. That was done by the Warren Commission. If you need to look at the photo with better detail, here's a link to the photo in pdf: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_534.pdf

That's what Scoggins was looking at on 22 November, 1963.

As you can see from the map, Markham was across the street from Scoggins, and so had at best the same view as Scoggins if not worse.

William Smith was much further away: you can see him marked on the map up past 500 E 10th. (Note there are two William Smiths, but neither gets any closer to the site of the killing.)

And for what it's worth, Jack Tatum, 15 years later, sees something no other witness sees: Oswald apparently shooting Tippit and then moving in to deliver an execution shot to the head.
 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
JFK - full movie by Oliver Stone from 1991 detailing the case Jim Garrison brought before a court of law in 1969 in the Orleans Parish Criminal Court, which is 6 years after the assassination.

Director's cut 3 hours and 20 minutes




Scene from the above movie which illustrates Garrison's theory on how the assassination was actually carried out:

 

Mercenary

Hummingbird
There is also a theory that the fatal head shot is not one shot, but 2 seperate bullets fired from 2 different locations at almost the same time while the limo was at a complete stop. One shot came from the grassy knoll picket fence, and the other came from either the front or back.

One of the police motocycles behind the limo apprently had an open live radio which supposedly recorded the audio of the 2nd half of the assassination. This is known as known as the Dictabelt Audio Recording. You can hear 4 shots being fired, 2 of which come very close together at the end. Here is is lined up with the Zapruder film. However, it is disputed whether this audio recording is actually real or not.

 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
As promised, on to the exploding third bullet. As discussed, if you want to review some of these materials, the page for much of this is here: http://garyrevel.com/jfk/PHYSICS_Proof_JFK_GrassyKnollShot.pdf

I should note some of this I don't agree with. Alberto Miatello looks at the wound ballistics almost completely through the window of physics, and human bodies, being composed of spongy stuff, joints, nerves, etc. do not all behave like so many billiard balls tossed around a pool table.

That aside: it does raise what seems to be physical impossibilities out of the third bullet. Ones that I'd hypothesise later are explainable only by a bullet with a much greater velocity. As I said before, we're not looking at the "magic bullet" that went through Kennedy and Connally. We are looking at whether it's possible, and the likelihood of, the third bullet producing a head explosion like that we see at the last moment.

This will take a few posts. This one will be about concepts in physics to understand before we get into this (the shooters among you will probably get most of this in a heartbeat. Bear with me.)

Firstly: why do you think the German Tiger II tank in World War Two was shaped like this?

pz6b00652.jpg


If the phrase "ricochet" is going through your head, congratulations, you're right, and you're halfway to understanding the science behind all this. Tiger IIs had an angular design simply because angled armour like that was more likely to cause a tank round fired at them to ricochet off. Or as is more likely, if it did hit, it was less likely to penetrate because the shot itself was deprived of its full kinetic energy on penetration through the armour.

Here's another question for you: would you rather be hit by a fist or a bullet out of a Colt .45?

Anyone rational would say the fist.

Yet both of these things have pretty much exactly the same momentum. A boxer's fist weighs around 500 grams and can be thrust at about 9 metres per second (m/s). A Colt .45 round travels on average around 300 m/s and has a mass of about 15 grams. The momentum (mass x velocity) is 300 m/s * 15 g = 4.5 kg * m/s = 4.5 N * s for the bullet, and 9 m/s * 500 g = 4.5 kg * m/s = 4.5 N * s for the fist.

So what gives? Why doesn't a fist do the same destructive damage as a bullet when it hits? In short, pressure ... which is force divided by area, sometimes known as psi. The more surface area in which a force is delivered, the less damage it does to any particular square inch. Also see: why women don't wear high heels on softwood floors.

But we also need to bear in mind that even as a bullet hits, Newton's Third Law being what it is, forces are acting on the bullet as well. Depending on what it hits and how it hits, the bullet is being damaged as well because of the way kinetic energy works on the bullet.

As Miatello puts it:

As the physical explanation linking a longer or shorter "permanence" of projectile inside the head of victims is too rough and inadequate to clarify the behavior of a human head being struck by a bullet, it seems important to point out some main concepts involving a collision and subsequent perforation of target by projectile.

Bullets are – in physical terms - moving objects, with different masses, having high speed (it is commonly considered "high speed" to exceed 500 m/s and "hypervelocity" to exceed 2 km/s), and so its motion is normally expressed as a function of kinetic energy (KE) , i.e. : ½ m*v².

Momentum (m*v) is therefore derivative of kinetic energy function, namely it is the energy that a bullet is displaying on impact point. In Physics and Terminal Ballistics, based on countless experimental tests and data, we can identify and
extrapolate three main components of [a] bullet's kinetic energy:

(1) Shear force: the minimal cutting force on the surface of material that is necessary to the bullet to fully penetrate it, and the main factor of penetration. It depends also on the shape of the projectile (linked to the shear stress). Shear stress depends on the shape and mass of the bullet. A sharp-nosed bullet needs less shear force to penetrate a material than a blunt-nosed bullet, in the same way as a sharp knife needs less shear force to cut and penetrate than a blunt paper-knife.

Any growth in the diameter of the bullet, shear stress of the bullet, and thickness of target material increases minimum shear force, thereby making more difficult to
perforate the material.

It is very important to introduce also the concept of sectional density of a bullet, which affects the shear stress of a bullet. Sectional density comes down to the ratio between the bullet's weight and its diameter. A long, needle-shaped bullet is able to penetrate much better than a wide and more 'squat' projectile. (Miatello goes on to note that the ammo loaded in Oswald's Carcano had one of the biggest of all rifle cartridges.)

(2) Compressive force - the component of pressure (other than pure shear force) that a bullet is imparting to the target surface at the moment of collision and immediately after, during the whole contact with the target material. This depends on hardness of the material, velocity of the bullet, and density of the target material. Compressive force increases proportionally with the elasticity of the target material, as bullet needs to spend more and more kinetic energy to penetrate (if possible) a target material the more its hardness increases, whenever pure shear force is not sufficient anymore to perforate harder materials. If your target is made of really dense rubber, it's going to take more compressive force to penetrate it.

(3) Residual velocity - The bullet's velocity once it's achieved perforation of the target material.

Whenever a target material is soft, minimum shear force to perforate it will be small, as will minimum compressive force. As a result the residual velocity of bullet will be high, because most of the initial kinetic energy on impact will be saved. Conversely, for harder materials, most (or all) of initial kinetic energy will be spent as shear and – above all – compressive force to penetrate them, and residual velocity of bullet will be very much lower, or even nil.

But there is one factor that also plays into how bodies behave when hit by a bullet: obliquity, i.e. the angle at which the bullet impacts, i.e.e., we're getting back to why Tiger tanks have angled armour. Perhaps the simplest way to demonstrate obliquity's influence is this: take out a knife. Try and cut a carrot in half with the blade perpendicular to the carrot, i.e. straight on. Now angle your knife slightly side-on and see if you can cut it quite as easily.

Letting Miatella take the stand in what really sounds like an Italian guy speaking with English as his second language:

Why is the obliquity of bullets so important?

First of all, let us think about cliff divers in Acapulco, or platform (10 m.) divers.
We all know that divers always try to keep their bodies as much as possible perpendicular (i.e. 0° obliquity), at the moment of impact on water, to maximize the shear force, to minimize the bad effects (splashes, shocks, etc.) of a more oblique entry, thereby gaining a better (aesthetic) evaluation of dive from judges.

Thus, a more oblique dive means more water displacement, more compressive force is spent to the water surface, and a more difficult and sometimes even dangerous penetration in water.

Something very similar is taking place whenever projectiles are striking and perforating surfaces.

A superb experimental study of different behaviors of bullets according to obliquity, was a very accurate ballistic test conducted in 1962 by the Denver Research Institute of Denver University, under the technical direction of Detroit Arsenal (with Mr. H. Spiro as Project Engineer, and Rodney Recht as Project Supervisor).

That ballistic test was conducted with AP (armor-piercing) projectiles, which are designed to defeat and perforate armor targets, and which are even harder than FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullets, as a 6.5 mm. of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Moreover, target materials of those bullets were steel, aluminum, and titanium plates, a lot harder than human skull bones.

The main result of that test was as follows:

"Shattering occurs when axial compressive stresses produce shearing and tensile hoop stresses which exceed the strength of the core material. The projectile breaks up near the nose since axial stress decreases from maximum to zero from nose to tail (this effect is intensified by reduced frontal cross sections).

At zero obliquity, a matching AP projectile will commonly defeat armor without breaking up. However, at obliquities greater than 20-degrees, the projectile will break up at moderate velocities (1500 ft/sec at 20.-degrees, 1000 ft/sec at 30-degrees). Bending stresses, which increase in severity with impact obliquity, add to the axial stresses, causing the projectile to break up.

At the usual impact velocities, the time involved in impact has been determined to be of the order of 100 micro.- seconds; the time required for the elastic wave to travel the length of the 0. 50 cal. AP is about 10 micro-seconds. Thus, it is reasonable to assume for stress analyses that stresses are set up without delay in the projectile. A preliminary stress analysis, at several impact obliquities, of the 0.50 cal. AP M2 was performed on a National Science Foundation grant. Compressive stresses due to combined axial and bending stresses near the center of the 0. 50 cal. projectile were computed to be about 250, 000 psi at a 30 -degree obliquity, 600, 000 psi at a 60-degree obliquity (impact velocity 2,100 feet/sec.)"
(Denver Research Institute. Terminal Ballistics, p. 28-47)

Summarising: from 0 to 20 degree obliquity, AP bullets don't break up. From 20 to 60 degrees, they break up with increasing degrees of fragmentation. The axial stresses involved above 60 degrees are nearly three times as strong.

This means that a lot of kinetic energy is being spent at the surface of impact and becomes compressive force, as obliquity increases in the range 30°-60°, because projectile faces an increase of bending forces, and penetration becomes more and more difficult.

Hence, whenever bullet penetrates, this is mostly due to compressive more than shear forces, and fragmentation of bullet is always taking place, along with penetration. Moreover, whenever the angle of penetration is higher than 0°, projection of penetration area of bullet on target surface, is changing and it is increasing, from a perfect circle to a growing elliptic area, making in its turn increase the minimum energy required for perforation, and that is particularly dramatic whenever obliquity approaches 60°.

Over 60° impact obliquity, ricochet forces of tangential impact begin to increase and dominate, making more and more likely a rebound of projectile, with no penetration at all, with only a "scratch" effect on target material, whenever tangential obliquity reaches 1° - 12°, even on liquid surfaces (Vincent Di Maio, "Gunshot Wounds" p. 109-110.)

As evidenced by Denver Institute, the extent of fragmentation is greater near a 60° obliquity impact with 0.30 cal bullets (whose size is more similar to 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano bullets) and a bit more uniform at any degrees of impact between 30°-60°, with bigger 0.5 cal. bullets. The Final Report of Denver Institute, is a final proof that the same AP (or FMJ with softer materials) bullet can either penetrate a metal plate with no fragmentation, if the impact obliquity was within 0° (perpendicular with target surface) and 20°, or break-up and shatter into minute fragments, if angle of impact was bigger than 20°, with a huge fragmentation near 60° impact obliquity.

What does this mean for the JFK assassination? Coming in a later part.

269.jpg
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Onward.

What angle did the bullet hit from?
You would think this would be an exercise in high school geometry given we know from the Zapruder film where Kennedy's limo was at the moment his head exploded. The bottom of the Texas School Book Depository, the sixth floor window, and the location of Kennedy's head provide us with a right-angled triangle. Failing that, we have the autopsy photos which supposedly indicate an entry point for the shot and an exit wound for the shot.

As with many things about the JFK assassination, it's not quite so simple. For example, most of you will know there have been a couple of reviews of the Warren Commission's findings. One of the more well-known ones was the House Select Commission on Assassinations, the HSCA, in 1978 or so. At one point they controversially (because of the audio evidence Mercenary was talking about) found that it was likely there were two shooters, but reversed their stance.

But more interestingly, the HSCA made something of a magic bullet out of the final, headshot. A Warren Commission-supportive TV show did a "computer recreation" of the shot: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm
And the first thing they found was that the HSCA's computation of the trajectory of the headshot, given the nominated entry wound and exit wound of the bullet, was impossible. The HSCA's findings necessarily implied the final bullet originated from somewhere above the roof of the Book Depository. The reason for that was because they didn't correctly calculate the angle JFK's head was at when the last bullet hit. So they do something else: they suggest the final bullet entry and exit wounds are not the result of a straight line trajectory, that the bullet deflects while tumbling through JFK's skull and head. They go on to suggest that because a shattered nose and tail section of a bullet were found in the limo that these were consistent with such a deflection and explained the non-straight-line of the entry and exit wound.

When the bullet hit, JFK's head was tilted forward somewhere between 11 degrees (the HSCA's calculation) and 27 degrees (the computer recreation). He's also turned away from Zapruder by about 25 degrees, and rolling over to the left by about 18 degrees.

These are significant numbers because the obliquity of the shot - the angle at which the final bullet struck JFK's head - was well under 60 degrees in each case and most likely well under 30.

So what?
Let me digress: assuming (which I don't) that CE399 is the single/magic bullet fired and passing through JFK and Connally, this is one reason why the forensics support one shot causing the seven wounds. The reason being that, under the same computer calculation I mentioned earlier, http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm , the "magic bullet" is moving downward at an angle of about 17.5 degrees. CE399 coming out relatively pristine is an expected result because the obliquity to the target is low ... and bullets hitting targets at low obliquity, that is, at below 20 degree obliquity, hold together significantly well on straight penetrations of their targets. The bullet doesn't deform significantly when it hits Kennedy, and by the time it hits Connally its velocity has slowed significantly. No velocity, no kinetic energy, less stress on the bullet, hence why it survived.

But as we've seen, if you assume (as the Warren Commission did) all the shots are coming from the one rifle in the space of about 7 to 8 seconds, you have a bullet fired at roughly the same obliquity (20 degrees vs. somewhere between 11 to 27 degrees) which behaves as if it had been fired at a much higher level of obliquity than the one fired only seconds before. Bullets fired between 30 and 60 degree obliquity or close to it significantly deform, even shatter. Kennedy's head has a cloud of tiny metal fragments in it, visible on X-rays. One pathologist, Dr. Humes, described a cloud of tiny metal fragments like grains of sand near the front exit wound in the head.

Miatella goes further: simply put, the shot which caused the results of Kennedy's head wound is not compatible with physics. It doesn't require frangible ammo. It doesn't require a dum-dum bullet. The shot did not take place at the obliquity which would generate massive fragmentation of the bullet such as was seen in Kennedy's head wound.

Then what would?
Miatella's view -- and it's one the best forensic book on the JFK assassination, Don Thomas's Hear No Evil, shares -- is that a shot from the grassy knoll would occur at the required 60 degree obliquity to generate the destruction the bullet did. It is the only shot that explains the forensic results that Don Thomas speaks of in his book and which is explainable in physics.

But I think Miatella also misses the other possibility: if your bullet is travelling much faster than it was designed for, it necessarily has higher kinetic energy and is far more subject to warping and shattering on impact than it normally would be. Thus the Carcano round loaded into a Winchester jacket and fired with a Winchester rifle, at nearly double the muzzle velocity of the Carcano and with a much better-made, more accurate rifle.

But what about Edgewood Arsenal?
That is, the Warren Commission's attempts to duplicate the head shot. Edgewood Arsenal conducted 10 shots on human skulls to see if it could replicate Oswald's result. This being the Warren Commission, it did. 10 out of 10 times, the skulls blew out on the right side, consistent with Kennedy's results. You can see the results of the shots here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=33

The problem being:

(1) it used dried out human skulls, which are vastly more fragile than the real thing -- as Warren Commission devotee Larry Sturdivan testified to before the HSCA.

(2) they filled the skulls with ballistic gel, which is not the same as brain matter and doesn't respond the same way brain does.

(3) The results are of massive, half-skull blowouts and facial reconstruction, not the top-quarter head blast we see on Kennedy's autopsy.

(4) It is also not clear that they calculated the correct obliquity of the shot, either. I have not gone looking for the film of the tests, but the report of the Arsenal itself says nothing about placing the gun at a higher angle to simulate the trajectory of the bullet. The only photo in the report of the setup for shooting shows a guy aiming a gun that is set up on the ground -- completely different from Oswald who was, by definition, six storeys up off the ground. This is important because angle of impact is highly significant, as Miatella points out.

(5) The shooters were attempting to replicate a result the Warren Commission insisted upon, i.e. entry at the occipital and exit at the right top. There are serious questions about whether this was how the bullet actually entered (Miatella thinks not). But that aside, that necessarily means the skulls are turned slightly to the left ... which raises the obliquity of the shot in any event.

(6) There was gelatin rather than a simulated scalp to cover the skull. This is significant too since they're not the same thing, and therefore changes the results. In later years the very same ballistic experts who conducted the Edgewood tests would acknowledge the lack of a scalp could increase the skull blast factor by four.

In summary: there has to be a second rifle, because the rifle and ammo in Oswald's position could not have produced the result of the head shot that it did. Sherlock Holmes, inverting Ockham's Razor, was blunt about it: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. For there to be a second rifle, there are only three possibilities: different position, different weapon, different ammunition, or all three.

Some final thoughts: was Oswald involved?
Whether Oswald was involved or not I don't know. Sifting the information I've seen to hand including his TV interviews after arrest I'm inclined to think he knew something was going to happen, or possibly did take a shot, but he wasn't the man who fired the final shot that killed JFK. If I'd been on a jury and all of this material had been presented my obligation would have been to acquit, because the mass of evidence does not convict beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the forensics.

Oswald's famous defence is that he was "just a patsy". I'm inclined to think this might be the disproof of all those amateur psychologists out there who conclude that Oswald was a lone nut gunman who wanted to be famous, to be somebody, and that he killed JFK for that reason. Narcissists don't say they are "just" anything. A narcissist is the centre of the play.

On the other hand, Oswald's language and words shift around a bit. After saying he's just a patsy he later says he doesn't know anything about what's going on, and some amateur voice stress analysts say that his language illustrates he's bullshitting at some parts of his interviews, notably when he says "I didn't kill anyone" when supposedly the more honest response would have been along the lines of "I didn't kill the President". It's possible Oswald was duped into thinking he would be an important part of some great scheme to save the American people, but who knows. Most of this is snake oil. All I am inclined to believe is the data: if it's possible that Oswald fired the last shot, it's on a likelihood with winning the lottery. But given all the SNAFUs around the JFK investigation, up to and including the Warren Commission and the HSCA, there's an awful lot of luck - good and bad - floating around the assassination of JFK.
 

Rocha

Ostrich
Gold Member
This speech is quite something...what a man and a hero. JFK is one of America's best sons ever. Larger than life.


The story of the torpedo boat PT-109 and JFK's actions as commander are also a target for study and interest.


 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Another small thing to note about the head shot: over the decades, it has moved.

The Warren Commission's representation of the head shot was this:

CE388.jpg


Let's bear in mind these sketches were produced by an artist hired by the autopsy doctor, and were based on verbal descriptions, not taken from photographs or X-Rays or anything else. Notice that the angle of the shot is very, very dependent on JFK being bent over like he's playing his Xbox; if he's sitting up anywhere near straight, or indeed if he's just a few degrees straighter, it becomes impossible for Oswald to have taken the shot purely because the angle does not match.

But the HSCA's representation of the shot was this:

HSCA_Figure29.jpg


Four inches, or ten centimetres higher.

Let's not understate just how big a fuckup this implies on the part of the autopsy crew and/or the doctors who examined and recorded JFK's wounds. The bullet is said to enter entirely different bones of the skull. This is a case of the doctors who arrived at the Warren Commission conclusion literally not knowing their heads from their asses.

But then, that may be -- and it's not a subject we're going to get into heavily here, because it's a path littered with firehoses of insanity -- because there's a lot more uncertainty about the placement of Kennedy's head wounds than you might think.

There's a fascinating parallel between eyewitness testimony from Dealey Plaza and medical testimony between Parkland Hospital where they tried to save JFK's life and Bethesda Naval Hospital, where they conducted his autopsy. On Dealey Plaza, roughly half the witnesses claim to have heard shots from the grassy knoll, and half from the Book Depository.

Similarly, there is a major disconnect between where doctors at Parkland Hospital saw JFK's exit wounds and where the doctors at Bethesda say they were. At Parkland most of the medical staff there - doctors and nurses and even some FBI agents - indicate that the massive, gaping exit wound was in the right occipital or right parietal section of the head. That is, at the rear of the head. At Bethesda, the autopsy is the reverse: large blowout at the front, entry wound at the back (moving 10 cm, depending which assassination investigation you pick.)

The significance being that, as a matter of common sense, a massive exit wound at the back of Kennedy's head suggests a shot from the front. But as said I tend to leave that subject alone because you don't need the Parkland doctors' testimony to support the available forensic data; the magic exploding bullet is well and truly enough to dissolve the theory that Oswald acted alone.

I also stopped to look over that "53 questions" thing from Bugliosi's account. Perhaps the most glaring aspect of the questions is that, again and again, they say Oswald's actions are indicative of "guilt". The problem being that he doesn't go the next step to say "guilt of assassinating Kennedy." Bugliosi doesn't exclude the possibility that Oswald is guilty of bringing the rifle to the Book Depository for someone else. This is one reason I am inclined to think Oswald had an involvement in the crime. He may have known someone was going to shoot Kennedy and was told to bring the rifle to the building ... but realised shortly afterwards that he was going to be set up as the shooter.

It would fit with his assertion "I am just a patsy."
It explains him bringing "curtain rods" to the Book Depository.
It explains him being fairly calm leading up to the event, and then agitated afterwards.
It explains what seems more irrational and frantic behaviour after the event - as it dawns on him that he's going to be framed as the shooter.
It explains various lies he tells, if indeed they are lies in relation to the rifle.

Having said that, this could be speculation. Lee Harvey Oswald might be no more guilty than Samuel Alexander Mudd of shooting a President.
 
Top