Credible witness: Bill Newman’s story

One perennial question people have about the JFK story is, Who do you believe? One credible witness is a man named Bill Newman. He was there, about 15 feet from JFK, when the gunfire rang out. His testimony is important.

A 22-year-old plumber in 1963, Newman is still alive. He was recently profiled by the Dallas Morning News. His story of what happened that day has not changed over the years.

Watch the TV interview that Newman did within hours of the assassination in which he talked about the origins of the gunshot that killed President Kennedy. You decide.

On a personal note, I first met Bill Newman in person in 2005, when he was a still-active plumber in his 60s. I saw him again in Dealey Plaza on the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination.

In my conversations with him, I found him a down-to-earth man, plainspoken and modest. I didn’t ask him about any theories. I asked him about his impressions. He told the same story he told on November 22, 1963: that his strong sense was that the bullet came from behind him, i.e. the stockade fence on the grassy knoll.



  1. […] • Along with his wife, Gayle, Bill Newman was standing near the curb; he recalled the president “jumped up in his seat” just before a final shot “came from the mound” (the grassy knoll) ( […]

  2. Melvin Fromme says:

    One of the exasperating aspects of studying the JFK assassination is how poorly critical eyewitnesses like the Newman family are routinely handled by interviewers who fail to ask them the obvious questions created by statements & evidence from other eyewitnesses, particularly since they were directly in front of Abraham Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman (both involved in recording the ambush on film). Questions the family has yet to be asked in interviews include: Do you agree with the Zapruder film & if not, what did you see that differs from it? Did the parade car stop? Tell us about the men with weapons you have said you saw run past you. Did you smell or see gun smoke? Were there more people around you than what the visual evidence indicates? Did you see Dan Rather go past you while on the ground? What was going on behind the North pergola; were vehicles leaving the area? What was back there? Was someone on the bumper of JFK’s car when he was shot? (reported by Dan Rather on TV 3 times).
    Time is not going to wait to ask these questions of Bill Newman & his family & obtain their answers. Perhaps Bill & family can answer them through Jeff Morley or Bill’s own YouTube channel. Privacy can be maintained via both.

  3. Jonathan says:

    It’s telling to me that both husband and wife tell the same story to the interviewer. They are two witnesses with independent perceptions who saw, heard, and otherwise experienced the same events. That’s powerful corroboration.

    • dave says:

      Or it could be that they didn’t see or hear the same thing exactly, people rarely do, they are busy with their own thoughts..

      Think to when you have been out with your family and seen an accident or something. Peoples stories differ, even if they were there in the same place and together..

      What does happen between friends and families who witnes things such as this, is the then talk about it, and go over it tryign to make sense of what has happened and what they have seen, then the one who is most persistent (Whether right or not) will often eventually wear the other person down into agreeing with them..
      Sure not eveyone will, and in the re tellign they may say “Well, HE said it was 3 shots, but tbh I thought it was 4!” even if that does happen after years they may eventually either settle on some middle ground or the more adamant and persistent one will ‘win’ the argument and their version becomes factual to the both of them. “Well, maybe you are right”, “maybe’, I dont care lets just stop arguing about it” etc Soon they are both telling the same story.

      It has also been noted btw that people who tell the exact same story with the same words, and never vary the words used in the retelling of their storys are often lying, as they learn the lie off by heart.
      I wonder how many of the witnesses have had their interviews taken more than once ,and were recorded..It would be intersting to check them with word counting.

  4. John McAdams says:

    I don’t doubt that Newman has always been entirely honest, but his perception that shots came from behind him puts him in a minority of witnesses.

    Of course, he said that the right side (and not the back) of Kennedy’s head exploded. He told Tink Thompson that he thought “the ear went.”

    So, are conspiracists willing to believe him about that?

    By the way, this is really old stuff.

    • Jonathan says:

      “…a minority of witnesses.” Fewer than one-half of the witnesses to the gunshots.

      Do you have the numbers? If so, please share them here in detail. Please no link to another website. Right here.

      Even if more than one-half of the witnesses (ear and eye) disagreed with the Newmans, a jury would give great weight to their testimony. They were in 1963 up-close witnesses to the assassination; straightforward; plain talking; clear and consistent.

      John, you defend every aspect of the official story. Every aspect. As you must. For if just one element of the official story is proven false, the whole story crumbles.

      That’s the character of a lie. It is a delicate tissue. The truth on the other hand is durable and can sustain hard knocks.

      • John McAdams says:

        Here you go:

        John, you defend every aspect of the official story. Every aspect. As you must. For if just one element of the official story is proven false, the whole story crumbles.

        That’s the character of a lie. It is a delicate tissue. The truth on the other hand is durable and can sustain hard knocks.

        That sort of fussing and fuming can’t change the fact that you folks have posted factoid after factoid here.

        It’s the nature of a lie that it needs untruth after untruth to support it.

        Given that you and your fellow conspiracists have posted so many things that are untrue, don’t you think you might should step back and start scrutinizing your sources?

        You seem to be saying “never mind that we have posted factoid after factoid. There must be something real that supports a conspiracy.”

        • Jonathan says:


          Pleasem reply with facts. Thanks.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Will anyone else following this particular forum challenge John McAdams’ repetitive use of the term “factoid,” relate the term as having been coined by Norman Mailer, and from Norman Mailer consider that Mailer enthusiastically endorsed the alleged breakthrough analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald by unknown author Jean Davison who was allegedly inspired to write the book by her outrage at Mark Lane’s bold and egregious allegation that Jack Ruby did or did not ask for a lie detector test for reasons ill defined.

          A decade after Ms. Davison’s book, Norman “factoid” Mailer published his very own account of Oswald’s guilt published by Random House – home of James Phelan. (space and topic will most likely prohibit further expose of the implications on this site.)

          And following that to the present, John McAdams’ current and persistent reference to Mailer’s “factoids” as well as the research of Jean Davison (markedly endorsed by Norman “factoid” Mailer,) is in concert with Jean Davison’s persistent admonition on this site to consult mcadams….

          I defy either McAdams or Davison to identify a similar team effort at work on this site.

          • Jean Davison says:


            The “team effort” exists only in your overactive imagination. John McAdams and I seem to agree on most things, but many people here agree with one another — you and Jonathan, for instance. Are you a Jonathan a team? It would never have occurred to me to think so, and besides, who cares? What you or I say is either true or not true. Show that what I say is untrue, if you can. If you can’t, keep hurling silly insults, like you’re doing now.

            I’ve given no “admonitions on this site to consult McAdams.” Why don’t you for once QUOTE what I said instead of making up misleading paraphrases?

            You’re also wrong that Mailer gave my 1983 book an “enthusiastic” endorsement. He actually disagreed with my conclusion since he was still a conspiracy theorist back then. Also wrong that the
            “inspiration” for the book was Mark Lane’s distortions of Ruby’s testimony, although they certainly were “egregious.”
            And why bring up this 30-year-old book, anyway? I never do.

            I see that your “connection” mania has now linked me through Mailer (who I never met) to his publisher Random House — “home of James Phelan.” OMG, Garrison’s nemesis Phelan. Never met him, either.

            Maybe you forgot that Mailer was one of the original sponsors of the Fair Play for Cuba committee, which by your standards “links” me to your favorite patsy.

            To sum up, you are apparently obsessed with me, Ms. Sharpe, and your insults are laughable. Get over it.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, this Sharp is without the “e.”

            Considering the seriousness of the unresolved issues in the investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, hurt feelings are hardly the issue. Resorting to “how dare you challenge me” is an attempt to marginalize. If you are uncomfortable with our exchanges, you need only ignore me. I’m quite certain that the moderators of jfkfacts are capable of preventing any of us from crossing the line (and you’re well aware that they allowed you to YELL at me recently). You have no doubt encountered spirited exchanges over the years, and I doubt that I have elevated a bar. Given this most recent comment, you obviously have a few hurling abilities yourself. There’s an Irish saying that applies in this circumstance that goes something like “you surely showed your teethe.”

            The territory you and authors of the same opinion inherited, witting or not, is now beyond your control. For millions, you are the embodiment of the archetypal antagonist in the search for truth. The commonality you share with John McAdams is that you assert that you know the truth; I share with many a common knowing that a conspiracy was behind the assassination and that the critical players have yet to be exposed. For the record, Jonathan and I have on occasion disagreed, but we both seem to respect and value what that tug o’ war brings to the investigation.

            It’s somewhat paranoid for you to think that I’m obsessed with you personally. My obsession is with any private citizen that positions themselves as authority or arbiter of evidence in an unresolved murder case. My obsession is with convoluted statements ie. “there will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game.” In essence, you are saying that the truth does not matter now. I am obsessed with what that says about the soul of our country and our justice system.

            The real insult is to the American public writ large when certain researchers, journalists, authors and authorities refuse to acknowledge the discrepancies and contradictions, the omissions in the official record and that a final investigation incorporating new evidence and eliminating the errors in both the Warren Report and the HSCA must ensue. What would you or any advocates of Oswald’s guilt lose in the process? Why not engage with America in this metamorphosis?

            For the record, are you in favor of the CIA releasing the files sought by Jeff Morley?

          • Jean Davison says:


            I apologize for misspelling your name. It was a careless error. And I didn’t intend to YELL at you — I use capital letters for emphasis, sorry.

            I’m not saying “how dare you challenge me,” I’m asking you to stop your personal attacks and stick to the issues. What’s wrong with that?

            I also haven’t “positioned myself” as an authority or arbiter or anything of the kind. I’m expressing an opinion that you don’t like.

            You say:

            My obsession is with convoluted statements ie. “there will never be a murder trial for Oswald, so what would have been admitted is irrelevant and a guessing game.” In essence, you are saying that the truth does not matter now.

            That’s nonsense and a complete misreading of what I said. If I didn’t think the truth mattered I wouldn’t be here.

            Do you think it makes sense to debate what would be admissible at trial if John Wilkes Booth had lived? We can consider all the evidence in each case, not just whatever someone here thinks would be “admissible.”

            You’re wrong again in suggesting that I “refuse to acknowledge” the discrepancies and other anomalies in the record. I just don’t agree with you about what they mean. Can’t you handle someone disagreeing with you?

            Yes, I’m in favor of the release of all JFK files, including those Jeff seeks, and I’ve signed petitions for that purpose.

          • leslie sharp says:

            The Lincoln assassination as metaphor is a red herring, and all who resort to it share in the duplicity. There were still suspects living as recently as this decade who should have been and could have been questioned regarding a role in the assassination and or the cover up of President Kenned; instead there appears to be a persistent attempt by some to run the clock.

            Assigning a Boothe-type role to Oswald was initiated by Gentleman Spy Allen Dulles on December 16, 2013, only 24 days after the assassination. Being an old hand at intelligence, he knew exactly what he was doing.

            I am certain that good researchers pursued the Lincoln conspiracy with zeal in their day as should we all while there is still time.

          • Jonathan says:


            On another thread I asked John to define “factoid”. He referred me to Merriam-Webster, which defines “factoid” as “an invented fact.”

            This is a nonsensical definition. There are facts and asserted (or purported) facts. “Invented fact” is an oxymoron. A fact is existentially independent of its apprehension. It cannot therefore be invented.

            But I’ll go along with “made-up facts” which are LIES. When McAdams accuses someone of uttering factoids he is de facto accusing the person of lying. The sort of ad hominem attack he abhors.

        • JSA says:

          John McAdams writes:

          “You seem to be saying “never mind that we have posted factoid after factoid. There must be something real that supports a conspiracy.”

          Sure John, the critics or skeptics of the Warren Commission version have made mistakes. But the acoustics evidence alone is pretty damning of the lone nut position you faithfully and tirelessly beat the drums for. The police motorcycle tape alone proves conspiracy because of the acoustical evidence for a shot fired from the grassy knoll–the fatal head shot shown in Zapruder frame 213.

          For those who aren’t familiar with the acoustical evidence, I recommend they read Don Thomas’ book, “Hear No Evil.” It’s not a book for the intellectually lazy, but it’s worth the time and effort to read all 700-plus pages. As the book shows, the acoustical evidence alone is pretty damning to the Warren Commission’s “politically correct” lone nut position.

        • leslie sharp says:

          John McA: As Peter posits, one single flaw in the allegations against Oswald proves a conspiracy.

          Is that conspiracy so threatening to your personal and professional stability that you would sacrifice Democracy for a false sense of security? Millions of Americans joined you in that dynamic .. terrified to consider the harsh ramifications of the conspiracy that unfolded on 11.22.63.

        • jeffc says:

          “you folks have posted factoid after factoid”

          The pie graphs you present are largely irrelevant and superficial. Researchers such as Pat Speer and Walt Brown have undertaken detailed and thorough analysis of the witnesses in and around Dealey Plaza. What stands out is that what people heard was largely dependant on where they were. The vast majority of people were near Elm and Main. Those who heard shots from this area tended to believe they came from the buildings. A much smaller number of people were close to the limousine at the time of the shots, and they almost unanimously believed shot(s) came from the knoll area.

          Walt Brown’s analysis in his “Chronology” leaves no doubt that something related to the shooting occurred in the knoll area. Were shots fired from there, was it some sort of diversion? There’s a reasonable debate to be had – but to suggest that nothing happened on the knoll, particularly based on a simple aggregate of numbers, is less than serious.

          • John McAdams says:

            Walt Brown’s analysis in his “Chronology” leaves no doubt that something related to the shooting occurred in the knoll area.

            Then what is the evidence of that?

            I’m not necessarily impressed with the opinions of Walt Brown or Pat Spear. If they have evidence, then tell us what it is.

    • Peter says:

      How is it any older than anything else discussed here? Also, these were an eyewitness’ impressions offered very shortly after the actual event itself, something Jean Davison especially champions as being far more trustworthy.

      • Jean Davison says:


        It’s well-established that fresh memories are more likely to be accurate than memories recalled months or years later, but that doesn’t mean that fresh memories are always entirely accurate. The Newmans’ same-day affidavits are here — did they get every detail right?

        According to an interview with Josiah Thompson, Bill Newman thought he was in the direct line of fire in part because he believed that the large wound he saw on the side of Kennedy’s head was an entry wound and because JFK fell away from him — IOW, that’s how it looked to him.

        Newman thought the shot came from “the garden directly behind me.” The Newmans were in front of the west end of the concrete pergola. The only “garden” I see behind him is the clump of bushes near Zapruder. The Newmans are on the ground here, in front of the pergola, not the fence:

        • Jonathan says:


          You’ve never been in a firefight, right?

          I can tell you and everyone else here that when the shooting starts, it’s pretty easy to know the general direction from which the shots are being fired. Sometimes easier than others, depending on terrain and distance.

          Humans have stereophonic hearing, which is generally very good at distinguishing direction toward sound source. Particularly when the sound is made close by the listener.

          Once in the army in dense woods, the unit I was with was ambushed. The troop on point was pinned down. I was farther back but could tell the shots came from above and in front of our route of movement. Turned out there were two snipers ahead in trees.

          This wasn’t highly special training, just ordinary perception coupled with some knowledge of gunfire.

      • JSA says:

        What is telling is, the same people (Photon and McAdams) use witness testimony from those who saw someone holding a rifle in the TSBD window on the sixth floor, which is okay and to be expected in an honest study of this case. But somehow, those who saw a flash of light, or smoke, or people behind the stockade fence, or the many witnesses who thought they heard at least one shot fired from the grassy knoll—-those people were all somehow deceived, or mistaken, or even lying. I welcome evidence showing shots or a shot fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD. That’s helpful to understanding what happened. But to ignore inconvenient witness testimony is being intellectually dishonest, maybe even deceitful. Just like those who deny that global warming is happening, that the evidence is overwhelming, and that our carbon burning is the primary driver of this change. It’s the same kind of disconnect.

        • John McAdams says:

          A few points:

          Only one person said “flash of light,” and Bowers was not at all sure about that. He told the WC it was something he could “not describe.”

          The “smoke” witnesses saw something, but one said “smoke or steam” and two mentioned motorcycle exhaust.

          As for “people behind the stockade fence,” that was Bowers. He said they were not together. He did not see them doing anything suspicious. One of these clearly remained around after the shooting.

          Bowers could not say about the others, since his clothing blended with the foliage.

          So be careful about assuming that there must have been a Grassy Knoll shooter, thus any testimony that might suggest that actually does.

          • James Feldman says:

            The statement that “[o]nly one person [i.e., Lee Bowers saw a] “flash of light”” is misleading. Several witnesses independently said that they saw “light” coming from the Grassy Knoll at the time the shots at JFK were fired. Two witnesses that come to mind are Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman, and there may be more. Of course, you dismiss those eye witnesses because they don’t support the LHO lone assassin theory, but you’d gladly embrace the government accounts of the testimonies of Howard Brennan and Helen Markham, neither of whom could identify LHO in the police line-up as the person that each of them saw in the respective JFK and Tippet murders. And you’ll ignore the scores of witnesses–many of them doctors and nurses–that described JFK’s head wound in which his brain was blasted out the rear of his head, completely consistent with a shot coming from the direction of the Grassy Knoll. And so on. The real mystery here is not from which direction the fatal head shot came from, but rather, why such individuals as John McAdams and David Von Pein spend so much time and energy fervently supporting the LHO lone assassin theory? It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with a commitment to truth and justice. Vince Bugliosi has an excuse. He at least made some good money from his “weighty,” but ultimately empty tome.

      • In the final analysis, Mr. and Mrs. William E. Newman are actually very solid witnesses in support of the official lone-assassin version of the assassination of President Kennedy.

        William Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the assassination) saying that he thought there were TWO shots, with both of those shots coming from “behind” him from the direction of the “garden” behind him, which is not the picket fence area.

        And Newman is even more specific in his 11/22/63 affidavit, when he said that the “shot” had come from “directly behind me”. And there’s no doubt that his “directly behind me” remark was referring to the HEAD SHOT, and Mr. Newman even confirms that fact in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum.

        And during that 2003 interview, Newman goes into even more detail about his observations when Bill Newman says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the “visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise”.

        Newman saw the right side of JFK’s head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in his 2003 interview.

        More below on how the conspiracy theorists have mangled Bill Newman’s statements and observations:

        • Gerry Simone says:

          In a video, he used his right thumb and pointed over his right shoulder (not his left), in the direction of the pergola.

          In the British mock trial, he points to the pergola on a map as an exhibit.

          This isn’t the TSBD.

          He probably felt the shock wave of a bullet from the front and thought it was behind him (he even said that he thought he was in the line of fire).

        • Paul Turner says:

          ok, so he was referring to the head shot with his “directly behind me”, but the grassy knoll was directly behind them too.

        • James Feldman says:

          As any experienced investigator knows, the initial statements made by a witness tend to be more accurate than ones made much later, particularly when there are pressures put on a witness to change the positions made in the initial statements. The classic case in the JFK assassination was Dr. Malcolm Perry’s statement that the bullet shot to JFK’s throat came from the front, as confirmed in a New York Times article that included an experienced reporter’s questions put to him to clarify the direction of that shot. Dr. Perry was then forced to retract his original conclusion under pressure from Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, who said that he “had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony.” Moore said that in threatening Perry he acted “on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters.” In the case of witness William Newman, his original statement was that he believed the shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll. You can observe and listen to an interview of him shortly after the assassination: Note that Newman even points to his temple in the front (although on the left side, rather than the right side; a mistake likely attributable to his shock and nervousness at the time). (Unfortunately, the TV newsman was exclusively interested in the human interest side of the case and did not ask any probing type question that could have elicited better statements about what actually happened, the way the reporter questioning Dr. Perry did.) Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, however, tells it just like it was at the time in this video at the time, demonstrating the direction and location of the fatal shot to the head: Undoubtedly, pressures were put on the Newmans to avoid saying that shots were fired from the Knoll. When you consider the many early deaths of so many individuals having a connection to the assassination in some way and the threats made so many others, I can readily understand the Newmans’ revisions of the events.

        • Paul Turner says:

          About your belief that Bill Newman said there were two shots, you may want to recall from Warren Commission testimony itself, among others, that there WERE two shots from the TSBD…two spent rounds found at the “sniper’s nest”. Newman most probably heard more, but they had to have come from somewhere else.

    • Jonathan says:


      We’ve all seen the alleged autopsy photo showing a large flap of scalp (and maybe bone) near the right ear.

      None of us were at the autopsy or Parkland. Everyone here deals with what we’re told is the historical record.

      The complete historical record indicates (a) a low entry wound in the right occipital region, (b) an entry wound above the right eye, and (c) a wound of entry in the right temple. In addition to a back wound at T3 and a throat entry wound.

      This record is assembled from the Warren Commission, the autopsy report, the ARRB testimonies of the autopsists, and the other witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda.

      • John McAdams says:

        So you are saying you don’t believe the Newmans on this?

        If not, you need to explain why they must be taken absolutely at face value regarding the source of the shots.

        • Jonathan says:

          Oh, I believe the Newmans. They describe clearly a bullet wound to the area of the right temple. Which is consistent with a damaged right ear and the right-temple skin flap.

          The fact the provide such a description is in no way inconsistent with scalp and bone missing from the rear of JFK’s head, as to which Humes testified to the ARRB.

          • John McAdams says:

            Actually, yes it is.

            There was only one large, gaping wound.

            The Newmans, like all the other Dealey Plaza witnesses, put it on the right side of the head, not in the back.

            Of course, the right top of Kennedy’s head exploding is what the Zapruder film shows. But I’m guessing you believe that was faked, right?

          • Photon says:

            There is absolutely no evidence for your allegation for ” an entry wound above the right eye” nor for “a wound of entry in the right temple”.
            I don’t recall that there was a firefight in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963; if anything at the first shot many witnesses had no idea what happened- many thought the sound of the first shot was a backfire or firecracker. Nobody was expecting a shooting. I fail to see how the sound characteristics of “dense woods” in any way replicate the sound patterns and echo characteristics of a built up urban area like Dealey Plaza. I have been in an urban area during military action and it is damn hard to find out where exactly the shots come from-particularly if you are not expecting anything.Besides, didn’t you claim to be in Army intelligence? What would you be doing going out on a patrol?

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to John and Photon:

            John: I’m OK with a blow-out of the right top of JFK’s head. Except I’ve never seen a photo of such a wound. The Rydberg drawing done at Hume’s direction shows the top of the head being blown off, but this drawing is meaningless as a matter of law. The Z-film (frame 313 et seq) is ambiguous as to JFK’s wounds. Frame 374 appears to show a blown out portion of JFK’s rear skull. Nothing here beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Photon, your experience in Beirut or wherever is unlike the Newmans’ experience in Dealey Plaza. Where the Newmans were standing is not built up; it’s basically open. Furthermore, there were not a large number of shots coming from different directions they witnessed. The shots to which they spoke were specific and discrete. Listen to the interview again.

            Agree “there is absolutely no evidence….” But there are indications of a shot entering above the right eye: (1) the “notch” photo, (2) the mortician’s written statement, (3) the high metallic debris trail that doesn’t correspond to an EOP entry site (even Humes stumbled over this).

            BTW, M.I. officers in Viet Nam engaged in a broad range of activities. A friend of mine from Language School who was operating under deep cover participated in a number of combat missions as an adviser to non-Vietnamese nationals. I was first assigned to replace a case officer who had been assassinated. There were few to no rules on what I could do many times and many places.

          • Photon says:

            Very perceptive. But Martyr’s Square was not dissimilar to Dealey Plaza, except that it was empty.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      He watched from the sidelines and didn’t notice the back of Kennedy’s head but that doesn’t mean there was no BOH blowout.

      I still say you can see a BOH avulsion in Z335-337.

      Conspiracists can believe in a right side explosion as blow-back from a frangible bullet coming from the right front.

    • Paul Turner says:

      “old stuff”, John? Let’s talk about old stuff. Aqua Velva after-shave began production in 1929. It’s still widely popular today. The goal of trying to show the JFK Asassination was an act of conspiracy began shortly after it happened in 1963, as people began to doubt the results of the Warren Commission report. That doubt is still happening today. Some things are timeless, because there is no reason they should NOT be.

    • Randy Gunter says:

      “By the way, this is really old stuff.” – McAdams

      The truth never gets old, McAdams. Especially when it has been suppressed and trampled for 51 years by shills like yourself.

      “This is really old stuff”…One of the lines the disinformation specialists use when confronted with the inconvenient truth.

    • Paul Turner says:

      I don’t care about this “minority of witnesses” stuff. John, he described what he saw, and so did his wife.

    • Paul Turner says:

      John, it may be “old stuff”, but it has remained an open case.

  5. Clarence Carlson says:

    There is a wealth of information here.
    Mr Newman describes the first gunshot as occurring when the presidential limousine was about fifty feet away and the last when it was at their location. If the car was going about 11 mph, or about 16 ft/sec it would have taken roughly 3-4 seconds to account for all the shots (which agrees with Altgen’s observations). Mrs Newman clearly describes seeing the president and Gov Connelly hit by different shots. And, of course, the final shot hitting the president “in the temple” and coming from behind them. The couple appears very credible.
    Thanks for posting this.

    • John McAdams says:

      Here they describe where Kennedy’s head exploded.

      Note that if flatly contradicts the notion that the back of Kennedy’s head was blown out.

      So, do you believe them on this issue?

      • Clarence Carlson says:

        Your question is, at best, tangential to this issue.
        Two credible witnesses, standing very close to the President when he was murdered recounted their observations at a time before any official account had been announced.
        The assassination took no more than 3-4 seconds.
        They saw two different shots hit Kennedy and Connelly.
        They observed that a shot hit the JFK in “the temple”.
        They observed that the shots came from behind them.
        My point was, I find this interesting.

        • John McAdams says:

          My point is that they put the wound not in the back of the head, where conspiracists want it, but on the right side.

          So if you are so “interested” in their perception of the source of the shots, should you not be equally interested in where they placed the large defect in the head?

          As for thinking he was shot in the temple: they could not really tell whether the wound they saw was an entrance or exit. They just saw his head explode.

          As for Kennedy and Connally being hit by different shots: their testimony is of little value compared to the Zapruder film.

          • Jonathan says:


            Oswald’s innocent as a matter of law. Period.

            You want to convict him here? Fine. You must do better. You’re creating a smear of facts. Nothing concrete.

            Remember, you have the burden of proof.

          • Peter says:

            Not sure why you are jumping on this as if it’s some giant disconnect. It’s clear, and everyone agrees, there was an awful wound inflicted to the right front of JFK’s head, which the Newmans saw from their front row seat (regardless of which direction the bullet came from). They weren’t in a position to see what happened to the back of his head.

          • Photon says:

            At least they SAW the back of his head.
            Which is more than you can say for every physician at Parkland, save for William Midgett, who was the only M.D. present who actually saw the external occipital protuberance prior to placing JFK on the gurney.He described a head wound which was virtually identical to that seen in the autopsy photos. There is not a single recorded statement from any of the Parkland ER docs that mentions moving JFK’s head after he was placed on the stretcher.
            That is a fact.

          • Pat Speer says:

            As much as I hate agreeing with Photon and McAdams, they are correct on this issue| the Newmans are star witnesses for the argument the back of the head was not blow out. I have argued this for years now, and have been called a spook etc by many of my fellow CTs for doing so, but it is nevertheless a fact that the Newmans, as James Chaney and Douglas Jackson, we’re looking at the back of JFK’s head at the moment of impact, but noted no wound on the back of his head. They saw an explosion on the side of his head–Chaney thought face.

            While LNs would like us to believe this means they all failed to note the bullet’s entrance, and only saw the exit, there’s a problem with this as well. Recent studies have shown that there is ALWAYs a splash of blood from the back of a skull when a rifle bullet enters. So why didn’t anyone notice this?

          • Photon says:

            Says who? When ever you say ALWAYS in medicine you are always wrong.Just because you put scrubs on in your video doesn’t make you an expert in medicine or wound ballistics. Name one reputable study that makes your claim.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Diane Hamilton Bowron was the first medically trained professional to witness the injury to the back of Kennedy’s head. She testified “the back of his head … it was bad you know … I just saw one large hole.”

            Miss Bowron’s observations were acute, uncorrupted by any speculation or intimidation that ensued in the drama as it unfolded in the Emergency Room. And yet, Mr. Specter diverts her from One Large Hole in the Back of his Head to ask if there was another hole in the temple? That is outrageous. He knew it was impossible for her to have identified a temple wound under the blood and debris, and yet he asked her the question. Was he intending to marginalize her testimony about the large hole in the back of the head? Specter failed in his duty to question this Bowron, the first medically trained witness to the primary injury, and imv he should be metaphorically “hung by his thumbs” posthumously for his role in the cover up:

            Miss Bowron. …. I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car – the President.

            Mr. Specter. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition?

            Miss Bowron. He was moribund – he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

            Miss Specter. You saw the condition of his what?

            Miss Bowron. The back of his head.

            Mr. Specter. And what was that condition?

            Miss Bowron. Well, it was bad – you know.

            Mr. Specter. How many holes did you see?

            Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole.

            Mr. Specter. Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

            Miss Bowron. No, sir.

            Mr. Specter. Did you notice any other wound on the President’s body?

            Miss Bowron. No, sir.

            Mr. Specter. And what action did you take at that time, if any?

            Miss Bowron. I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

          • Pat Speer says:

            if you do even the slightest bit of research, Photon, you’ll find that back spatter is to be expected when a bullet enters a body. it is not a sometime thing. A high velocity bullet makes it more so, and a high velocity bullet entering a skull makes it a done deal.

            if you can find an expert on gunshot wounds to tell you no back spatter would be expected should a high velocity bullet’ enter a skull it would be quite a shock.

          • Photon says:

            I asked for a reference, Pat.
            The fact that you can’t produce one says more about your claim than anything that I could post.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Like I said, Photon, the least bit of research on your part would have confirmed that backspatter or backsplash is an expected byproduct of a bullet’s entering a skull.

            Gee…where did I first get this idea? Oh yeah, Larry Sturdivan discussed this in his 1978 HSCA testimony. He showed the committee a bullet entering a can of tomato soup in slow motion and testified:

            “The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions. Notably the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came. You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile.”

          • Photon says:

            Still no reference. Because there isn’t any.
            You have misinterpreted a quote from someone whom you neglect to mention supports the conclusion that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin.
            Your conclusion about back spatter is simply an error unsupported by any reputable source. Since when does a can of tomato soup replicate the physical characteristics of a brain filled skull composed of bone and periosteum? As I have previously noted your understanding of the medical issues in this case is very weak.You need a much better understanding of anatomy and histology before you make comments that are easily dismissed by real experts .

          • Pat Speer says:

            You just never learn, Photon. Why not just say the Earth is flat and get it over with?

            I make the observation that no one noticed blood spray from the back of Kennedy’s head. A reasonable response would have been that they were distracted by the larger explosion from the front of the head. My response would then have been that, as concluded by ITEK and pushed by Bugliosi, among others , no spray was recorded in the Z-film., either. A reasonable response to this would have been that it remains to be seen if e fine mist of back spatter would be recorded by Zapruder’s camera at that distance.

            But no, you go all out and start claiming back spatter would not be expected, and demanding that I prove to you it would be. I then quote Larry Sturdivan’s HSCA testimony in which he used a film of bullet piercing a tomato can to demonstrate the wound ballistics of the head shot. You then claim that I’m misrepresenting his testimony and that there is no similarity between a skull and a tomato can.

            So here’s a question| why did he show them the film? He showed them films of bullets striking skulls with no fluid inside, and then showed them a film of a bullet striking a tomato can. Why would he do this if he wasn’t trying to make a point?

            And, while you’re thinking about that, maybe you should google Sherry Fiester, a certified blood -spatter analyst (has talked about this issue extensively, for 15 years or so, and built her book Enemy of the Truth around this central question

          • Photon says:

            Exactly who “certified” Sherry Fiester as a blood spatter analyst? Is her “certification ” as valid as Jeff’s acoustic ” expert” Primeau? It is past time for real documentation of Ms. Fiester’s experience and expertise. There is nothing specific on her website about ANY trials that she testified in nor any specific investigations that she participated in. Her book is a mishmash of assumptions and claims totally devoid of any objective evidence of support aside from her own impressions pulled out of thin air.She claims to be able to interpret x-rays when it is obvious that she has had zero training in even the most elemental aspects of radiology. Nor has she ever even seen an autopsy .
            To say that the characteristics of skull bone tissue in a living human being have any correlation to a metal can of tomato soup is illustrative of your basic ignorance of human anatomy and bone histology. Obviously you have never held a real human skull from a post mortem specimen- it is quite different from even a cleaned but real human calvaria .
            Can you even describe the characteristics of the dura mater? How it could affect the ballistic characteristics of a missile ? There is no analogous structure in a can of tomato soup.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Photon, here’s a reality check. You are anonymous–a make believe person with no background. And yet, you insist real people who have been writing about the case for years or even decades need to carefully explain things to you, and prove to you, a make believe person, they are who they say they are, and are as well-read as they claim to be.

            It doesn’t work like that. If I say blood spatter would be expected from a high-velocity head wound, you are perfectly within your rights to claim that that isn’t accurate and then cite or link to research indicating I’m incorrect. But stomping your feet and disagreeing with every point I make, or Sherry makes, and demanding we prove it to you–or else be exposed as frauds–is just not kosher. It’s called trolling.

            P.S, You still haven’t answered my question. Why did Sturdivan show the HSCA the film of the bullet hitting the tomato can?

          • Photon says:

            I have no idea why Sturdivan shot a tomato soup can. I am not referencing it-you are.
            Why am I obligated to explain the significance of a test that I have demonstrated has no significance? Because it is the only “evidence” that you can come uo with for your back splatter claim? Still no reference.
            For that matter, where is the documentation for the claims of expertise related to Ms. Fiester? Wasn’t she just a police officer on a small town force when she became a crime investigator? What cases was she a part of? Any murder cases? After reviewing the NOVA program on crime investigator credentialing I take these claims with a grain of salt.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Okay Photon, I’ll play. Sturdivan was the HSCA’s wound ballistics expert. He’s in the single-assassin theorist hall of fame. He has all the credentials you and I lack, and that you find so impressive. So why did he show the HSCA a film of a bullet striking a tomato can? He was demonstrating the physics of the head shot, EXACTLY as I said from the beginning.

            Mr. STURDIVAN – There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions. Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came. You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.

          • Paul Turner says:

            John, you write about where conspiracists “want” a wound to be. How about where Specter and Ford “wanted” the back wound to be?

          • Paul Turner says:

            There were two headshots, John. There was the gaping hole in the back of his head, AND the blast to the right side of his head. LHO could not have fired the latter shot.

          • Photon does not understand the significance of the tomato can, nor the light bulb slow motion photography findings.

            These findings have nothing to do with the “structure” of the struck object, but have to do with the fraction of a second, momentary weight of the object being struck as heavier than the bullet.

            As the bullet touches the object the weight of that object leans into the lighter mass of the bullet, only when the velocity of the bullet overwhelms this weight differential with kinetic energy does the object move with the trajectory of the bullet.

            Just the fact that Fiester understands and uses this information in her analysis proves that Photon has no legitimate argument to doubt her expertise.
            Photon disqualifies herself by her own stated ignorance of the issue.

          • Blood Spatter

            “Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible.” (James, 2005).
            ‘Essential Forensic Biology’ By Alan Gunn

            Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations) Hardcover – May 26, 2005
            by Stuart H. James (Author), Paul E. Kish (Author), T. Paulette Sutton (Author)

          • Photon,

            The proper term is “backspatter”, it is a non-negotiable FACT that backspatter as well as physical movement forward of the target at the moment of bullet entry (the “nod forward” in the JFK case)

            Photon keeps yelping “medical experts!!”, when it is in fact BALLISTIC EXPERTS that must be acknowledged here.

            I have listed several sources on modern ballistic science on this forum recently. Photon is on notice; the information has been made available here. Pleading ignorance and continuing on with his textual ululations will not cut it here.

    • Dave says:

      According to the link from John McA, the Connellys were two of “the best” witnesses situated in Dealey Plaza. OK.
      They are also on record saying many times that they heard the first shot … and then the Governor was hit. Two separate shots, too close together to both originate from the same alleged shooter, Oswald. What about that inconvenient little factoid?
      Please don’t try to claim that while the Connellys were two of the best earwitnesses as to where the shots came from, gee whiz, they got it wrong about the timing of the shot that hit the Governor.

      • John McAdams says:

        Two separate shots, too close together to both originate from the same alleged shooter, Oswald.

        No, they never said “too close together.”

        • Pat Speer says:

          John Connally’s earliest statements do, in fact, suggest the shots were fired too close together to have been fired by someone firing Oswald’s rifle.

          4-21-64 comments by Connally after studying the Zapruder film, as per a 4-22-64 memorandum for the record written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin Eisenberg) “(d) After viewing the films and slides, the Governor was of the opinion that he had been hit by frame 231. (e) The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right. He felt the President might have been hit by frame 190. He heard only two shots and felt sure that the shots he heard were the first and third shots. He is positive that he was hit after he heard the first shot, i.e., by the second shot, and by that shot only.”

          4-21-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 4H129-146) (When asked about the timing of the shots) “It was a very brief span of time…so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots.”

          (11-23-66 press conference, as shown in a 1996 episode of the MSNBC program Time and Again, featuring Jane Pauley.) “I think there was more than half a second between the shots. I think there was probably almost close to two seconds between the time President Kennedy was hit by the first shot and the time I was hit.”

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          But in fact, if they were so closely spaced as multiple witnesses said, I.E. Bam-Bam, nobody, Oswald included could have done that with a bolt action rifle.

        • Dave says:

          John: the Connallys didn’t say “too close together”, I said it in my post. Because it’s true: the MC couldn’t be fired twice within 1.6 secs. Ergo, two shooters.

  6. heather says:

    One thing I have noticed is Johm Mcadams or Photon always appear during the posts with the strongest evidence to muddy the waters.

    As per Mcadams supposedly the majority of witnesss heard shots from the book depository and yet film evidence shows most people running towards the knoll or fence.

    Of course instead answering the direct question about proving his assertion to insulting or denigrating “conspiracy theorists”

    Really resorting to insults instead of answering direct a direct question is evidence that a person does not know the answer or knows their original assertion is without merit.

    • Jonathan says:


      I’ve been thinking about your comment here for a day.

      I believe you are correct: “…Johm Mcadams or Photon always appear during the posts with the strongest evidence to muddy the waters.”

      There are certain posts by Jeff that don’t draw John McAdams or Photon. Other posts and comments do, fiercely.

      • Photon says:

        So the Newman’s ears are more accurate than their eyes?
        You want everybody to accept their “ear witness” testimony while ignoring where they saw the head wound.
        I am still waiting for any evidence that ” ear witness testimony” has ever benn used in a trial.
        As I have stated before the whole concept of “ear witnesses ” in the echo chamber of Dealey Plaza is so fraught with inaccuracy and error as to be virtually meaningless.

        • Peter says:

          Not sure why you and the professor are harping on this as if it’s some giant disconnect. Everyone agrees that there was an awful wound inflicted on the right front of JFK’s head, which the Newmans saw from their front row seat (regardless of which direction the bullet came from). They weren’t in a position to see what happened to the back of his head.

        • Jonathan says:


          I’ve come to try to understand you.

          You have heard and maybe seen combat within a city. You presumably know what automatic weapons fire sounds like in a city.

          I respect your experience photon.

          Tell us what a single rifle shot would sound like to the Newmans, photon.

          • Photon says:

            Probably like a gunshot. But that does not mean that they could accurately determine the source, no matter what their perceptions were at the time.
            The autopsy results proved that the source of the head shot could not have come from behind the Newmans. The characteristics of bullet reports in a partially enclosed area such as Dealey Plaza are unpredictable and not consistently reproducible, as the HSCA 95% certainty acoustics fiasco demonstrated. Again, is there any evidence of ear witness testimony being considered accurate enough in locating a firing source to be introduced in a trial?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          You exaggerate the echo distortion (if any which are significant) to try to nullify any notion contrary to the official version.

          This website has posted 20 + professional witnesses (police and SSA, etc.) who heard the last two shots closer together, such that it could not be from a bolt action rifle like the MC.

          Those professional witnesses know the difference between a shot and an echo.

          You may get an echo off the buildings east of the GK if a shot sound emanated from there.

          How much echo from a shot emanating from the TSBD or DT building (the sound would travel under the bridge or through the underpass)?

          As for ear-witness evidence used in a trial, didn’t they ask all sorts of people to describe what they heard in the Zimmerman trial about an alleged cry by Trayvon Martin?

          There are probably many more examples.

          (An echo has a ‘hollow’ sound to it which may repeat, versus an original-source sound which is more distinct or sharp).

          • Photon says:

            I think that we have already dealt with the “experts” associated with the Zimmerman trial and the unreliabilty of their statements.
            Professional witnesses? There is no such thing as a ” professional ear witness” . In addition, your comments about “professional witnesses” knowing the differences between a shot and an echo are ludicrous . You have posted no study or reference that supports your claim; the mere fact that multiple witnesses have totally different perceptions is confirmation that the acoustic evidence is unreliable and inaccurate.

        • John McAdams says:

          Here are two links to Z frame pics that show an avulsion to his BOH (& that’s not Jackie’s hand):

          I guess if you squint really hard, you might be able to see that — with a nice dose of imagination added.

          But all the medical witnesses said there was one “large defect.” Conspiracists will quote them, and claim the blow-out was in occipital bone.

          But now you are claiming two large defects in Kennedy’s skull?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            No squinting necessary (with respect, perhaps a stronger pair of glasses but it’s visible with the unaided eye).

            Nothing new here either.

            Select Parkland doctors saw the avulsion to the BOH. One may even say it exists in this enhanced Moorman photo (triangular defect):


            Entrance on right side and exit right rear.

            A tangential shot from a westerly location behind the picket fence (IOW, not the alleged Badgeman location).

            Here’s another lateral view with a measuring aid (this isn’t mine – could be Bob Harris’ or other researcher):


        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ Photon => You said:

          I think that we have already dealt with the “experts” associated with the Zimmerman trial and the unreliabilty of their statements.
          Professional witnesses? There is no such thing as a ” professional ear witness” . In addition, your comments about “professional witnesses” knowing the differences between a shot and an echo are ludicrous . You have posted no study or reference that supports your claim; the mere fact that multiple witnesses have totally different perceptions is confirmation that the acoustic evidence is unreliable and inaccurate.

          You know that I wasn’t talking about the expert witnesses engaged in the Zimmerman trial.

          You specifically asked if there were any ear-witnesses that were called upon to testify at a trial and I gave you the Zimmerman trial as an example. I recall an African-American ‘ear witness’ who knew Trayvon Martin and was asked to name the identity of the person she heard who had screamed.

          You can try to deny that which you ignore but readers here know better.

          As for ‘professional ear witness’, it simply means a witness who is not a lay person.

          It isn’t ludicrous to say that a police officer or Secret Service Agent that is familiar with fire-arms and shooting them knows a thing or two about gun shots and their echoes.

          As for Dealey Plaza being an ‘echo chamber’ as you put it, do you have any studies or references that back up your general claim?

          If you claim that acoustic evidence is unreliable or inaccurate, then you must admit that even three shots must be called into question.

          (The WC did not investigate all the witnesses which is problematic).

          • Photon says:

            Most witnesses heard three shots. Hearing three shots has no relationship to identifying their source of origin .

          • Gerry Simone says:

            April 9, 2014 at 9:23 pm
            Most witnesses heard three shots. Hearing three shots has no relationship to identifying their source of origin .

            Only if you neglect not to ask them where the shots came from.

    • John McAdams says:

      As per Mcadams supposedly the majority of witnesss heard shots from the book depository and yet film evidence shows most people running towards the knoll or fence.

      In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, people are merely running (among the few that are running) down Elm in the direction of the retreating limo.

      The rush of people to the Knoll only happens when Clyde Haygood finally gets into the Plaza, drops his motor and runs up the grassy slope. The people then follow him.

      • Michael Hogan says:

        In his WC testimony Haygood told David Belin:

        “When I first got to the location there, I was still on Houston Street, and in the process of making a left turn onto Elm Street I could see all these people laying on the ground there on Elm. Some of them were pointing back up to the railroad yard, and a couple of people were headed back up that way….”

        In describing the spacing of the shots Haygood said:

        “The last two were closer than the first. In other words, it was the first, and then a pause, and then the other two were real close.”

        Haywood was on Main Street, just approaching Houston when he heard the shots.

        • John McAdams says:

          You are changing the subject. The simple fact is that it was not until Haygood ran up the grassy slope that people ran up behind him.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            Why did Haygood choose to run up the slope toward the railroad yard?

            His Warren Commission testimony makes that clear.

    • Paul Turner says:

      More than just film evidence shows people running up that way, Heather. Have you heard the report from the Dallas radio helicopter, just as the assassination begins? The guy says “….There’s numerous people rushing up the hill at this time…”. John McAdams will hear him say that too, as opposed to “There’s numerous people rushing towards the TSBD”.

  7. Preston Newe says:

    If ever a book clarifying what did & did not happen on Elm Street directly in front of them begs to be written it unquestionably concerns the experience & observations of Bill & Gayle Newman. As theories pop up claiming this person or that person did the evil deed to JFK & John Connally the originators forget that the Newmans were close enough to JFK to almost touch him. Same is true for Zapruder & other JFK ambush home movie & photo alterationists; who better to know if some or all of them have been faked than the Newmans. Who better can fix the confusion than the very first two eyewitnesses interviewed on live TV? Bill & Gayle & sons, I hope you are listening & keep in mind Jeff Morley can share information from you to him while assuring your privacy is maintained. If one believes in Divine intervention, the Newman family’s presence in Dealey Plaza when JFK was attacked & murdered was no accident.

    • Thomas Joseph says:

      Excellent observation, Mr. Newe. For each Greer shot JFK, Jackie shot JFK, John Connally shot JFK, Roy Kellerman shot JFK, secret service agents behind JFK shot him, phantom JFK car rear bumper agent shot JFK, storm drain shooters shot JFK, the creators are overlooking that all of that supposedly happened in front of or very close to the Newman family.

  8. Mike says:

    The Newmans felt that there was a gunshot(s) from behind them, from the grassy knoll area, as did many others. Whether that shot was the fatal shot doesn’t matter in my opinion. I may be in the minority, but based upon my viewing of the Zapruder film, I think that the fatal shot came from behind the President. The spray of tissue and bone appeared to go forward. When the President moved to the left, his right arm appeared to abduct in a posturing position, and I think that this was all in response to a massive cerebral insult. (I’m a neurologist) I had not read anything about the assassination in 20 years, and the amount of evidence connecting Oswald with the intelligence community and the anti-Castro Cubans is overwhelming to me. I have the utmost respect for Jeff Morley and others who continue to try to reveal the truth of this tragedy.

  9. Karen Moore says:

    My Mother Doris Mumford, who stood near the Newmans and can be seen on the grass close by in the Wiegman, Stoughton, Bell, (and more photos/videos) told me that she “heard three shots, they came from behind her, and she saw the life leave the President’s face.” It seems to corroborate what the Newmans had to say that day.

    • Jonathan says:


      Thank you for your comment. It’s not evidence from a legal standpoint. But it’s meaningful. It’s an indication the Newmanns were correct.

      • Photon says:

        Not really. It just means that people exposed to the same sound at the same position may believe that the sound is coming from the same direction.It does not make that belief correct.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          It doesn’t make that belief ‘correct’ because it is corroborative evidence contrary to your prosecutorial position.

          If your statement has general merit, then we must discount all acoustical evidence.

          If you also acknowledge that Dealey Plaza is an echo chamber, then perhaps there were only two shots and one echo.

          • Photon says:

            Identifying the number of shots is one thing, correctly identifying their source by sound alone is an entirely different manner. However, I do find it interesting that the only photographic evidence that shows people reacting to the SOUND of the shot is the Altgens photo. Of course, the Zapruder film shows Connolly turning around in reaction to a shot- but that is faked-right?

        • Paul says:

          Photon, by that logic everybody who heard shots comng from the TDB could have been wrong. If large groups of people can be fooled by the direction of a sound, how can that prove that any one group was right or wrong?

          WC defenders keep throwing out these immutable laws about evidence but only use them when it suits their purpose.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Karen’s comment in of itself is hearsay, yes, but her Mother would be a true witness who’s testimony would be entirely admissible in court.

        (Was Doris Mumford called to testify for the WC?)

        • Photon says:

          No, because “experts” like Bill Kelly have claimed for years that she was Cheryl McKinnon.Heck, even Jeff fell for the McKinnon fiction.

  10. Clarence Carlson says:

    Re: wound at the back of the head.
    “At least they SAW the back of his head.
    Which is more than you can say for every physician at Parkland”

    Testimony of Kemp Clark MD WCH Vol VI: “I then examined the wound in the back of the head”. He notes:”the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted”.

    • JSA says:

      Photon has that contingency covered. Any of the MDs or assistants (like Nurse Audrey Bell) who claim to have seen the back of JFK’s head blasted out are LYING. Case closed. How convenient!

      • Photon says:

        On March 21, 1964 Dr. Clark admitted that he never turned JFK over and never directly observed the external occipital protuberance .

        • JSA says:

          Can you cite that quote? I think it’s taken out of context (see below) but worth rereading.


          • Clarence Carlson says:

            JSA: you nailed it. Clark, a neurosurgeon, was able to observe the wound with enough accuracy to see that cerebellar tissue was visible. The cerebellum could only have been seen this clearly if a significant portion of the occipital was missing. Any argument that the president was not turned over is spurious and should be ignored.

          • Photon says:

            If you can’t see the back of the head how can you possibly know what is there?

        • Michael Hogan says:

          Doctor Clark was the Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital. His qualifications were beyond reproach. As noted by Clarence Carlson above, Clark told Arlen Specter:

          “I then examined the wound in the back of the President’s head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.”

          • Photon says:

            Funny how you left out Dr. Clark’s comments about how superficial his head examination was and how the post-mortem exam would elucidate the true nature of the head wound.

          • Gerry Simone says:


            How long of a look does a neurosurgeon require just to observe the general appearance or location of a head wound?

            (It would be apparent even looking above and from behind, and it’s highly possible that many got a look when they placed JFK on the table or by lifting his head a bit).

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I meant to reply to Photon.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Why might they think there was a wound in the back of the head to examine? Could it be the piece of skull/brain that Jackie turned over in the ER? The one she climbed on the back of the car to get in the Zapruder film? Or maybe the blood. They were pumping blood into JFK trying to save his life. It was running out this wound and dripping into a pan on the floor per Dr. Crenshaw’s book.

  11. Curtis Fenwick says:

    From the WFAA-TV interview conducted by Jay Watson it appears Gayle Newman saw something her husband, Bill, missed: Gayle saw JFK put his right hand over his right ear & ‘blood came gushing out’. Interestingly, William Manchester wrote about basically the same scene in his 1967 blockbuster book, The Death Of A President. The Zapruder film does not show this scene & Gayle Newman’s & Manchester’s description of it are included on a growing list of events described by eyewitnesses as having occurred in or around the ambushed Presidential cavalcade that are missing from the Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore, Bell & Bronson ambush films plus static photos from additional photographers.
    What stands out to me about Bill Newman’s TV description of the shooting is how at odds it is with the perceptions offered & recorded by Mary Moorman, Charles Brehm & Ike Altgens, all standing in close proximity directly across the street from the Newman family. Same event, but interpreted very differently by people in a tight circle that were extremely close to it.

    • John McAdams says:

      Yes. Welcome to the real world of eyewitness testimony.

      • John, let’s focus on the overall.

        In four surveys of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, only John McAdams shows a majority claiming they came from the Texas School Book Depository. McAdams survey is quoted in Wikipedia.

        In the adjusted survey, forty-nine (49) witnesses who indicated that shots came from the Grassy Knoll were originally classified In McAdams’ survey as:14 from the TSBD, 21 had no opinion and 14 were not asked.

        Dallas Deputy Sheriffs (19)
        Fifteen (15) said shots were from the Grassy Knoll and 4 were not asked.But according to McAdams, 5 had no opinion and 12 were not asked.

        Dallas Police (14)
        The adjusted list has 4 TSBD, 6 Grassy Knoll, 1 both. 2 no opinion, 1 not asked.
        But McAdams has 6 TSBD and 2 Grassy Knoll.

        Secret Service (17)
        The adjusted list has 6 TSBD, 4 GK, 1 both TSBD and GK, 5 no opinion, 1 not asked.
        McAdams has 10 TSBD, 1 GK, 1 both, 2 no opinion, 3 not asked. But not one agent specifically stated that shots came from the TSBD.

        Note: Roy Kellerman implied at least one Grassy Knoll shooter without saying so. He said “President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.”
        This is amazing testimony that no one talks about. But McAdams includes Kellerman in his TSBD group.

        Clint Hill has maintained for 50 years that he saw a massive gaping wound in the right rear of JFK’s head. This implies a shot from the front, contradicting autopsy photos. But McAdams includes Hill in TSBD.

        TSBD Employees (2)
        The adjusted group has 10 GK, 6 TSBD, 1 elsewhere, 1 no opinion, 2 not asked.
        McAdams had 8 Grassy Knoll, 7 TSBD, 1 no opinion, 2 not asked.

        Reporters (5)
        Mary Woodward is a McAdams Grassy Knoll witness. But he does not include three reporters standing with her near the Knoll: Alonzo, Brown and Donaldson or Mike Brownlow, another reporter.

        Other witnesses
        -Charles Brehm was initially quoted in the Dallas Times: “The shots came from in front of or beside the President.” McAdams has him as TSBD.
        -Abraham Zapruder testified: “Shots came from in back of me”. McAdams said Zapruder had no opinion and only “inferred” that the shots came from the knoll because the right side of Kennedy’s head exploded, and people were running up the knoll.
        -J.C. Price said “shots were from behind the wooden fence at the triple overpass” and was not called by the Warren Commission. McAdams said he had no opinion.

        These witnesses were not mentioned by McAdams or called by the Warren Commission:
        -Betty Oliver Massegee, the “Babushka Lady”, testified at ARRB
        -Julia Ann Mercer saw a man carrying a rifle up the knoll
        -Ed Hoffman saw two men at the fence, smoke and a rifle.

  12. John McAdams says:

    Bill Newman thought JFK was standing up when when he was hit in the head:

    This doesn’t make him a crackpot or such, it just makes him a normal witness in a high stress situation.

    • Jonathan says:

      “Bill Newman thought JFK was standing up when when he was hit in the head:”

      Nope. In the interview, Bill Newman says that when the first shot hit JFK, JFK “jumped up.” That’s a far cry from asserting “JFK was standing up when he was hit in the head.”

      John, this is another example of fact twisting. I don’t believe it’s gaining you anything here. I wonder why you persist in it. I’ll agree with any verifiable fact you produce.

      • John McAdams says:

        Please save me the pious lectures. You don’t have any standing to provide them.

        Anybody can see what Newman said:

        Newman said Kennedy “jumped up” and was “standing up.”

        Maybe you want to posit that JFK sat down again before the head shot. That’s not the most obvious way to read it, but even if it was, that’s a bizarre perception on Newman’s part.

        • Jonathan says:

          David and John, I agree as to Bill Newman’s written statement to the police. Most importantly, though, given that there is much contention over the photographic record, some of which has played out on these pages, is Bill Newman’s clear insistence that Kennedy was hit in the side of head.

          Yes, neither he nor his wife may have had photographic memories of what they observed. But he didn’t waver on camera in the first few minutes after the assassination. In court, he’d be a powerful witness. Yes, David and John, if you were prosecutors you could try to impeach him using his written statement. He’d be like any witness; the jury would weigh his testimony along with all the other evidence they were allowed to consider. Which is what should be done here.

          • But Bill Newmasn couldn’t SEE the bullet actually entering the head of JFK. Which means Newman’s IMPRESSION of the bullet entering the SIDE (“temple”) of JFK’s head was obviously derived from something other than SEEING the bullet enter—and Newman says very plainly what that “impression” was—it was the “visual impact” of seeing the SIDE of the head explode which made Newman think the shot had come from directly behind him. But, of course, he was wrong. Simple as that.

            And “directly behind” Newman doesn’t do the CT crowd any favors, because that is NOT the infamous “Picket Fence/Knoll” area. Far from it, in fact.

            Who here thinks an assassin was located in the pergola area to the LEFT (east!) of Abe Zapruder? My guess would be ZERO people think there was a killer there. But Newman said there was. So where can we go with that information?


    • Gerry Simone says:

      Gentlemen, Newman probably meant sitting up. He was in a state of shock in the aftermath of what happened.

      (Bugliosi tries to explain away greater inconsistencies in defense of his own case, so the CTs should be allowed some latitude here, he he).

      P.S Thank you DVP for the link.

    • John McAdams,

      Aside from Newman, what about the other 100+ witnesses who gave an opinion as to the source of shots? I am still waiting for you response. Why are your numbers so far from reality?

      Survey Feldman McAdams Galanor Adjusted (Charnin)
      Total Witnesses 121 241 216 224
      Witness Opinion 83 100 109 133
      Grassy Knoll 51 35 52 84
      Texas Book 32 61 48 36

  13. Jonathan says:

    To Leslie, JSA, Curtis, Clarence, Karen, Dave, Peter, and other seekers of truth here:

    Here is how to respond to John McAdams and his crew.

    FIRST: Oswald is innocent as a matter of law. He was never convicted of a crime. As a matter of law, he is presumed innocent.

    SECOND: McAdams and his crew assume the role of accusers. Meaning they assume the BURDEN OF PROOF as to whether Oswald did it. In this regard, they’ve failed miserably. All they’ve tried to do is shift the burden of proof.

    THIRD: No matter what you believe about the facts, certain facts are clear. Oswald cannot cannot be tied to the alleged murder weapon beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged murder weapon cannot be tied to the murder of JFK beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is that which would cause a reasonable person to back away from from a vote for conviction.

    • Photon says:

      Everything that you say above could be repeated for John Wilkes Booth.

      • Jonathan says:

        True enough, but the accuser’s burden of proof is much easier with Booth. He was a well-known actor, well-known to many of the patrons of Ford’s Heater. When he leapt on stage and shouted, “Sic semper tyrannis!”, having broken his leg, a lot of people got a very good look at him.

        Yes, Booth died an innocent man as a matter of law. But trying him in the court of public opinion is relatively easy.

        Oswald is much different from Booth. He was a nobody to the public but a big deal in secret to several intelligence services. This fact raises all kinds of questions. Mary Todd Lincoln saw firsthand the murderer of her husband. No one for sure saw who fired the bullet(s) that killed JFK. Booth in fact confessed to killing Lincoln with his famous utterance about tyrants. Oswald steadfastly protested his innocence, maintaining he didn’t own a rifle and that the backyard photos were faked. Booth escaped for awhile and had his means of escape (a horse) all set go. [Footnote: The grandfather of a girl I knew in 5th grade witnessed as a boy Booth climb on his horse and race away from Ford’s Theater.] Oswald never made any apparent effort to escape; never had any pre-planned means of escape. Booth had a clear motive for killing Lincoln. Oswald admired JFK, according to Marina, and had no apparent reason for wanting JFK dead.

        Lots of reasons it’s easy to convict Booth in the court of public opinion. Not so with Oswald.

      • Paulf says:


        How can you say something so ridiculous and expect to have a shred of credibility?

        Booth shot Lincoln in public, was witnessed during the act and shouted words that gave away his motive. It was proven that he had accomplices with clear motives who met together in DC and the others were captured during or after attempting other murders. He was tracked down after injuring himself, hiding outside of DC.

        There is not the slightest doubt that Booth killed Lincoln, nor is there doubt why.

        To compare that to Oswald — who, once again, claimed to be a patsy — is so revoltingly silly that I would would hang my head in shame to say something so absurd. Nobody saw Oswald, there is no evidence tying him to the shooting and he had no known motive. Even if he did it, to compare it to Booth is just absurd. Yet you and John McAdams have both used the comparison lately, which says something about your reasoning abilities and motivation.

      • JSA says:

        Nonsense. Booth was seen at the murder scene, had jumped from it in front of a huge audience, and had tried to stab Lincoln’s companion before he made his leap to the stage. Oswald was not seen firing a rifle; which means he may or may not have actually fired one that day. Oswald was captured on the run, but this doesn’t prove that he acted alone or even that he fired the rifle.

        If you mean to say that there was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln and in this way it resembles the Kennedy assassination, I’ll grant you that.

        • Photon says:

          Oswald was seen at the murder scene.As for Booth’s conspiracy, do you honestly believe that Mary Suratt had anything to do with the crime? Or her son? How about Dr. Mudd?

          • Paulf says:


            What does Mary Surrat or Dr. Mudd have to do with your comparison of Oswald and Booth? Every time someone rebuts your logic, you move the goalposts.

            The guilt of Surrat and Mudd is certainly not conclusive. But there were other conspirators who attempted to murder members of Lincoln’s cabinet. There is no doubt of a conspiracy, whether Surrat was part of it or not.

            Again, there is no comparison between Oswald and Booth. One proudly committed the act the avenge the loss of the war by his side. He was seen doing the deed with the gun.

            Oswald was one of many people “found” near the murder scene. Nobody saw him do the shooting, there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime and he was killed before he could defend himself. He did DENY that he killed Kennedy.

            But again, this is just nonsense to get people talking about anything but the evidence.

          • JSA says:

            My reply to Photon: “As for Booth’s conspiracy”: Are you aware of what happened in Seward’s house that same night that Lincoln was shot? I don’t think Mary Suratt was guilty to the point of hanging. I think she was perhaps an accessory, but not in any way a direct participant in the crime. Dr. Mudd comes across to many historians as being a bit more suspicious. Read “Blood on the Moon” which looks into whether or not Mudd was a willing Booth helper and not the innocent caught in the act of helping an unknown as he tried to claim. Booth sought out Mudd for help and knew who he could go to when he was in trouble.

            As for Oswald, some said they saw him down in the kitchen very close to the time that the shots rang out. There’s no consistent witness testimony as there was for Booth. It’s not a fair comparison. Why did you even bring that one up?

          • Paul Turner says:

            Oswald was seen at the murder scene, but perhaps by the other shooters on the 6th floor????? And that assumes LHO was up there at all.

    • Dave says:

      Absolutely agree. That’s why the WC apologists are trying so hard here to keep the full-of-holes Lone Nut Theory from falling apart, because they know that proving Oswald’s LEGAL guilt is an impossibility. So they engage in making what would otherwise be libelous statements, had Oswald not been murdered and faced trial.

      • Paul Turner says:

        That’s what led to Katzenbach writing that the public must be led to believe it was Oswald alone. That statement right there should have opened the doors to a possible conspiracy.

  14. There were many more credible witnesses at Dealey Plaza.

    Go here for the full post:

    This post will analyze the discrepancies in witness observations between McAdams and an “Adjusted” survey. The adjusted list is based on Warren Commission testimony and observations of other witnesses who were not called to testify.

    In McAdams survey 21 had no opinion, 14 were not asked, 14 said the shots came from the TSBD. These were classified as Grassy Knoll witnesses in the “Adjusted” survey.

    Go here for the full list of witnesses by survey:

    The database is sortable by witness name, observation and group. Therefore we can readily determine differences between McAdams, Galanor and the final Adjusted list. Feldman does not provide detail on all of his 121 Warren Commission witnesses.

    Data Summary
    Survey… Feldman McAdams Galanor Adjusted
    Total Witnesses 121 241 216 223
    Opinion……….83 100 109 133
    Source of Shots:
    Grassy Knoll…..51 35 52 83
    Book Depository..32 61 48 37
    Both TB and GK….0 2 5 9
    Other locations…0 2 4 4
    No Opinion…….38 69 37 36
    Not asked………0 72 70 54

    Grassy Knoll….61% 35% 48% 62%
    Book Depository.39% 61% 44% 28%
    GK / (GK+TB)….61% 36% 52% 69%

    • Jonathan says:

      Interesting spreadsheet. Your comments refers to “shots.” Yet at least one witness, DPD Officer James Chaney, spoke about a “shot” that from behind him over his shoulder.

      It’s pretty clear to me one or more shots were fired from the TSBD. It’s also pretty clear to me at least two shots came from the front or right front of the limousine. I believe a bullet passed through the windshield, which would have made a noise, perhaps like a firecracker. So I doubt a “perfect witness” would attribute all sounds made by weapons as having come from a single place.

      • JSA says:

        In “Hear No Evil” the author says that the first shot hit the pavement behind the limousine, but one of the fragments of this missed shot hit the back of JFK’s head, stinging like a bee sting, but not entering his skull (it seared his skin in the back of his head). That was when he reacted and put his hands up, and said: “My God, I’ve been hit!” — his last words. According to Thomas, the author of “Hear No Evil” the windshield was hit by at least one fragment of the bullet that passed through Kennedy and then into Governor Connally, leaving fragments in the floor of the car. The pristine bullet was a miss, which sailed over the car, entering the grass on the other side of Elm Street. Another missed shot fired from behind hit the curb and a chip of concrete nicked Tague on the cheek. The final kill shot was fired from the fence on the knoll. It entered JFK’s head, and wasn’t jacketed as the shots from the TSBD were. It left a trail of lead inside JFK’s head as it broke apart, and the spray went both vertically up and behind, leaving at least two skull fragments to the rear of JFK and the car. One of these was found on the lawn on the opposite side of the street. Some of the spray hit one of the motorcycle cops’ windshield and helmet. The acoustical record, as Thomas explains, backs up a frontal shot at the end, and anyone who tries to tell you that the final kill shot came from behind is either misinformed or is lying to you.

        The true story is there for those who haven’t bought into the Warren Commission’s cover story, designed to let Lyndon Johnson and his powerful helpers off the hook. I’m not saying Oswald was completely innocent. But if you believe he was operating all alone in this I’ve got a bridge to sell you. What’s revealing is how except for a REALLY LAME desperate attempt to try to smear the author, Thomas, as a “butterfly scientist” nobody can refute the findings in his book, “Hear No Evil.” The acoustics record alone nails the case for a shot from the knoll.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Thomas gave an elucidating presentation at Lancer last November (mainly to counter Myers’ critique in regards to the position of Officer H. B. McLain). I got his book and autograph to boot.

        • Jonathan says:

          I can’t refute any of what you write, but I’m left puzzled. As I go over Humes’s and Boswell’s testimonies (over and again) what emerges is a picture of Humes and Boswell examining rear skull fragments that have been brought into the autopsy room from Dallas. The fragments contain what they perceive as a bullet wound or part of a bullet wound. There is BEVELING on the INNER surface of a fragment, indicating to them a bullet entered JFK’s skull from behind.

          Thomas’s account does not include a rear-skull penetrating wound, only a “stinging” wound.

          Now, Humes and Boswell may have been lying about the rear entry wound. They certainly at times told unconvincing, incoherent, inconsistent stories about the autopsy and autopsy record. But on the rear entry wound, located at the EOP, they remained pretty (fairly) steadfast.

          • Bill Pierce says:

            Jonathan writes:
            “As I go over Humes’s and Boswell’s testimonies (over and again) what emerges is a picture of Humes and Boswell examining rear skull fragments that have been brought into the autopsy room from Dallas. The fragments contain what they perceive as a bullet wound or part of a bullet wound. There is BEVELING on the INNER surface of a fragment, indicating to them a bullet entered JFK’s skull from behind.”

            That’s always been my interpretation too. And those fragments would have filled in a larger defect in the back of JFK’s skull, near the EOP. Unfortunately the prosectors felt it unnecessary to order meticulous photographic documentation of the wounds, complete with probes, during every phase of the autopsy. Instead, here’s the kind of crap that conspiracists have been dealing with for decades . . .
            Dr. Finck’s testimony to the HSCA:

            Dr. Petty: “May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.”
            Dr. Finck: “Absolutely”.
            Dr. Petty: “Did you ever see such a photograph?”
            Dr. Finck: “I don’t think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don’t remember seeing those photographs.”

            I’ve always wondered what flashed through Finck’s mind when he asked for photographs of the alleged entry wound and they gave him BLANK transparencies!!! WTF?

          • JSA says:


            I urge that you read Thomas’ book yourself and not just rely on my loose interpretation in these threads. That said, if I may quote just a tiny bit from a summary of Chapter Eight (pp. 290-91), the author explains how the autopsy head wound portion got garbled:

            “Conflicting evidence that the President was (or was not) struck in the head by two bullets, is explained by the evidence that he was struck in the head initially by the shrapnel fragment, and then struck seconds later by the fatal bullet from the right front. The shrapnel explains why there was a ‘ragged, slanting’ perforation of the scalp underlain by a metal fragment pancaked on the outer table of the skull in the posterior parietal bone; and it also explains why there was an interiorly beveled fracture of the bone at this location…The available medical evidence sustains the conclusion that President Kennedy was struck by a bullet in the right frontal quadrant, just at the hairline anterior to the coronal suture, which then exited through the right posterior parietal region of the head near the midline. A round puncture wound is visible in the President’s right temple, exactly where the President’s physician Dr. Burkley, the doctor who signed the death certificate, told official spokesmen that the President was shot. The mortician that prepared the President’s body confirmed that the visible lesion was a puncture wound. Dr. Lawrence Angel, a leading forensic anthropologist, confirmed that the lesion in the temple aligns with a semicircular lacuna in the frontal bone at the margin of the massive defect of the skull. All analysts agree that this lacuna was made by the passage of a bullet as evidenced by pieces of metal embedded both in and in the corner of a large shard of bone that fragmented away from this point in the skull. Furthermore, the lesion aligns with a linear configuration of bullet dust deposited in the right cerebellum, which itself aligns with the Harper fragment, a piece of the posterior parietal bone which was driven out of the rear of the President’s cranium.”
            –excerpt from “Hear No Evil” by Donald Thomas.

            In order to REALLY see in detail how Thomas reaches these conclusions you have to read the book. He’s quite thorough and his well documented analysis is quite compelling. has the book for sale:

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Bill Pierce:

            Many thanks. What picture emerges. Finck must have been extremely frustrated. His autopsy notes disappeared the night of the autopsy. Four years later he’s shown blank pictures of the outer and inner aspects of the rear skull wound. No wonder he retired in seclusion to Switzerland.

          • Photon says:

            First you expect everybody to accept an entomologist to be an acoustics expert who has no training or experience in the subject despite being contradicted by multiple bone-fide scientists and experts , now you want us to accept somebody who has never seen an autopsy, has never seen a gunshot wound, apparently never even taken a course on human anatomy- as an expert on wound interpretation. “Bullet dust in the right cerebellum”- with that statement Dr. Thomas confirms that he has no idea what he is talking about.

        • Warren Commission apologists invariably thrash JFK-related witness death analysis – as well as the observations of Dealey Plaza and medical eyewitnesses. Rather, they ask questions that are irrelevant and meant to distract from the facts. They don’t bother to actually read the posts, comprehend the logic or deal with the facts.

          This post will present the questions that should legitimately be asked.

          1) Where did I get the names of the witnesses?
          See Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire”, Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s “Hit List” and the Simkin Educational site. JFK Calc includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78). There are surely many more.

          2) What periods are covered?
          1, 3 and 15 years after the assassination

          3) How can you prove that the witnesses were relevant?
          I do not have to prove they were all relevant. The burden of proof is on the apologists to prove none were. In fact, 97 are listed among the 1400+ in “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Sixty-seven (67) testified or were sought in four investigations: Warren Commission (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church senate Intelligence (1975), HSCA (1976-78). The investigators must have considered them relevant. Run a google search of the names. Or read one of the many JFK books.

          4) What is the basic logic that you use to calculate the probabilities?
          The steps are: 1) Determine the number of witnesses in the group, 2) specify the time period, 3) determine the number of unnatural deaths, 3) apply the applicable unnatural mortality rates for the period. Once having this information, we calculate the number of expected unnatural deaths. The Poisson distribution function requires the expected and actual number of deaths in order to calculate the probability. That’s it.

          5) How can you claim that many deaths ruled to be accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
          Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. I confirm the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistical expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks – based on respective mortality rates for the given time period. It turns out that the actual number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks category far exceed the expected number. Therefore, the difference between the actual and expected is a fair approximation of the number of actual homicides.

          more…at the link

          • Pat Speer says:

            Richard, it’s been a long time since I studied probabilities, but I’m pretty sure you made the same mistake that the actuary made–he multiplied the probability of a suspicious death by the number of suspicious deaths. This represents the number of people dying a suspicious death…in a row.

            The number of suspicious deaths out of a given pool of people is a different matter entirely. If you could show the math, step by step, and demonstrate that your calculations take into account that the large size of the pool in which these suspicious deaths occurred was taken into account, it would be of great help to me, and I presume others.

            Thanks, Pat

          • The actuary did NOT make a mistake; I confirmed the calculation. The HSCA NEVER released the actuary’s method of calculation or even REMEMBERED his name, so how do you know what he did?I suggest you read my posts carefully. I multiply the mortality rate R by the number N in the witness pool by the number of years T to derive the expected number of unnatural deaths (E= N*R*T). The expected number and the actual number of unnatural deaths are input to the Poisson distribution to determine the probability. THE ACTUARY WAS RIGHT. The the probabilities are even lower since there were over 40 unnatural deaths in the three years following the assassination. Look closely at this probability table.

          • The actuary did NOT make a mistake; I confirmed the calculation. The HSCA NEVER released the actuary’s method of calculation or even REMEMBERED his name, so how do you know what he did?I suggest you read my posts carefully. I multiply the mortality rate R by the number N in the witness pool by the number of years T to derive the expected number of unnatural deaths (E= N*R*T). The expected number and the actual number of unnatural deaths are input to the Poisson distribution to determine the probability. THE ACTUARY WAS RIGHT. The the probabilities are even lower since there were over 40 unnatural deaths in the three years following the assassination. Look closely at this probability table.

            This probability calculation matches the actuary.


            R unnatural mortality rate: 0.000209
            N witnesses: 454
            n unnatural deaths: 13
            T years: 3

            E = R*N*T=expected unnatural deaths= 0.28
            P(n) = E^n * exp (-E)/n! = 9.83E-18

            The spreadsheet function:
            P= Poisson (13,0.29, false)
            P= 1 in 101,774,317,639,149,952
            P =1 in 101 thousand trillion..

          • Photon says:

            This entire exercise is pointless if the methodology is flawed.
            The initial assumption is in error, in that many people who died of natural causes are considered suspicious deaths.If your initial assumption is in error what follows simply cannot be relevant.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      The quantification of the statistics is very indicative. The importance of some of those witnesses and the timing of some of the deaths is equally important. First would come Tippit and Oswald. Those at Ruby’s apartment 11/24/63. Later Rose Cheramie……. Roger Craig. Roselli, Giancana, DeMorenshild.
      Tip of the Iceberg.

  15. Melvin Fromme says:

    I believe much of the confusion over what Bill Newman said in his Jay Watson interview within 30 minutes of JFK’s murder right in front of him & his family can be clarified once a competent interviewer thou roughly asks the hard questions of Bill Newman & obtains his answers (or he authors his own book). Like everything else, people have picked apart his words to mean what they want them to mean in whatever analysis being pushed by them. Bill Newman, was there, the analysts were not. The words people read in his statement were prepared by someone else. We don’t know if they got what Mr. said correctly or not. I’m just as confused as anyone else as to what Bill Newman meant by ‘garden’ & he is not alone in stating JFK stood up in his touring car, Bonnie Ray Williams said the same thing in the 1967 CBS TV special. Bill Newman surely needs a impartial & knowledgeable interviewer to get his experience out to the world correctly & as Mr. Newman wants his legacy to read. I’m thinking Jeff Morley & Greg Burnham as more than adequate to accomplish this relatively simple task.

  16. Hans Trayne says:

    I sympathize with all JFK assassination witnesses who were there when the horror show played out in front of their eyes & heard by their ears. How anyone can question their credibility is beyond my comprehension. For each person that questions Bill Newman & his family’s good intentions & credibility I ask them to place themselves in Bill Newman’s shoes & visualize holding onto their youngster’s hand and suddenly a man’s head explodes right in front of them. What effect do they think that would have for the rest of their lives? What Bill Newman & family saw happen was just as savage as what occurs in the wildest jungle every day & night as predators kill other animals. If confusion exists it’s the result of over & conflicting analysis plus the failure of interviewers to ask Bill Newman the questions that have arisen for other witnesses statements or material evidence & work what he experienced in with what others experienced IMO. I’ve tried to help Bill Newman & other on site eyewitnesses with historically accurate computer re-enactments of what they saw & heard on my YouTube channel. Someone in the comments above ^ suggested Bill Newman & family contact Jefferson Morley & answer the global public’s questions thru Mr. Morley or Bill Newman’s own YouTube channel. Both are excellent suggestions. Jeff Morley has more than demonstrated that he cares about the people that witnessed & suffered from JFK’s violent murder on Elm Street & he knows the ins & outs of the case & will treat Bill Newman & family with the highest respect & confidentiality that he deserves. Perhaps with a good interviewer like Jeff Morley folks will stop questions Bill Newman’s credibility.

    • John McAdams says:

      For each person that questions Bill Newman & his family’s good intentions & credibility

      I don’t know anybody who does that.

      Are you falling into the trap of assuming that all witnesses are either liars, or are completely reliable?

      In the real world, a lot of sober honest citizens are somewhat unreliable, especially in high stress, unexpected, shocking situations.

      • Hans Trayne says:

        What I am saying is give any witness in any case the benefit of the doubt until it is proven their statements & testimony are the result of outside forces (bribery, threats, gainful promises, etc.)In the case of Bill Newman, the man & his family saw & heard something horrific & he reported what he saw & heard. What more can be expected? What would a witness credibility doubter do any different? Go back up there in the comments, Professor McAdams & you’ll see comments about Mr. Newman saw the back of JFK’s head (according to visual evidence)made by someone who was probably not alive when JFK was murdered. Do you automatically believe the analyst or the person who witnessed the event?

      • Paulf says:


        Absolutely you are right, much eyewitness testimony is not accurate. But how do you determine what to believe, then? What is your methodology? Seems if people say something you like, it is credible. If you don’t like it, they are mistaken at best, liars at worst. Got to be more to it than that.

        • John McAdams says:

          Actually, I think that’s what conspiracists do.

          Hard physical evidence always trumps witness testimony.

          Want to know how Kennedy and Connally reacted? Look at the Zapruder film.

          Want to know the nature of JFK’s wounds, look at the autopsy photos and x-rays.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Conspiracists don’t deny shots came from the rear (otherwise, there’d be no conspiracy).

            ‘Hard evidence’ doesn’t trump eyewitness accounts when it itself is tainted.

            The Zapruder film indeed shows how JFK and JBC reacted – independent of each other.

            Actually, the autopsy photos and x-rays are ambiguous and not corroborative, and their subsequent, revised interpretation make Humes et al look like complete idiots which further discredits the autopsy.

      • Dave says:

        And lots of honest sober witnesses of shocking events ARE found to be reliable every day in the courts. Stop putting words into others’ mouths to make their positions sound extreme. There is a very real possibility that not all shots came from the TSBD. Why keep denying this?

      • Paul Turner says:

        John do you think that any sober and honest citizens who believe shots came from ONLY the TSBD are somewhat unreliable????

  17. John McAdams, you are apparently unaware that the relevance of witness testimony in a court of law is directly correlated to the number of witnesses – which should be intuitively obvious.

    There were hundreds of JFK witness eye and earwitnesses. The evidence illustrates that their observations match on particular details and are a reliable method to determine key facts. As they are independent, the reliability of any given witness is unnecessary.

    The scientific method is based on reproducible observation and physical data. From a legal standpoint, fact-finding involves reconstructing events using physical evidence and human memories.

    Psychological studies confirm that even though individual witnesses are fallible, honest witness recollection is generally accurate on the most critical details. But it is not necessary to believe that witnesses are reliable. Given a group of independent witnesses, determining their reliability is often based on how their recollections fit the evidence.

    One must distinguish between the fallibility of a single witness and a group of witnesses who independently report similar observations. If the witnesses are independent, they will either agree on a fact or they will be independently mistaken.

    Testimony of a mistaken or dishonest witness will not have a common explanation. But consistent witness evidence indicates just two rational explanations: a) all share the same observation or b) they are not independent. An individual witness observation is not important, but the same recollection by multiple independent witnesses is.

    People intuitively understand and do not need the probabilities. They use common sense to determine if it is plausible that multiple witnesses will independently have with the same recollection. But probability theory supports intuition.

    As the number of witnesses who independently recollect the same event increases, the probability that they are all mistaken approaches zero.

    An analysis of the reliability of multiple witness observations is a function of their independence. Their independent recollection of an event has just one logical explanation: the event actually occurred.

    So once again, I will point out to rational viewers that you have published a Dealey Plaza witness survey which does not reflect the reality.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Mr. Charnin, your statistical analysis is astounding and corroborates the impression of many witnesses about the GK being the source of shots.

      (Also, saw the spreadsheet tab summarizing the Strange Death statistical analyses, and other blog entries, such as the erroneous Wikipedia page. Very impressive.)

    • Jeremy Gilbert says:

      Richard, a court of law would likely come to the same conclusion the Warren Commission came to – a single sniper firing from the TSBD. A good lawyer or prosecutor would quite easily demolish your “multiple witness” argument.

      Here is how simple logic could be employed to dismantle this line of reasoning.

      First question: How many snipers were actually seen that day? Answer: One, firing from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Many witnesses saw someone firing (Who that was is not relevant for this discussion).

      Next question: How many shots were fired? Some 95 per cent of witnesses said three or fewer. There were three spent shells found on the 6th floor, witnesses below reported hearing three shots and three shells falling directly above their heads.

      Next question: Did people report hearing gunshots from multiple directions, suggesting a second (or third) unseen gunman? The VAST MAJORITY – something like 95 per cent again – report a single direction for the shots, therefore a single sniper.

      Next question: What about those who heard shots from the knoll and vicinity? The Plaza is an echo chamber. We know this is true as if there were indeed multiple snipers, most witnesses would report multiple directions of fire. They didn’t – they virtually ALL reported shots from a single direction. yet there was much disagreement over the source of the shots, going by sound. The ONLY logical conclusion, given that a sniper WAS seen, is that there was only one sniper firing and that sniper was in the TSBD. Further corroboration for this is the fact that witnesses often DID NOT point to the knoll – Newman pointing to the pergola, for example – but to other locations, like the underpass. The dirty secret of the conspiracy crowd is many of the so-called “knoll” witnesses – like Newman – didn’t actually specify the picket fence as where the sounds of shots came from. They simply lump ALL the accounts pointing to Elm Street or the underpass as “the grassy knoll.” If we took the ear witnesses at their word, we’d have to conclude there were a dozen snipers that day.

      The evidence, in other words, in entirely consistent with a single sniper, it is NOT consistent with multiple gunmen, yet the conspiracy crowd have been repeating this logical fallacy for half a century.

      • Jeremy, your logic is backwards. The grassy knoll is an open area – not an echo chamber. The TSBD is a closed area- there is your echo chamber. Even so, most TSBD workers claimed that the shots came from the knoll.

        TSBD workers: GK 10, TB 6, NA 2, 1 NO, 1 elsewhere.
        Jarman, James
        Adams, Victoria
        Arce, Danny
        Burns, Doris
        Frazier, Wesley
        Lovelady, Billy
        Molina, Joe
        Givens, Charles
        Shields, Edward
        Dougherty, Jack
        Hine, Geneva
        Norman, Harold
        Piper, Eddie
        Reid, Mrs. Robert
        Williams, Bonnie Ray
        Baker, Virgie
        Truly, Roy
        Shelley, William

        93 witnesses said Grassy Knoll, 45 said TSBD. You are making an outlandish statement that all 93 were mistaken. You totally miss the point of the legal argument: You should believe 93 INDEPENDENT witnesses having the same observation. Can you figure the odds that all 93 were mistaken? P=E-43. Q.E.D.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Hi Richard: You are missing the fundamental point. If there were indeed two assassins, logic dictates that a substantial number of ear witnesses would report having heard shots from TWO directions. Indeed, many witnesses were located BETWEEN these two locations and should have easily discerned two sources for the reports. In fact, and as I showed elsewhere the various tabulations of this, including from Thompson, some 95% said the shots came from ONE direction. (You have similar numbers on your spreadsheet – ranging from 93% to %100 one direction)

          The numbers here are not disputed – they form part of your argument. But you’ve not asked yourself the obvious questions that a court most certainly would if you were trying to establish a second sniper: Why did virtually no one hear TWO snipers firing? How could all those knoll witnesses fail to hear the shots we know were fired from the TSBD?

          Perhaps I should reverse the question for you. If these 93 witnesses said they heard the shots from the knoll, why didn’t they ALSO hear any shots from the TSBD, where we know a sniper was firing? Perhaps you can calculate the odds that virtually NONE of these people would have failed to hear the shots from TSBD if we eliminate confusion or echo effects as reasons for this seeming inability to hear these shots?

          It’s a question any lawyer/prosecutor/crown attorney worth his or her salt would ask. And in so doing it would destroy the premise there is a definitive conclusion to be made from those 93 of whom (going by 95% 1-d as I couldn’t find the “93” tabulation on your spreadsheet) some 88 somehow heard 3 shots or so coming from the knoll but heard ZERO coming from the TSBD where we know a sniper was firing from.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Jeremy, you’re repeating stuff that was knocked down years ago.
            1. The HSCA studied the echoing chamber argument and concluded it was easy to tell where a TSBD shot was coming from when standing in front of the TSBD. And yet the majority of witnesses in front of the TSBD thought the last shot (s) came from west of the building.
            2. A large percentage of witnesses heard a shot followed by two shots closely together. Two groups of shots. The first shot got their attention. The second shot (s) were listened to more closely. it follows then that most witnesses were localizing on the combined sound of the last two shots. It follows then that most thought the shots came from one direction.
            3. The fifth floor witnesses did not hear three shells hit the floor, as you have claimed. Norman said he heard shells. Only over time did it morph into three shells. It’s shocking how some people will harp all day about the changes in the statements of say,Jean Hill, but fail to notice problems with Brennan and Norman.

          • Jonathan says:

            Jeremy posits no one heard two snipers firing. Perhaps no one person did hear two snipers firing.

            Some witnesses saw or smelled gunsmoke in the grassy knoll area. So what’s the big deal, Jeremy? Do you, like the Warren Commission, prefer to avoid inconvenient witnesses?

            Jeremy maintains courts would do this or that. Are you a lawyer, Jeremy? If so, have you tried cases and studied the rules of evidence? I ask in part because you hang your hat on mock trials.

            If your main point of contention is that one or more shots were fired from the TSBD you’ll get no argument from me. If you maintain no shots were fired from elsewhere, you’ve not been persuasive.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Pat Speer (one of the heavy-weights):

            Bravo! I didn’t know that the HSCA actually investigated that echo chamber aspect, although I never heard that they had a problem with echoes.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        There’s evidence that more than one person may have been up at the sixth floor (or that it wasn’t Oswald).

        Shots were heard from either direction (maybe not from both directions by most) because it depends where you were standing.

        A witness may describe all shots from one direction when in fact one or more of those shots were from a different direction.

        Most mock trials did NOT convict Oswald. I’m aware of one being conducted by the American Bar Association (or Texas Bar Association or both).

        Just because other shooters weren’t arrested or their ejected shells found doesn’t mean they didn’t evade capture. They could have used silencers too or lower caliber weapons. Also, have you not heard about the fake Secret Service Agent?

        Dealey Plaza is no echo ‘chamber’.

        I didn’t hear one echo when they telecast the open-air event from Dealey Plaza on the 50th Anniversary.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Pat: “The HSCA studied the echoing chamber argument and concluded it was easy to tell where a TSBD shot was coming from when standing in front of the TSBD.”

          It seems everyone is completely missing the point. I’m not trying to argue if one can or can’t tell from where the shots were fired. I’m saying that the vast majority of witnesses said the shots came FROM ONE DIRECTION.

          Why is this important?

          Because if, as Gerry argues, he can make a statistical argument that means it was essentially impossible for all his 93 witnesses to be wrong about hearing shots from the GK, then he HAS to account for the fact that his scenario REQUIRES a second gunman but virtually NO witness heard shots from TWO directions.

          NO ONE here has accounted for this massive discrepancy if one wants to argue for two assassins. And that is because we know there WAS a sniper in the TSBD (or two – whatever – that is beside the point).

          Simply put, if 95% heard the shots from one direction (and Gerry agrees with me on that), and we know that shots were fired from one location with certainty, then those who thought the shots came from another direction were mistaken. I have offered the “echo chamber” argument as an explanation as to how so many were mistaken. Given the “one direction” argument, I am waiting to hear of another explanation from you folk to explain this discrepancy if you want us to believe it “proves” a knoll assassin.

          Because in the end matters NADA what tests were done on whether or not the Plaza was or wasn’t an echo chamber. We have a massively overwhelming convergence of witness testimony on this point – ALL the shots came from one direction, there was one sniper seen, therefore those shots MUST be from that sniper. (Or I concede, from two snipers close to each other, as some have suggested at the TSBD.)

          As for gunpowder, as many of the films show, the wind was from the southwest, and was quite brisk, so how could anyone possibly smell gunpowder when it would have instantly been blown over the tracks? Indeed, how could smoke have been seen? We’d see it in the Nix film, Bronson as well.

          As for my court experience, no, I am not a legal expert and even if I was, it’d be in a different legal jurisdiction. But Bugliosi does have that experience and the case he describes from the conspiracy side is flimsy to say the least. What many in the conspiracy crowd don’t appreciate is how easy it would be to dismantle the arguments in court. We saw this when the HSCA started to examine many of the claims, for example, based on multi-generational copies of photos and x-rays. Crazily, many of the arguments thoroughly debunked by the HSCA are repeated ad infinitum by the conspiracy crowd.

          This debate about “how many said GK, how many said TSBD” is a case in point. It’s something which would have had no evidentiary bearing on whether there was a GK sniper, for the reasons I have stated.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Two comments to your first question, Jeremy. First, you do know that the Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry claimed that no one was able to put Oswald in the 6th floor of the TSBD with a rifle in his hand at the time of the shooting, right? . Then, you appear to be saying it doesn’t matter who the “one” sniper was. Why doesn’t it matter????

  18. These are 20 questions that should reasonably asked about the JFK Calc spreadsheet.

    Unfortunately, Warren Commission apologists are not motivated to ask the right questions. Their only goal is to trash the analysis with illogical and inane comments because they know that the statistical analysis is robust and irrefutable and proves a conspiracy beyond any doubt.

    • Jeremy Gilbert says:

      Hmmm… Seems to me that the people not asking the right questions are those who, despite the mountain of evidence pointing to Oswald, harp on statistical analyses of issues that don’t actually address the evidence we have at Dealy Plaza.
      Others have pointed out that many of these witnesses died many years after the fact and that none of the prominent authors promoting “conspiracy” were themselves knocked off. Usually, whistleblowers are the first target.
      But the premise that a statistical analysis somehow “proves” conspiracy is dubious to say the least. Let’s say for the sake of argument that witnesses were systematically killed and this is “proven” by this analysis. So, then the question becomes: Who killed these people? THAT question is not answered by the analysis.
      I’d say there are those in the conspiracy crowd who had a lot to gain from the death of certain witnesses. Look at Lee Bowers. The conspiracy crowd likes to pretend the Warren Commission didn’t want to hear his story and cut him off, as per the scene in “JFK.” But wait, didn’t Mark Lane interview him? And did he not ask the questions they refused to ask? Well… uh… no. In fact, Lane avoided asking Bowers the obvious question: Who, if anyone, was behind the fence of the Knoll when the motorcade was passing? Bowers interrupted Lane’s largely irrelevant line of questioning in regards to the several men at either end of the fence, to underline that NO ONE was there when the motorcade passed, these men had moved to the front. We know this because the man who shot the film Lane was making in 1966 made transcripts – and Lane carefully omitted that rather relevant aside from the final cut.(!) Having your star witness say there was no knoll sniper would put a rather massive hole in the conspiracy theory Lane was trying to promote – and sell – with his best-selling books.
      But, perhaps fortunately for Lane, Bowers was killed in a car accident soon afterwards, before Bowers had been interviewed by a real interviewer interested in what actually happened and not focused on promoting a particular theory.
      So, cui bono? The conspiracy crowd. If Bowers went on national television during the Garrison trial, say on Johnny Carson when he had the DA on the show, it would have been a devastating moment for the credibility of the conspiracy movement. Carson might have asked Bowers, well why didn’t you tell Lane this when he interviewed you? He would have said, “I did, but it seems he had other ideas about what I ‘really’ saw.” Which is the precise things many OTHER witnesses said of Lane. But none of those witnesses would have so utterly destroyed the conspiracy case as Bowers could have.
      IOW, Richard, there are others out there who had an incentive to see witnesses dead who weren’t part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, so your premise this constitutes “proof” is sorely lacking.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Jeremy, the ‘mountain of evidence’ is sorely lacking.

        Without going into detail or my own denunciation of the SBT & other lone assassin factoids, you can read Barry Krusch’s three volumes IMPOSSIBLE: THE CASE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

        Krusch examines the so called ‘hard evidence’ in excruciating detail and subjects it to the standard of proof for criminal cases.

        His conclusion – inadmissible (none of it meets the tests for authenticity or relevance etc., as the case may be).

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Gerry, there are about 50 pieces of evidence linking Oswald to the crime. Krusch may think he has a case, but in the real world his claims likely would not pass muster in court. Bugliosi who has some experience with evidence and the admissibility of same says the case against Oswald is so overwhelming that it defies common sense that anything but a “guilty” verdict would have been found.

          Indeed, the mock trials held to the legal standards of the United States had no particular problem with the admissibility of this “inadmissible” evidence.

          But you didn’t address my point here that even if you somehow establish that those suspicious deaths were part of a systematic campaign that this wouldn’t make “conspiracy” a conclusion. Any thoughts on that?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Krusch has legal training, was a paralegal and educator. He bases his analysis strictly on the Rules of Evidence.

            Bugliosi is a prosecutor who is trained to present the accused LHO in a negative light. If I was a juror, he wouldn’t persuade me in the least.

            ALL mock trials, except that silly one for the BBC in England in which Bugliosi was involved in, either resulted in a hung jury or acquittal in favor of Lee Harvey Oswald.

            In any event, I doubt they had all or any of the pieces of evidence at their disposal, and I doubt they had access to all the relevant witnesses.

            Suspicious deaths or a systematic campaign would add to the plethora of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests a murder conspiracy OR a cover-up of same.

      • KenS says:

        “I’d say there are those in the conspiracy crowd who had a lot to gain from the death of certain witnesses.”

        Jeremy, I understand your point, but still a rather unseemly statement.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Ken: I’d say most people are sincere in their search for the truth on the assassination, on both sides of the debate.

          My point was not to accuse anyone here, but to point out that when you want to talk “motive” in terms of witness deaths, it is breathlessly naive to suppose that only the only people who want to “hide the truth” are those who want to hide a conspiracy. There are many instances of evidence corroborating the Warren Report being suppressed or distorted – I spelled out one by one of the more egregious ones in relation to Bowers – as an example of someone from the conspiracy side who wants to “hide the truth.”

          Of course, it’s “unseemly” to suggest that conspiracy theorists might be capable of offing an inconvenient witness or two, but doesn’t that also apply to suggesting perhaps 100s were killed by these dark forces? By American agencies? By well-known public figures?

          I hardly think that what I am suggesting is any more far-fetched than what the conspiracy crowd routinely suggests. If one wants to believe in the “norm” of killing witnesses, what is the big leap here?

      • Paul Turner says:

        Jeremy, I believe Ed Hoffman and Lee Bowers saw the same two men behind the fence. They didn’t see LHO at the TSBD. they saw two shooters who were either “two more” or “two of the REAL ones”.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Bowers WAS cut off by the WC in the middle of his story. That isn’t pretending, Jeremy, that’s what the WC did.

  19. Jeremy Gilbert says:

    Interesting discussion here. Just wanted to add a few comments here about the debate about how many witnesses claimed a shot from the knoll, how many from the TSBD, and what the witnesses said. BTW, I side with Mr McAdams on this.

    One thing in particular I’d like to address is what Richard says in terms of direction of the shots: “In four surveys of witnesses at Dealey Plaza, only John McAdams shows a majority claiming they came from the Texas School Book Depository. McAdams survey is quoted in Wikipedia.”

    This to me is the wrong approach to determining direction.

    The first question should be: Was anyone seen firing shots in Deally Plaza? Yes, multiple witnesses saw a sniper firing from the TSBD. As John points out, only a single witness – Bowers – saw “a flash” from the knoll – but he also said “no one” was behind the fence when the motorcade went by – so the only gunman seen was at the TSBD.

    The next question is NOT “where did most people hear the shots coming from,” since we KNOW where shots were coming from, it’s “did people report hearing shots from multiple directions?” The answer to that is NO. Something like 95 per cent heard shots from a single direction.

    A similar percentage, btw, reported only 3 or fewer shots, which also blows a hole through most conspiracy claims.

    It is massively improbable that NONE of those witnesses who said “grassy knoll” or the underpass did NOT hear the shots fired from the one place we know with certainty shots were fired from, the TSBD, yet that is what we are supposed to believe given the conspiracy claims.

    Deally Plaza was and is an echo chamber. Employing a bit of logic and looking at the evidence draws an inescapable conclusion: One sniper, one direction reported by the vast majority of witnesses, 3 or fewer shots, also reported by the vast majority of witnesses.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Witness accounts of the TSBD shooter include a disparity of clothing with Oswald, and the appearance of a second shooter from the opposite end. Even the HSCA notes movement of boxes when Oswald shouldn’t have been there, proving somebody else was up there. Lylian Mooneyham observed a shooter from the sniper’s lair sticking around when Oswald shouldn’t have been there either.

      Maybe we’re supposed to see a TSBD shooter and not a GK one (hidden by trees, shadows and picket fence) because that’s what the conspirators want you to believe.

      The existence of a GK shooter is also based on eye and ear witness accounts, including the smell of gunpowder, but you conveniently avoid those details but for which I won’t enumerate here.

      As for echo chamber, please provide some acoustical study that proves your point on this (I don’t even recall the HSCA’s study citing echoes as a problem). Echoes might have reverberated off the buildings in the east but the underpass would ‘funnel’ sound through. Unless silencers were used, you may get an echo from a GK shot.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Gerry: I didn’t discuss the identity of the sniper – that is not the point. As for these reports of “other” snipers, well, what happened to them? The building was sealed very quickly, no unknown persons left or entered the building in the aftermath. Since all the employees were accounted for, save Oswald, (okay Dougherty) so who were these people and how did they vanish? This is what I call the “Magic Sniper Theory.” The ONLY people who say there were others there… were non-employees.

        I’m not sure how we are “supposed to believe” a TSBD sniper – are you saying there were no shots fired from that window?

        What “eye” witness for the GK shooter? NO ONE saw a sniper until some fanciful memories came many years later. Like Jean Hill who is on camera in 1963 said she saw “no one,” yet later “remembered” differently. And “smoke: would only be from a blunderbuss to be visible like that – yet we see nothing on the Nix film and other photos which surely would have been visible if there was smoke by the fence.

        And, of course, the fact that Bowers said “no one” was behind the fence at the time of the shooting eliminates the possibility there was a knoll assassin.

        And, I’m sorry, but if all the shots came from one direction, as 95 per cent of ear witnesses claim and we have only one sniper seen… that means there was only one sniper.

        Echo chamber claim? Gerry, if there were two snipers, why did virtually every witnesse report one direction? Further, why did ear witnesses near the TSBD generally report it came from there and and those further down Elm say from the pergola, the knoll, the underpass, yet not hear shots from the TSBD? Surely you are not suggesting they simply didn’t hear the shots but heard others? But these witnesses heard for the most part 3 shots! The only logical explanation is the echo chamber one, or the general phenomena of confusion about sound direction.

        • KenS says:

          As for other snipers leaving the TSBD, here’s a most interesting discussion by Richard Gilbride:

          Duke Lane was writing a piece along these same lines at one time, but I don’t know if he completed it. Any posters with info on Mr. Lane’s work?

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Ken: Thanks for that – it’s a fascinating read as I always wondered about Dougherty and what exactly he was up to. I’ve not finished it and I can already see some problems with the analysis, but it’s a pretty good piece – this is not the thread to discuss it on though.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I like this discussion that includes a photo about Oswald having an alibi.


        • Gerry Simone says:

          95% from one direction doesn’t mean ONLY from the TSBD, as you indicated above yourself. People said from both, but it depends from where they were standing.

          They didn’t even ask all of the witnesses lol.

          So it doesn’t rule out a shot from the GK which the Zapruder film clearly shows (besides other reasons).

          I believe Howard Donahue argued that smoke could also come from gun oil.

          You really think that the smell of gunpowder came the TSBD lol?

          People who support this site know better than to believe the WC lone assassin spin. You won’t convince people with the same old arguments.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “95% from one direction doesn’t mean ONLY from the TSBD, as you indicated above yourself. People said from both, but it depends from where they were standing.”

            Gerry: It seems to me you don’t understand the fundamental problem with your analysis.

            I NEVER debated the relative numbers of witnesses who said “GK” or “TSBD.” I pointed out instead that because 95 per cent said the shots came FROM A SINGLE SOURCE that this renders moot your statistical analysis of how unlikely it would be for your 93 knoll witnesses to be wrong.

            Why? Because we know there was a sniper at the TSBD. But if there was a second sniper, we’d expect a high percentage of ear witnesses to say they heard shots from two, not one, directions. Because only about 5% report this, you can’t conclude that your statistical analysis establishes anything because the VAST majority indicate only one sniper was firing shots! (Though, you could argue that two snipers were near each other.) In other words, the assumption that witnesses were accurate in determining direction can’t be correct because we have multiple direction sources for the shots but witnesses are hearing THE IDENTICAL SHOTS.

            This in effect rules out a knoll assassin as we already have one assassin firing away – from the TSBD.

            But the knoll is also ruled out because a) Bowers said “no one” was behind the fence when the caravan passed; b) we see an exit wound on the right side of JFK’s head, not an entrance wound, indicating either a rear or left entry point; c) JFK’s movement can’t be associated with a momentum transfer of a bullet hitting him from the right front side as basic high school physics dictate that a 200-grain bullet travelling at a speed of 2000 ft/s hitting a man weighing ~180 pounds would move him about 1 to 2 inches maximum, so other factors caused his backwards lurch; d) any “smoke” which was visible from the underpass witnesses would also have been visible in the Nix film and other films and photographs. But we don’t see it.

            The problem with my “same old argument,” Gerry, is you’ve failed to address it, let alone even attempt to address it, instead mischaracterizing the issue I am raising. And if you were in court, your line of argument would not convince anyone because of the fundamental flaw I’ve identified.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Jeremy, the TSBD was not the only entity or business that occupied the building.

          Other people left too.

          (I believe Jim DiEugenio makes this point in Reclaiming History about defenses for LHO).

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Gerry: “Jeremy, the TSBD was not the only entity or business that occupied the building.

            “Other people left too.”

            But all employees in the building have confirmed alibis for where they were at the moment of the assassination, save Oswald (okay, Doughtery)

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Not having an alibi doesn’t mean you shot the President.

            There are other TSBD employees who did not see Oswald decline those stairs when they should have, if we accept the WC version.

            They say Oswald was a bit of a loner, so maybe he was having his lunch where he said he was, and then calmly went up the second floor to have a coke and confronted by Truly and that cop.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Oh, one more thing. When you say that most of the shots came from one direction (the TSBD), that’s because most of the people were nearer that building.

      You should also ask, how did most people year those shots? Most of the witnesses heard the last two shots closer to together (as per the WCR), with several witnesses saying (including SSA) that the shots were right on top of each other, or like from automatic fire.

      This to me doesn’t reconcile to a single assassin using a clumsy, bolt action rifle.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Gerry: You miss the essential point. It’s not that more people say the shots came from the knoll or from the TSBD, it’s that virtually ALL witnesses say the shots came from ONE DIRECTION. (not the boy band… don’t get me started… though I’d like to see them locked up…)

        The reason that we have to conclude those shots came from the TSBD is that that was the only sniper seen that day. So if you want to claim that there was a second sniper on the Knoll, then why did all those people on Houston say the shots came from the TSBD? And why, when we have witnesses who SAW the TSBD sniper fire away, those closer to the knoll thought the shots came from Elm Street?

        Logic dictates the answer – there was a single source from the shots, and witnesses were confused over their exact source, save for those who actually SAW the shots being fired.

        As for your rapid fire, again, the shots came from a single direction. And witnesses saw that sniper fire the shots in the manner he did. NO ONE who saw the sniper reported that he fired and then there was another shot from elsewhere or not done by the sniper. Ask the employees who were directly below. They heard the 3 shots. Whether they were “rapid fire” or not is moot – they came from that single source.

        • Gerry Simone says:


          The Zapruder film unequivocally shows a shot from the front.

          I’ve never heard or read that any witness actually SAW a 6th floor assassin actually fire a shot. Show me that citation.

          Professional witnesses heard two shots close together, or bunched up, or on top of each other which can’t all be from a single, bolt action rifle.

          Even if there are witnesses to a depository shooter, the clothing color didn’t match, they never noticed a scope (Brennan), he hung around longer, movement of boxes as confirmed by the HSCA after Oswald’s alleged descent, etc. etc. which creates problems for Oswald being the lone assassin. (I do believe shots were fired from behind, but this includes TSBD and Dal-Tex if not County Records Building too).

          Why do you ignore the fact that many witnesses ran up to the GK?

          It’s laughable that Warren Commission apologists say that there were not other shooters seen elsewhere, so that means no conspiracy. But we have circumstantial evidence that indeed there were other shooters, but they did not and could not leave a trail (perfect to set up the patsy).

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Gerry: As I have said repeatedly, it doesn’t matter who took those shots in terms of the “knoll” discussion. All that matters is that we know shots were fired from the Depository. And you truly have to bend yourself into a pretzel to suggest there weren’t shots fired from there. Oswald/not Oswald, wrong shirt… the only germane question on this issue is: Were shots fired from there? Multiple witnesses say YES.

            Once that premise is established, YOUR premise that ear witness accounts indicate an additional knoll assassin collapses because those same witnesses overwhelming report shots coming from a single direction.

            I can explain why so many people may have been wrong in terms of directions of the shots and how that is consistent with a single sniper. I have yet hear how you explain these witnesses could have NOT heard shots from the TSBD if they heard shots from the knoll, thus establishing two snipers.

            My point about other snipers not being seen is simply to point out that the one sniper that was seen was seen at the TSBD. That establishes that the shots many heard were from there at the least. But if there were other snipers, there should have been shots heard from multiple directions.

            This is in contrast to the scenario where no assassin was seen – therefore opening the possibility that the sniper was on the knoll. But that’s not what we have here.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Recall, Gerry, I am not arguing about WHO was firing the shots. I am simply saying shots were fired from the TSBD which for the GK/Knoll discussion is all I need to establish. I list two who actually saw the sniper fire; two others who saw the barrel of the rifle in the window; three others who were below the sniper nest who felt the shots were from within and heard the shells fall to the floor, debris fall into their hair.

            Straight out of the Warren Report.

            Fired a shot:

            Brennan: “Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up, and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.”

            Euins: “Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again.”

            Jackson on seeing the rifle barrel: “…I saw the rifle or what looked like a rifle approximately half of the weapon, I guess I saw, and just as I looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building…”

            Couch on same: “I remember glancing up to a window on the far right, which at the time impressed me as the sixth or seventh floor, and seeing about a foot of a rifle being–the barrel brought into the window.”

            And of course, Williams, Norman and Jarman all reported that the gunshots sounded like they came from within the building, Norman heard the shells fall to the floor above him Williams said “cement” fell on his head, dust loosened by the reverberations in the building.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I don’t think you’ll get many arguments that NO shots were fired from the TSBD.

            HOWEVER, the circumstantial evidence for a GK shot includes (but isn’t limited to):

            1. Observed commotion behind the fence;
            2. Flash of light behind the fence;
            3. Puff of smoke at the GK fenceline;
            4. Gunpowder smell upwind from the GK;
            5. Sound of shots from GK;
            6. Blood, bone, brain matter to left rear;
            7. JFK’s back & left snap after kill shot;
            8. Particle cloud towards rear of skull;
            9. Moorman pic blow-up of blob @ fenceline
            10.Phony Secret Service Agent at GK.

            Additionally, when the so called evidence against the lone gunman is called into question (which I won’t enumerate now), you can’t possibly conclude that Oswald the lone assassin is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.*

            *For there NOT to be reasonable doubt, one must be AT LEAST 95% sure that no other shots were fired at President Kennedy. Given the plethora of circumstantial evidence for a conspiracy, there is reasonable doubt that Oswald acted alone or murdered JFK.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “1. Observed commotion behind the fence”

            There was no “commotion behind the fence,” at least on the parking lot side. Lee Bowers, when being interviewed by Mark Lane, clarified that at the at time of the assassination “no one” was behind the fence.

            “2. Flash of light behind the fence”

            Not seen on any film or photograph, which it clearly would have been. Again, this comes from Bowers who likely saw the reflection of a passing vehicle – or something else on the Elm St side of the fence. He also confirmed that at the time of the caravan passing, no one was behind the fence. Besides, he would have likely not been able to see a muzzle flash from behind, it should have been clearly visible from the Elm St side. But we don’t see it on any film or photo.

            “3. Puff of smoke at the GK fenceline”

            Again, not seen on any film or photographs, and it would have been if visible from observers as far away as the overpass. Modern rifles would not have such a prominent cloud – maybe a blunderbuss was used?

            “4. Gunpowder smell upwind from the GK”

            Which would have been beyond the railway tracks. Not likely, given there was a strong breeze from the southwest.

            “5. Sound of shots from GK”

            As I pointed out, 95% of ear witnesses said “one direction.” Sniper was seen at TSBD, therefore people were all hearing the same shots the sniper was observerd to be firing. Otherwise, we’d have substantial numbers saying TWO directions.

            “6. Blood, bone, brain matter to left rear”

            Limo was travelling forward, debris fell behind. Frame 313 CLEARLY show FORWARD spray of ejected debris, entirely consistent with rear entry, and right side of head blows off, suggesting an exit wound. Both observed events NOT consistent with bullet strike from right front.

            “7. JFK’s back & left snap after kill shot”

            Elementary physics: 200 gr bullet travelling 2000 f/s hitting ~180 pound man with complete transfer of momentum = 1 or 2 inches of movement in direction of bullet travel. Therefore JFK’s body movement CAN’T be due to transfer of momentum. If not so, we’d have seen JFK, Connally knocked to floor of limo with force of previous shot(s).

            “8. Particle cloud towards rear of skull”

            All forensic pathologists and radiologists – including Wecht – agree x-ray and photo evidence consistent with rear, not side, entrance

            “9. Moorman pic blow-up of blob @ fenceline”

            Original prints examined by HSCA – no evidence of fleshtones, therefore nothing human; blob doesn’t appear in other images of same area

            “10.Phony Secret Service Agent at GK.”

            Agents from Tobacco agency etc there, all identified in Bugliosi

          • Gerry Simone says:

            You’re repeating lone assassin factoids, of which I’ll only argue a few here.

            Example: ATF agents were Secret Service agents. Google the article on Lancer. Deb Conway does some research on this. The statements by the police witness say ‘secret service agent’.

            One army intelligence guy who brought his camera to photographa the motorcade went to the knoll but that cop never mentioned a guy carrying a camera. So it’s not an AI guy.

            ATF or AI won’t say SSA.

            I don’t where you quoting from but Bowers saw something strange or unusual behind the fence.

            Elementary physics that the head/torso catapulted back from a rear shot? How can any jury believe that crap or spin?

            You won’t see smoke or a flash of light from any film because there weren’t any taken at those instances or more importantly, that close. Example: The Nix Film is great but isn’t resolute enough to show important details on the GK.

            A researcher explained that smoke could come from gun oil and not burnt shell powder if indeed it was smokeless.

            You can’t debunk Senator Yarborough’s account of smelling gunpowder and he was upwind from the GK (IOW, it sure as hell didn’t come from the TSBD 6th Floor).

          • John McAdams says:

            6. Blood, bone, brain matter to left rear;

            The main axis of the ejected brain matter was upward and forward.

            Hargis drove through the cloud of blood and brain matter.


          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “ATF agents were Secret Service agents.” First, in HSCA testimony, both Weitzman and Harkness of DPD admitted they ASSUMED men were SS agents, they weren’t certain. Joe Smith of the DPD likewise said there was “I believe” one SS agent. He was shown a badge by the man, but without a close inspection, he’d not know for sure. Who was that man? Hosty says it was likely Frank Ellsworth of the (now) ATF who told him he identified himself as a SS agent to someone – though Ellsworth later denied this.

            Ellsworth was in plainsclothes as were numerous others in Dealy Plaza that day, such as detectives with the DPD, and other local and federal agencies. Dallas deputy sheriff Luke Mooney and fellow deputy Ralph Walters were there immediately after the shooting, as were Sam Webster and Bill Vickery. All 4 were in plainsclothes. Bugliosi was the only person to talk to Mooney after the initial investigations, and he said he saw NO SS agents there, seeing only those men in plainsclothes, and “other officers” who were “our boys.”

            And, as was known in early 1964, nine investigators, all plainsclothes, from the Dallas Office of the (now) ATF ran to the TSBD and the Plaza after the shooting, one of whom, as per this memo, was Ellsworth. Any one of them could have been there as well. And, the HSCA heard testimony from Rob Jones of the 112th Military Intelligence Group that “8 to 12” of his men worked in conjunction with the SS both in the motorcade and with some “maybe” in Deally Plaza afterwards who would, if challenged, identify themselves as working in conjunction with the SS.

            The person who Smith saw may have also been James Powell, with the 112th. Though not assigned, he was in Deally Plaza in plainclothes that day. He joined other DPD etc officers to the knoll area and told the HSCA that he would have said “I’m a special agent” or “a special agent with military intelligence.” A further candidate is SS agent Thomas Johns who was briefly stranded in the Plaza after the assassination, and David Weigman, cameraman, said he was at the top of the knoll with Johns. (However, Johns said he never even left the street.)

            In the end, where does this persistent claim lead? NO WHERE. It might be of some relevance if these guys were trying to keep others away or otherwise trying to obstruct — but there is no indication they/he did so. SO we are left with a bunch of guys who were likely either misidentified or had identified themselves incorrectly. A claim, in other words, which means nothing.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “I don’t where you quoting from but Bowers saw something strange or unusual behind the fence.”

            Gerry, this is one of the reasons I, after a quarter-century, ceased to believe the conspiracy crowd when it came to testimony and evidence. Bowers was one of the witnesses who it was claimed was brushed off by the WC when he had crucial testimony to impart. Indeed, there is a scene in “JFK” where we see the actor playing the counsel cutting off Bowers midsentence, with Garrison (played by Costner) yelling out as he reads the testimony, “Ask the question!”

            Well, Mark Lane interviewed Bowers before he died, filmed it. But he AVOIDED “asking the question”: i.e. What did you see behind the fence as the motorcade passed behind? He didn’t ask, but Bowers interrupted Lane’s largely irrelevant line of questioning and bluntly told him this: “Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have – uh – had anything to do with either – as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there – um – at the moment that the shots were fired.”

            You can see the transcript of the filmed interview with Mark Lane’s pen stroke omitting that rather, uh, RELEVANT disclosure from use in his film on Dale Myers’ page (yeah, I know, Myers – but you can see the original transcript).

            It was THAT sort of fundamental dishonesty that I realized was part and parcel of too many in the CT crowd. For decades, they have talked of Bowers’ vague talk of “a commotion,” of a “flash of light,” and discussing several men at either end of the fence. Yet, he told Lane that when the motorcade was went by, there was no one behind the fence! He was staring at it! And he told him that!

            “Elementary physics that the head/torso catapulted back from a rear shot? How can any jury believe that crap or spin?”

            Obviously, you don’t know your physics, Gerry. A 200-grain bullet striking with a complete transfer of momentum would move his body between 1 and 2 inches. Do the math. Which is what we actually see between 312 and 313. Any trial on this point would go over the physics and likely show some filmed executions to underline the point. Any bullet with the calibre to knock him over by a foot would also have the power to blow his head off. His movement backwards is therefore due to other factors, most likely a neurological reaction. It may seem that way to us weaned on Hollywood, but this is not how real life actually works.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “Flash of light, smoke…Example: The Nix Film is great but isn’t resolute enough to show important details on the GK.”

            If a puff of smoke was visible from the overpass, it would have been clearly visible in the Nix film and other films. And we see the area of the fence for long enough for “smoke” to rise in numerous other photos and films – but we see nothing. Funny how so many can see “men” behind the fence, yet fail to see any smoke (save for Lifton, and his “smoke” is foliage in shots from another angle). We’d EXPECT to see “smoke” if there was smoke to be seen.

            “You can’t debunk Senator Yarborough’s account of smelling gunpowder and he was upwind from the GK (IOW, it sure as hell didn’t come from the TSBD 6th Floor).”

            The wind was blowing TOWARDS the fence, not away from it as is clear from the films and photos. SO how could he smell a gunshot upwind from the supposed rifle? You admit he was “upwind,” so what he likely smelt was the exhaust from all the revved-up engines as everyone rushed off – and conflated that to believe he smelt “gunpowder.”

            In the end, we have

            a) 95% of witnesses saying “one direction,” with the only sniper seen at the TSBD. If there were two snipers so far apart, we’d have many if not most saying “two” directions.

            b) A “secret service” claim which is easily dismissed by the confusion and misidentification in the chaos of the aftermath, with most of those men likely identified, and a common-sense assessment that since none were claimed to have been obstructing DPD officers or what have you, this is a claim that goes no where.

            c) Key witnesses such as Bowers having their testimony suppressed… by the CT crowd! …when he specifically said no one was behind the fence. Didn’t know this, eh Gerry? Yeah, I was pretty shocked too. And along this line, testimony from people like Bill Newman who, despite the premise of the page, has specifically and consistently described shots coming from the TSBD-side of the pergola NOT the picket fence on the knoll which the CT crowd so consistently misrepresents him to have said.

            d) Persistent claims which are, on its face, bogus and defy common sense. I’ve already detailed the “95% one direction” point, but it also applied to the head shot. “Backwards and to the left” sounds reasonable, until you actually ask the basic question: How much momentum does a bullet transfer to a body? The CT crowd obviously failed their high school physics on this point.

            Further, we see the RIGHT side of his head blow out, clearly an EXIT wound – and the Newmans describe the same wound ( they claim it entered there, but they couldn’t actually SEE the bullet, could they?) How could a bullet striking that side blow out his skull in that manner? Where is the common sense?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Asst. Prof. McAdams. R.E. # 6, the limousine was stopped or essentially so at the time. Did the light West wind blow it into the face of Hargis, and others behind forcefully?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams’ posted comment of June 22, 2014 6:23 p.m.

            Hargis was riding to the left and rear of the limo. The wind was blowing in the opposite direction (note direction of flapping rain coats here):


            (Hargis I believe even said something to the effect that he was hit hard by blood and/or brain matter).

            One piece if not two (perhaps bone) jettisoned high above and forward but the mist or dispersion cloud is more 180 degrees (Tink demonstrates this in his presentation last year at Lancer).

            I actually have pics of those two slides:

            i) with direction arrows


            ii) shadow analysis effect


            What we see is blow back or back splash, not the uni-directional and single stream that you would see in Alvarez’ jet stream effect experiment.

            Orlando Martin (Analysis of a Shooting) explains that this can only happen with a frangible bullet fired from the front.

          • John McAdams says:

            The wind was blowing in the opposite direction (note direction of flapping rain coats here):

            It looks to me to be blowing from the southwest, such that it would have blown blood and brain matter back onto Hargis.

            (Hargis I believe even said something to the effect that he was hit hard by blood and/or brain matter).

            No, he never said he was hit “hard.”

            That’s a conspiracy book addition to his testimony.

            Please check this out:


            It clears up some factoids.

            Hargis said he saw the “splash come out on the other side.”

            Then there is this:

            Bethell: But the actual – the fact that you were behind the car suggests that the shot in fact came from the front and right of the car.

            Hargis: Well, that right there is what I’ve wondered about all along, but see there’s ah — you’ve got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it.

            It was a horrid mess, and brain matter was everywhere, but it was the right top of Kennedy’s head that exploded, and the main axis of ejected brain matter was upward and forward.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ Jeremy, replying to your comments post of June 22, 2014 at 8:28 pm

          That puff of smoke was under the trees along the fence line. It’s hard to see any detail under those trees and their shadows.

          As for the direction of the wind, just check the weather report and if you don’t believe me, note this pic which I credit Bob Harris in pointing out. Which way are those ladies’ rain coats blowing in the wind? Towards the east, north east right? NOT towards the underpass.


          Replying on a point previously made by you, the ‘blood mist’ is actually more of a 180 degree formation. We do NOT see a SINGLE jet forward although there’s one that seemingly goes high and forward of JFK’s head. Tink demonstrated in a slide (I’ll try to post tonight) using some sort of negative contrast or shadow analysis that the blood cloud was 180 degrees.

          If the blood and brain matter only jettisoned forward, the First Lady would not have jumped on the trunk to retrieve a piece of the President’s head (also confirmed in a recent documentary by Clint Hill – Jackie wasn’t seeking his assistance).

          Your lone assassin scenario and shot from the rear cannot reconcile this fact.

          P.S. On another note, Luis Alvarez’ fudged jet effect experiment only shows a single stream of matter exiting the melon. We see a shroud in JFK’s case, no single jet stream, which is distinguishable and more in tune with blow back or entry splash by a frangible bullet.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            BTW, I found my pics of Tink’s two slides that indicating the ENTIRE direction of the blood cloud around JFK’s head from the fatal head shot at Z-Frame 313.

            Their links are posted above in my reply to Professor McAdams of June 23, 2014, 11:12 a.m.

        • KenS says:

          The human head is not comparable to a watermelon or a pine board.

          As Fiester explains, as I understand her argument, based on her citations of DiMaio, Karger, Smith, Leestma, and Coupland, gunshot wounds in the head create internal pressure within the cranial vault sufficient to blow out the weakest points in the structure of the skull. “If the only openings on the skull are the entry and exit points, the blood is projected from those wounds. If the skull fractures and the bones separate because of interior pressure…blood is forcefully expressed from those openings.”…”Blood is expelled in a conical fashion from any available opening in the skull…(Fiester, EOTT, p.251) This conical pattern of forward spatter, where blood and brain matter are ejected, is ejected in any direction, and could include bony fragments such as we see spinning off toward the front of the limo in the Z film. Fiester places this gunshot to the front of Kennedy’s head originating from the south end of the triple underpass or on the south knoll. Given the angle of Zapruder relative to JFK, these bony fragments have the appearance of resulting from a rear entrance shot, when, in reality, what we are witnessing is conical forward spatter seen on its divergent end, ejecting blood and tissue in all directions.

      • Paul Turner says:

        The two shots heard real close together were, I believe, the two head shots. 1.5 seconds apart. Maybe Oswald fires one of them, but he doesn’t fire them both.

  20. Jeremy Gilbert says:

    …and one final comment on this thread. While many points have been covered, I’m not sure this one has. Newman has for years been consistently saying that the shots came from BEHIND himself. And this has been long cited as evidence of a knoll assassin. Problem is, Newman was in front of the pergola, NOT in front of the Grassy Knoll. If a shot had come from the knoll, well that would have been a diagonal to that location, so “from behind, to the right,” would have been what he would have said. But he said the shot came from DIRECTLY BEHIND himself.

    Just in case I am accused of interpreting the testimony wrongly, here is his statement to the FBI the day of. “I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.” He quite clearly is referring to the pergola, which is NOT the grassy knoll.

    And, just in case THAT is not convincing, here is a photograph of Newman lying on the grass moments after the assassination, doing exactly what he said he was doing, looking at the “garden” directly behind him, the pergola. There were many photos of him there, NONE show him looking towards the grassy knoll.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Semantics my friend.

      Newman is on the grassy knoll, and if he was looking a bit eastward toward the motorcade, he would’ve heard shots from ‘behind’, whether it was from the pergola or the stockade fence.

      Check out his position on Don Roberdeau’s top map (click to enlarge).

      (Oh and while you’re at it, check out another map a little way down which shows the blow up of the Dillard photo showing what looks like another person or shooter at the west window of the 6th floor).

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        It’s not semantics, Gerry, Newman consistently identified the “garden” directly behind him – and he used those words “directly behind” on multiple occasions. He described what is clearly the pergola. The fence was almost at a right angle to where he stood, given the curve of the street.

        Check out the Newman position on that schematic (I love it, that’s quite a cool psychedelic creation), and you will see that the knoll position would be at almost a 90 degree angle to their right as they faced Elm.

        As for the sniper in the window, I can’t believe someone is seriously suggesting a sniper would be hanging around… but it doesn’t look like a sniper to me. And, for all these reports of people up there in addition to Oswald/Not Oswald, why didn’t Bonnie Ray Williams see all these strangers lurking about up there? Actually, it is painfully obvious is was he who some identified as an “accomplice” on the 6th floor.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Nowhere in their testimony or affidavit does it say that ‘garden’ was the pergola.

          In fact, ‘pergola’ is not stated in the WC testimony.

          The ‘garden’ could be the hedge,shrubbery and tree in front of the concrete retaining wall.

          Look at this pic to understand my last point (not sure if I can post it with an html code from TinyPic but I’ll provide an url link as well):

          Also, Bonnie Ray Williams descended to the fifth floor after having his lunch on the 6th floor just after noon hour (10 to 12 minutes IIRC).

          BRW also said that there were boxes obstructing his view around him on the 6th floor.

          Lylian Mooneyham saw a gunman well after the time that Oswald allegedly descended to the 2nd floor.

          Also, the HSCA concluded that boxes moved after Oswald’s alleged presence and before the arrival of law enforcement.

          This is besides the suspect Dillard photo or extant assassination films showing movement in possibly two windows.

          In any event, ‘from behind’ is not the TSBD

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            The shrubs were not “directly behind” him. The pergola was. The shots he described as coming “over our heads” only make sense if it came from the pergola. Go to that psychedelic schematic you posted yesterday and note the positions of the Newmans in relation to JFK at 313. Drawing a line from 313, “over our heads” of the Newmans puts the source… as the pergola. The GK would have been to the right, and a shot from there would have been nowhere close to being “over our heads.”

            Not sure what your point about Williams is. Some estimates have him there as late as 12:25 – so he likely was one of the men other non-employees identified up there. As for Mooneyham, she witnessed someone in the window some FIVE MINUTES after the fact – I am amazed that anyone would see that as significant – as if any assassin would just, you know, hang around after he just shot the president.

            The HSCA concluded there was box movement between the Dillard and Powell photos – but the Dillard shot was taken a few seconds after the final shot, the Powell about 30 seconds after the final shot. So that establishes someone was there between those times. Since we don’t know how long the person in the sniper’s nest remained, this evidence establishes nothing other that there indeed was someone there immediately after the assassination. If it was Oswald, he still had plenty of time to get downstairs.

            Other movements in films etc of the TSBD before were determined to likely be artifacts of photographic processes, not human movement.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jeremy on Williams.

            BRW descended to the 5th floor for that extant photo to exist, which is around the time or just after the assassination (unless that was a mock photo for the press or used as a Commission Exhibit to match his testimony).

            If he didn’t leave the 6th floor before others were around, we would’ve heard his testimony that he heard shots and shells falling just to his left.

            Here’s that photo:


          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Hi Gerry: I’m not sure what your point is about Williams.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I apologize if I didn’t click on your link above of the ‘garden’, or comment on it.

      Thank you for this great photograph and proving my point.

      Where do you see anything resemble a ‘garden’ in front of the pergola?

      On the other hand, in this pic of Newman with family ‘hitting the dirt’, you can see what looks like the only thing closely resembling a ‘garden’, that is, the shrubs along the west face of the retaining wall on the Grassy Knoll, in front of the picket fence, where the GK is suspected of firing from (his actual position probably is west of the southwest corner, along the fence line):

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Correction: ‘…where the GK Shooter is suspected…’

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Did Newman say “picket fence”? No? Then how can you conclude that that is what he meant? And, since when is a shrub a “garden”?

        You have failed to address his “directly behind” and “over our heads” statements which both indicate the pergola. Look at the psychedelic schematic and note where a line drawn from 313 over the Newmans leads to.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Jeremy, I’ve addressed your claim multiple times here and you’re needlessly nitpicking.

          William Newman is not a lawyer or journalist, so his words are not precise.

          The ‘garden’ and ‘directly behind him’, relative to his position when he was first watching the motorcade easterly, means from the knoll.

          He also referred to that area as the ‘hill’.

          The only part of the landscape that resembles a ‘garden’ would be the shrubbery along the retaining wall.

          This rules out the pergola and CLARIFIES that he meant the knoll, and that’s where the stockade fence sits.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        Here is a YouTube video which is interesting for several reasons. First it shows Newman showing exactly what I was saying – that the shot came from the pergola. But watch the video – after Newman points to where the shot came from – the pergola – what does the video immediately show? The picket fence. Yet another example of the conspiracy crowd twisting what a witness says, but here we can see the mendacity quite clearly on display. Yes, he didn’t say the TSBD. But he ALSO didn’t say the picket fence!

        Oh, and not incidentally, this closest witness to the assassination describes a head wound entirely consistent to what we see on the Zapruder film AND what the Warren Commission described.

        Seems this “credible” witness is being ignored by many in the conspiracy crowd in terms of what he actually said on two crucial points – the origin of the shot; the nature of Kennedy’s head wound. As I said, the conspiracy crowd likes to lump every witness who said “somewhere on Elm Street” as a “grassy knoll” witness, and this is a classic example of that.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          This is an interesting video and I thank you for that.

          At about 1:00-1:03, he does say that he *thought* that the shot came from directly behind, and he pointed his right thumb over his right shoulder in the general area of the pergola.

          He subsequently says that he had NO REASON to look at the TSBD.

          Now, at the 1:40 mark, it shows that he was only 10 feet or 15 feet away from the President.

          Take a look at this very closely Jeremy.

          Bill Newman appears to be standing almost perpendicular to the President at that point (he did say that the President came right in front of him at the moment of the fatal shot).

          Jeremy, don’t you think that *if* Bill was right about the direction/source of the shots, that HE himself might have been shot? After all, he *thought*

          Wouldn’t he have possibly obstructed the view of a shot from the pergola as he stood on the sidewalk/curb in front of JFK?

          The fact remains that he neither was shot nor did he obstruct the assassin’s view.

          You may be right about what he said or thought, but one can only logically conclude that he was a little mistaken.

          At the end of the day, some will still call him a GK witness since he does NOT attribute any shots to the TSBD.

          William Newman is still a conspiracy witness.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Correction at 7th paragraph: After all, he *thought* he was in the line of fire.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        This should lay this issue to rest. Here is Bill Newman, looks like the mock trial that Bugliosi and Spence did – looks like it’s Spence here asking where the shot came from. Newman indicates with a blue marker what is clearly the pergola area.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          An even better find than the interview by former Governor Jesse Ventura, thanks/kudos to you.

          As I reasoned above in reply to that Ventura video post, Newman is obviously a little off with his perception as to the source of the shots.

          Therefore, Newman’s perception of the shots is:

          1. Directly behind over his *right shoulder* (as he points with his thumb in the Ventura interview).

          2. That they came from the area of the pergola.

          Once again, he does NOT state that any shots came from the TSBD.

          Therefore, we can still call him a ‘Grassy Knoll’ witness, but you can call him a Pergola Witness.

          However, he definitely is NOT a witness for the prosecution or against the accused Lee Harvey Oswald.

          In short, Newman is a assassination conspiracy witness.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Gerry: I was where you were for 25 years, convinced of the fact of a conspiracy.

            The issue of whether Newman can be termed a knoll witness or a TBSD witness is IRRELEVANT and I only dwelt on it as it was an example of the mendacity of some of the conspiracy crowd, pretending he said the shots were from the picket fence when he said otherwise.

            It is IRRELEVANT for the reasons I underlined earlier:

            a) 95% of the witnesses report hearing shots from ONE DIRECTION

            b) the only sniper actually seen firing was doing so from the TSBD.

            c) therefore, these GK witnesses, the TSBD witnesses, and yes, the pergola witness and the underpass witnesses were all hearing THE SAME SHOTS, and those shots were the ones fired from the TSBD.

            If this was not so, why didn’t a large proportion of GK witnesses additionally say they heard at least one shot from the TSBD? You have failed to answer that obvious question.

            But I’ve supplied the answer – it is because the shots they thought were from the GK were the SAME SHOTS fired from the TSBD, there is no other rational, logical explanation.

            This debate on how many witnesses said the source was one place or another is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT because we know there was only one sniper seen and only direction reported by the vast majority of witnesses, even if they couldn’t come to a consensus on the source of the shots.

            It’s a fallacy that the conspiracy crowd has sold for decades, and one I swallowed hook line and sinker for a quarter-century before I started to employ logic and realized how many of these authors were misleading me, some deliberately suppressing critical evidence.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            btw, Gerry, my thanks for acknowledging I was correct on the pergola issue, even if you interpret the meaning of that differently than I would. I hope I can be as gracious when I am shown to be wrong, I like to think so.

          • Gerry Simone says:


            Yes, you’re right about the pergola issue (& my apologies for not believing you), but that doesn’t discount Newman as a GK shooter witness.

            Either you believe him *literally* or you don’t.

            In this case, with him gesturing with his thumb over his RIGHT shoulder, it suggests from the GK or in the area of the stockade fence.

            If he was right about the pergola as the source of a shot, then either he or Jackie would’ve been hit (if not a spectator on the south side of Elm St.), and the President would’ve had an exit wound on the LEFT side of his head. After all, he thought he was in the line of fire.

            I believe his perception is exaggerated because he may have felt the shock wave of the bullet whizzing at supersonic speed from his right rear side.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      And, just in case THAT is not convincing, here is a photograph of Newman lying on the grass moments after the assassination, doing exactly what he said he was doing, looking at the “garden” directly behind him, the pergola. There were many photos of him there, NONE show him looking towards the grassy knoll.

      He’s posing for the press photographers, not at the ‘garden’ (non-existent) at the pergola.

      • Jeremy Gilbert says:

        And he said “directly behind” not “behind and to the right,” and the fatal shot came in “over our heads” which means the source was… the pergola. From the picket fence would not have come close to the Newmans.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          He MEANT behind and to the right when speaking of the fatal shot. (He wasn’t always consistent or very precise in his wording).

          But when we examine the entire context of his words, he means the knoll.

          For instance, he says directly behind him because initially he was looking eastward towards the motorcade that was approaching him when he heard the first shot.

          Look at this You Tube video (sorry about the annoying background music):

          Newman says the fatal shot came from behind, and then the reporter asks him if the FIRST shot came from the same place (note that the limo was further up the street at the time of the first shot, so Newman was facing eastward).

          He says, yes from behind on the hill, which is the GK or stockade fence.

          So to him, the fatal shot came from the same direction as the first shot (at the time of the first shot, it was directly behind him – he never said that the source of the second shot changed).

          Finally, when you combine his other account about a ‘garden’, he can only mean the grassy knoll.

  21. Ronnie Wayne says:

    95% of witnesses heard shots from one direction? This is ridiculous. Multiple researchers have interviewed multiple witnesses with shots heard from the GK, the TSBD, both, and elsewhere. The majority say GK where virtually all of them ran to in all the pictures. The area where gun smoke was smelled. Where Powers and O’Donnell thought they came from riding right behind JFK. Where Senator Yarborough saw Gordon Arnold hit the ground.
    In a not mock but real trial a defense lawyer would have called these witnesses and many more.
    To Newman’s left rear when standing was the pergola, to his right rear was the GK, the shots came over his head. He doesn’t say to my left rear or right rear. The picture does not prove where he was looking a second before or after it was snapped. What it does prove in conjunction with his statements is the shots coming over his head scared him enough regarding his family’s lives and his own to hit the deck and get out of the line of fire.
    Bugliosi? If you really read all the 2500 or so pages of his book you should read the detailed, documented, much more concise Reclaiming Parkland for a more realistic analysis.

    • Jeremy Gilbert says:

      Ronnie: Re: “95 % one direction” Here are the tabulations on McAdams according to various authors:

      Witnesses who said “one direction” be it from the TSBD, the GK or elsewhere.

      Josiah Thompson: 94% one direction
      6% two directions

      HSCA: 96% one direction
      4% two directions

      Stewart Galanor “Coverup”: 96% one direction
      4% two directions

      McAdams: 97% one direction
      3% two directions

      As for Newman, the pergola was directly behind him. And he on multiple occasions identified the “garden” which can only refer to the pergola. The picket fence was at almost a 90-degree angle to his right when he was facing Elm Street, and MORE than 90 degrees if he turned to face the limo as it passed. If he claims it came over his head, that means it HAS to have come from the pergola as per his testimony. He was explicit on this, but, true to form, many authors consider “Elm Street,” whether it is the pergola, or the underpass, as “the grassy knoll.” Gee, maybe all of southern Dallas is “the grassy knoll”!

      Bugliosi destroyed the case for conspiracy, and the discussion here demonstrates how those in the conspiracy crowd fail to use common sense and logic. Show me a tabulation which refutes the “95%” figure I have seen from multiple sources, including pro-conspiracy sources. While many focus n the minutia of whether more witnesses said TSBD or GK, common sense dictates substantial numbers would have shots from 2 directions if there was a knoll assassin. And in a trial, a parade of witnesses saying “knoll” would easily be countered by the fact that virtually all of these witnesses DID NOT hear shots from the TSBD, where we know a sniper was firing from.

      Mock trials WERE held and the verdict against Oswald was rendered – guilty.

      And, if you want to cite the HSCA (I’m surprised no one has yet), the SOLE piece of evidence they based their conclusion of multiple gunmen on was the dictabelt evidence. Which has been discredited, and has six impulses, when, again, some 95% (the percentage is coincidentally the same) said only three or fewer shots were fired.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I’ve looked at the WC testimony, DPD affidavit, FBI report and Clay Shaw trial testimony.

        ‘Pergola’ or similar wording is never mentioned.

        ‘Garden’ was mentioned in the DPD affidavit but he probably meant the shrubbery in front of the retaining wall, which iself is in front of the wooden picket fence on the GK (see my TinyPic link above).

        Bugliosi’s mock trail for BBC TV resulted in a conviction.

        Bugliosi didn’t ‘destroy’ the case. His book is a detailed prosecutorial brief. Barry Krusch has proposed a challenge with a money reward to VB, McAdams, Reitzes et al, but nobody has taken him up on it.

        James DiEugenio offers a defense for Oswald in his book Reclaiming Parkland.

        There were two other mock trials in the U.S. which resulted in a hung jury and later acquittal.

        The HSCA acoustical conclusion is still being debated (check D.B. Thomas).

    • Jeremy Gilbert says:

      One more quick comment on Newman. Check out Don Roberdeau’s map that Gerry linked to above. You can see where the Newmans were in relation to JFK at frame 313. Draw a line from that spot, over the Newmans… and you end up at the pergola. If you draw a line from 313 to the picket fence, any bullet from there would have been nowhere near the Newmans and certainly not over their heads. This is no mere case of “semantics” – any reasonable reading of what Newman said points to the pergola.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Jeremy, with all due respect:

        There is a ‘garden’ in front of the concrete retaining wall which is on the GK.

        In any event, the pergola is nowhere near the TSBD and it never comes up in any DPD affidavit, FBI report or in his testimony at the Shaw trial.

        I will wager that we don’t see mention of ‘garden’ or ‘pergola’ as a source of shots in the FBI report or Shaw trial transcript because it would be contrary to the official position.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Gerry: You can’t see the garden for the bushes!

          While there can be ambiguity over what “garden” refers to, there is not as much to “directly behind” and “shot over our heads.”

          Newman repeatedly stated the shots came from directly behind and were right over their heads. A quick glance at the schematic diagram you supplied shows the relative position of the Newmans and the limo at Z313 – a bullet passing over their heads would have originated at the pergola.

          Further, as you can tell from that same diagram, the position of the picket fence was almost exactly at a right angle (not “behind” by any reasonable definition) to where they were, and any bullet fired at that point would have not been anywhere near where the Newmans stood.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            He said he was in the line of fire, which was directly behind him at the time of the first shot as he looked eastward, not from the pergola.

            See my recent response above and the YT video attesting to this.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Never suggested the pergola was near the TSBD. I was just pointing out this “grassy knoll” witness in fact was describing a source which is in fact the pergola. Yes, he doesn’t say “pergola,” but he also didn’t say “picket fence,” did he? (If he did, correct me on this.) He said “over our heads,” which means the shot he heard came from whereever a straight line from Z313 over the Newmans points to. And that is… the pergola.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Well, what are you suggesting Jeremy?

            That a shot came from the pergola? At a right angle to the stockade fence? That’s not possible.

            If JFK was fatally shot from the pergola, Jackie Kennedy would’ve been killed too.

            Therefore, the wound trajectory that your scenario implies just doesn’t work.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            No, Gerry, I don’t pretend for a second that a shot came from the pergola. But the simple fact of the matter is that is where Newman claims the shot came from.

            Yet those who claim “grassy knoll” – meaning the picket fence and not the entire side of Elm Street – like to pretend his testimony corroborates that view. As I show via the video link, conspiracy sources blatantly misrepresent what Newman actually claimed. Indeed this thread does the same!

            His testimony is an example of the sincere – but obviously incorrect – view of the directions of the shots.

            It is also a prime example of what I have been saying all along – he, like almost every witness who expressed an opinion on this, said the shots came from one direction.

            And, as I said, we know for sure where one sniper was, at the TSBD (and I allow for the possibility for a second sniper – there at the TSBD). But “one direction” means that the shots heard came from that one sniper – regardless of where various witnesses thought the shots came from. And THAT is an inescapable conclusion based on the ear witness evidence.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jeremy, it seems like you have considered Reclaiming History by Bugliosi as the Bible.

            It’s a prosecutorial brief. Bugliosi took the easy way out in my mind to opine, write or profit on the assassination.

            Sure there are some unsound theories, but Bugliosi (perhaps ‘bully-osi’) paints all conspiracy angles as wackor or nuts.

            He’s just badgering the defense side.

            He doesn’t question authority and mocks those that do. How convenient.

            Newman was perhaps so close to the fatal shot that he sensed the shock wave of the bullet as it passed in front of him, and felt it was directly behind him.

            Make no mistake: He points over his right shoulder, not his left. He can’t be talking about the TSBD. There will be errors in perception and memory, but if I were a juror, I would take that account to mean from the front and not the TSBD, and conclude conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn’t mean that Oswald didn’t do it, but I couldn’t believe the single bullet theory or that CE399 is not a plant, which would make me ultimately acquit Oswald GIVEN my belief of a conspiracy on separate grounds. This jives with his plea that he was a patsy.

          • RJ says:

            “And, as I said, we know for sure where one sniper was, at the TSBD (and I allow for the possibility for a second sniper – there at the TSBD). But “one direction” means that the shots heard came from that one sniper – regardless of where various witnesses thought the shots came from. And THAT is an inescapable conclusion based on the ear witness evidence.”

            To discount the possibility of other shooters is not supportable. Just because only one shooter was seen (and the description of this shooter is questionable in terms of veracity of statement and physical similarities to LHO) does not preclude the possibility of other shooters.

            First of all, some witnesses did report shooters and activity behind the Knoll/Pergola area. (Bowers, J.C. Price, Moorman & Jean Hill among others). Second, any sniper with training would shoot from cover to conceal themselves. Third, the wounds and trajectories are not consistent with a single shooter from above and behind. Never have been.
            Bugliosi’s book is very much flawed.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jeremy Gilbert’s June 11, 2014 10:55 pm response

            But “one direction” means that the shots heard came from that one sniper – regardless of where various witnesses thought the shots came from. And THAT is an inescapable conclusion based on the ear witness evidence.

            Further to what Fairfax commented this morning, just because ONE witness who doesn’t claim the shot came from the TSBD or the stockade fence, doesn’t mean that all GK shot witnesses are wrong. Also, just because the barrel of a rifle was supposedly seen from the 6th floor window doesn’t mean that the many GK shot witnesses are probably wrong too.

            This means you probably would discount ALL other circumstantial evidence that is contrary to a single assassin from the TSBD, if you think along those lines.

            Circumstantial evidence is also relevant to consider in the thorough investigation of a crime.

            You must consider all the facts, and not have blinders on.

            It’s also a matter of persuasion.

            The Warren Commission didn’t have a jury or competent defense attorney to contend with, only the court of public opinion, which after all these years and the discovery or release of additional information, still doesn’t believe in the majority, what you believe.

        • John McAdams says:

          Note that in his first testimony (WFAA-TV) he said the shots came from “that mall up there.”

          The pergola had a walk-way within it, so “mall” was an accurate way of describing the pergola.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            That makes sense now in light of Jeremy’s videos of Newman clarifying it was the pergola.*

            *I won’t repeat my arguments here that he still MEANT GK, which are enumerated above.

  22. Paul Turner says:

    As I go down the list of comments here that appear to go against the Newmans, I have two reactions. 1)-They look and sound like decent people. Why would they be untruthful in front of their young children, especially the one who asked why it happened? 2)-As was said by a previous person here, Ms. Newman came right out to say that the bullet that hit Conally came right after one that hit Kennedy. Two different bullets=two shooters. There’s your conspiracy right there.

  23. Dave says:

    After following all the back-and-forth between Jeremy and Gerry (whom I’d side with) speculating as to what Bill Newman really meant by his various statements, how about posing these key questions respectfully to Bill and let the chips fall where they may? Bill, are you out there reading this?

    • Fairfax says:

      Jeremy Gilbert says: “The Plaza is an echo chamber. We know this is true as if there were indeed multiple snipers, most witnesses would report multiple directions of fire. They didn’t – they virtually ALL reported shots from a single direction. yet there was much disagreement over the source of the shots, going by sound. The ONLY logical conclusion, given that a sniper WAS seen, is that there was only one sniper firing and that sniper was in the TSBD.”

      I’m puzzled by Mr Gilbert’s certainty in this debate. If Dealey Plaza was indeed an “echo chamber”, as Mr Gilbert argues, then any shot would also produce an echo. Any earwitness would presumably then have to discriminate between the two before he/she could describe the source of a shot. This means that many of those who said they were hearing shots from one direction must also have heard other sounds, which they discounted as “echoes”. It means, in fact, that they must have been making very fine discriminations as to which sounds to treat as significant and which to treat as extraneous. They were presumably also engaged in considerable mental revision of what they thought they had heard. In these circumstances, a second weapon, making a different sound from the first, could easily be misrecognized as an echo. Hence, the “echo chamber” assertion (which may or may not be sound) runs logically counter to the “single-direction” argument being made with such apparent conviction by Mr Gilbert.
      The most extraordinary leap in Mr Gilbert’s argument, however, is the assumption that, because someone saw a “sniper”, that sniper must have fired an audible shot which, so to speak, anchors the 95% of witnesses to the TSBD hypothesis. This is clearly a false premiss – or at least a premiss that hasn’t been established – and when the premiss is wrong, even the “ONLY logical conclusion” is entirely invalid. In fact, nothing that Mr Gilbert asserts logically precludes all the most audible shots being fired from some other location entirely – e.g. the DalTex Building.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        As Pat Speer previously pointed out, the HSCA’s acoustical investigation of Dealey Plaza did not conclude that it was an echo chamber or that echoes were significant to distort recordings or perceptions.

        It seems that this ‘echo chamber’ notion is a lone assassin factoid.

      • JSA says:

        The entire “echo chamber” argument used to try to discredit those witnesses who were fairly certain that at least one shot came from up on the grassy knoll is thoroughly debunked in Donald Thomas’ book, “Hear No Evil.” I suggest those who are interested in this topic read his book, which covers most aspects of the acoustical evidence.

      • mball says:

        Further – suppose someone fired at a closer range than the depository with a silenced weapon using subsonic ammunition. Big noise at a distance to distract, close in with a silenced weapon to kill. Not saying that happened. But it’s possible, and logical.

  24. Fairfax says:

    Just to clarify something I was trying to say earlier, let’s take Mr Gilbert’s strongest statement of his claim about the source of the shots:

    “a) 95% of the witnesses report hearing shots from ONE DIRECTION
    b) the only sniper actually seen firing was doing so from the TSBD.
    c) therefore, these GK witnesses, the TSBD witnesses, and yes, the pergola witness and the underpass witnesses were all hearing THE SAME SHOTS, and those shots were the ones fired from the TSBD.”

    The argument has the form of a logical syllogism, which is, as we know, logically convincing if certain conditions are fulfilled. This particular “syllogism” is, of course, massively flawed and it takes only a moment to spot the flaw. What is relevant is not a sniper who was “seen” firing (was a sniper actually seen firing?), but a sniper who was “heard” firing. It may or may not be that shots were fired from the TSBD. If it could be proved that they were and that these were the shots that were being HEARD by all the witnesses, then the “95% one-direction” argument would be (at least logically) sound (i.e. (c) would follow from (a) and (b)).
    Now, Mr Gilbert may say that “common sense” suggests that shots from the TSBD were fired and heard. But that isn’t a basis for an incontrovertible “logical” argument. In fact, it assumes what has to be proved – namely, that an audible shot (and therefore probably all the others) came from the TSBD.

    There are several other problems with the “one-direction” argument. I can imagine that people are quite good at saying where a single shot came from. I suspect it’s an awful lot more complicated to pick out the source of four or five shots over a short space of time (and in a high-stress situation) when one or two of them come from a sightly different angle. And what if a second weapon involved made a considerably different sound from the first? So, in my view, Mr Gilbert’s logic is patently flawed and his “common sense” requires quite a bit of testing. After all, “common sense” tells us that the earth stands still and the sun “rises” every day.

    Mr Bugliosi’s mock trial documentary was made for London Weekend TV, by the way, not for the BBC.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Thank you for the philosophical discussion on the ‘logic’ employed by lone assassin proponents, and I stand corrected on the Bugliosi mock trial’s TV production (the BBC is regarded as one of the top news broadcasters).

      WC defenders will ‘force’ their reasoning to fit the mold of the lone assassin setting on the 6th floor of the TSBD, regardless of logical or rational deductions from other available evidence, be it circumstantial or otherwise.

      They will even disregard departures from evidentiary protocol, science and physical laws that detract from the official version.

      I agree with Barry Krusch in that we don’t have *at least* 95% confidence level (required for reasonable doubt) to accuse LHO of the assassination.

  25. Greg says:

    Shot right in the ” temple”.

  26. Len Kurtz says:

    There is something wrong about the Newman film. The jacket pocket of the newsman keeps changing sides. Is some of the film reversed and why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more