Dec. 1, 1963: The origins of doubt

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

One common misconception about the JFK assassination story is that suspicions of conspiracy originated with authors who dreamed up sensational theories. In fact, the controversy over JFK’s death emerged from the circumstances of the crime before any conspiracy theories had been published.

Case in point: On December 1,1963, Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who was in Dallas, wrote an unusual article about JFK’s assassination. He did not assume the truth of public statements by law enforcement agencies. Rather, he compared those statements to what he had observed, and he asked “Did Assailant Have an Accomplice?”

Dudman was no conspiracy theorist. He went on to a long career in Washington journalism in which his independent reporting later would land him on  President Nixon’s so-called “enemies list.”

John Kelin recently called attention to Dudman’s article at Deep Politics Forum and Phil Dragoo posted the text.

Position of Wound Is Puzzling—Did Assailant Have an Accomplice?
A Washington Correspondent of the Post-Dispatch

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30—The exact circumstances of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination may never be explained, despite the several investigations into the case.

The multiplicity of investigations—by Dallas city police, the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and now, a Presidential commission headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren and including Senators and Representatives—may even impede rather than assist full public understanding of the killing.

Major uncertainties remain to be cleared up, in the view of this reporter, who covered the late President’s Texas trip. This reporter was in a press bus a block from where the President was shot and witnessed the later fatal shooting of the alleged assassin in the basement of the Dallas City Hall and jail.

Doubtful aspects of the case include even the identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the only killer. Officials here and in Dallas have said repeatedly they believed that Oswald alone shot the President, firing from a sixth-story window of the Texas School Book Depository building.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is expected to supply most of the information on which the seven-man presidential commission will base its findings, has indicated repeatedly that it agrees with Dallas police that the case against Oswald as the sole killer was airtight.

Position of Wound

The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy.

Surgeons who attended him at Parkland Memorial Hospital described it as an entrance wound. They said it was in the center front, just below the Adam’s apple, at about the necktie knot.

At the time of the shooting, the President’s open automobile was moving almost directly away from the window from which the shots are thought to have been fired. It was on a curving stretch of Elm street that leads from Houston street down to a triple underpass, about 75 yards from the window and about the same distance from the underpass.

The question that suggests itself is: How could the President have been shot in the front from the back?

Some observers supposed that the first shot had been fired at the President when he was still on Houston street, moving toward the Book Depository building before he turned into Elm.

What Movies Show

Motion pictures of the President’s car, made public after a few days’ delay, made it clear that all the shots were fired after the President had made the turn and passed the building. If the shots came from the sixth-floor window they came from almost directly behind the President.

Dr. Robert N. McClelland, one of three surgeons who opened the President’s throat in an effort to restore an air passage and start his breathing, said he and another doctor had arrived in the emergency room shortly after D. Malcolm Perry had begun cutting the air passage in the throat.

The incision was made through the bullet wound, since it was in the normal place for the operation. Dr. Perry described the bullet hole as an entrance wound.

Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch, “It certainly did look like an entrance wound.”

He explained that a bullet from a low-velocity rifle, like the one thought to have been used, characteristically makes a small entry wound, sets up shock waves inside the body and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side.

Dr. McClelland conceded that it was possible that the throat wound marked the exit of a bullet fired into the back of the President’s neck. He said there had been no time to examine whether there was a wound in the back of the neck.

But we are familiar with bullet wounds,” he said. “We see them every day—sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an entrance wound.”

He said the doctors afterward tried to explain how the shot in the neck could have been fired from the book warehouse.

“We postulated that if it was a wound of entry, as we thought it was, the President might have been turned in such a way that it could hit him there,” he said. “He would have had to have been looking almost completely to the rear.”

The motion pictures, however, showed the President looking forward. Mrs. John Connally, the wife of the Texas Governor, has said she had just told Mr. Kennedy, “You can’t say Dallas isn’t friendly to you today.” Presumably he was about to reply when he was hit.

Hole in Windshield

Another unexplained circumstance is a small hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine. This correspondent and one other man saw the hole, which resembled a bullet hole, as the automobile stood at the hospital emergency entrance while the President was being treated inside the building.

The Secret Service kept possession of the automobile and flew it back to Washington. A spokesman for the agency rejected a request to inspect the vehicle here. He declined to discuss any hole there might be in the windshield.

There have been two other reports of injury to the President’s head. One of the physicians who attended him in Dallas said afterward that he had noticed a small entry wound in the left temple.

Another person, who saw the President’s body a ‘few minutes after he died,’ told the Post-Dispatch he thought he had observed a wound in the President’s forehead. He asked that his name not be used. Reports of the temple and forehead wounds could have referred to the same injury.

The Number of Shots

Uncertainty surrounds the number of shots that were fired. Most witnesses have said they heard three, within a space of about five seconds.

Investigators have accounted for them as the one that entered the President’s throat, a second that struck Gov. Conally [sic], riding in the front seat, and a third that struck the back of the President’s head and caused extensive brain damage.

The first bullet is said by the doctors in Dallas to have entered the throat, coursed downward and remained in the President’s body.

The second was extracted from Gov. Connally’s thigh. It had lodged there after entering the right side of his back, passing through his body and through his wrist.

A third, which may be the one that struck the back of Mr. Kennedy’s head, was recovered from the stretcher on which he was carried into the hospital.

A fourth was found in fragments in the car.

Still another bullet was found by Dallas police officers after the shooting. It was in the grass opposite the point where the President was hit. They did not know whether it had anything to do with the shooting of the President and Governor.

Another question is the exact whereabouts at the time of Jack Ruby, who later shot Oswald fatally in the basement of the City Hall and jail and awaits trial on a charge of murder.

Employes [sic] of the Dallas Morning News say they saw Ruby in the News building five blocks from where the President was shot. He went there to help lay out an advertisement for his strip-tease establishment, the Carousel Club.

News employes [sic] expressed certainty that he was In the building until 12:15 p.m., and he was seen there again at 12:45 p.m. Some had a vague recollection of seeing him sitting at a desk between those times. The President was shot at 12:30 p.m.

If the President was shot from the front as well as from behind, or instead of from behind, the firing could have come from the railroad overpass his automobile was approaching.

The overpass has a gravel walkway between the tracks and a three-foot concrete balustrade that faced the President’s approaching car. At each end is a length of wooden fencing about five feet high.

Silence of Officials

Officials of the Justice Department and the Secret Service declined to say what inspection was made of the overpass before and during the President’s approach toward it.

If there were two snipers, and Mr. Kennedy’s car was caught I the crossfire, the rapid-fire shooting would be more easily explained.

Tests have shown, however, that a single sniper, using the bolt-action Italian rifle with telescopic sight found in the warehouse, could have fired three shots easily in five seconds. One shell would have been in the chamber, so that the bold would have had to be moved only twice. The weapon could have been rested on a box, so that it would not have been necessary to aim again for the subsequent shots.

All questions about the evidence were answered with a request to wait until President Lyndon B. Johnson has received the report on the full-scale federal investigation he has ordered. He has said that all facts will be made public.



44 thoughts on “Dec. 1, 1963: The origins of doubt”

  1. jonathan riikonen

    The first police officer who reached the sixt floor saw a mauser rifle, he knew for sure, since it had MAUSER printed in the side. He was stunned when the Carcano was introduced as a killing weapon. He was soon silenced and some claim sent to mental institution. Another innocent victim in the crime of the century.

  2. The Warren Commission has been successful in its cover-up. A recent survey claims that 74% of the public believes that Oswald was the lone shooter. In a few years, the percentage will rise, once the living survivors of that day have vanished from the earth. I remember the day very well and have been a fact-based “conspiracist” for 50 years, and those facts have not been washed away. I watched the events at Parkland on television, and after the President was wheeled in, a reporter standing next to the car removed a pen or pencil from an inner breast pocket and touched it to the windshield and said that there was damage consistent with a shot from the front. I assumed then that the reporter was a local stringer, but later learned that he most likely was Richard Dudman. I assume that there is no tape record of that brief sequence, but Dudman has stated that he was there at the time, and saw a hole in the windshield. What’s the point? Oswald wasn’t the sole shooter. Then there is the statement by Dr. Crenshaw that the throat wound was caused by a shot from the front, because it clipped Kennedy’s tie, carrying some of the tie threads into the small, round wound, that was typical of an entry wound. The entry hole was enlarged surgically for a tracheostomy, and subsequently was converted into an exit wound by the autopsy doctors in Bethesda…for unknown reasons. What’s the point? Oswald wasn’t the sole shooter. Then there is the killing head wound, that blew skull and brain tissue backward, landing on the trunk behind Mrs. Kennedy. This clearly was caused by a shot from the front. An attempt to discredit that likelihood was set up in a demonstration, using a pig shot from the rear. The pig’s head moved forward, then backward, followed by a pseudoscientific explanation of muscle reactions and counter-reactions. The front shots unquestionably came from the grassy knoll. It has been suggested by others that the front shots might have come from the overpass, but this is unlikely, because there is footage showing many people lined against the railing on the overpass, happily watching the presidential motorcade. What, then, was Oswald’s role? In my opinion, he fired two shots. One struck Kennedy in the back, leaving a small entry hole; and the other did grievous damage to Governor Connally. How about the single bullet theory, supposedly put forth by Arlen Specter? The Warren Commission jumped for joy at this one. It gave them an easy out, and relieved them of the need to investigate a conspiracy. Why did they find this acceptable? We may never know. All of this has been looked into by many others, and I simply wish to add my voice to those who remain disturbed by the assassination and the ineptitude of the Warren Commission.

    1. Hal, I think you’re right about LHO having fired just two shots. Only two shells were found at the sniper’s nest. Right there, we have the conspiracy, because it was reported throughout the nation and the world that there were 3 shots. Another shooter fired the third.

    1. Dudman hedges as to his key observation — that of a windshield bullet hole — 25 years after the assassination. He does so pointedly and carefully.

      On 1 December 1963. Dudman didn’t understand he’d put his finger on the third rail. Good thing for him he wasn’t grounded in a puddle of water.

      Twenty-five years later, he understood the peril of his earlier position. Being no rebel, he admitted to a “different” observation.

      Bet he’s a good student of Orwell.

      1. Jonathan, Where can I find the Dudman hedge? I saw him at Parkland point to the damage on the windshield that he described as consistent with a shot fron the front. My recollection is that he did not say that there was complete penetration, but that the glass was dished out on the passenger side, resembling the effect of a BB shot at a window. One might presume that the windshield was constructed with bullet-proof glass.

  3. There are no LN-ers here to deny facts. I’ll post facts:

    — No one tied LHO to the Carcano (Jesse Curry).

    — All credible witnesses testified the right side of JFK’s head was blown off.

  4. “December 1, 1963: The Origins of Doubt”

    My origins of doubt began on the afternoon of November, when major news organizations began reporting a suspect was in custody. The clear message was “case closed.”

    On Sunday the 24th, when Ruby killed the handcuffed Oswald in the basement of DPD headquarters, doubt was replaced by certainty.

    When the FBI report was leaked a couple of weeks later, it was clear to any adult with a functioning brain the fix was in. The Warren Report was (and I’ll omit the expletive) an after-thought.

    1. In fact, the commissioners themselves complained in executive session about the leak of the FBI report and how it boxed them in. After all, they were relying almost exclusively on the FBI for investigation. On page 52 of the transcript, McCloy calls attention to a New Republic article (Dec. 21st issue per transcript) called “Seeds of Doubt,” that “quotes stories from papers all over the country.”
      See JFK Facts, Dec. 16th entry, at:
      transcript of Executive Session Dec. 16, 1963:

      The commissioners also complain about being hedged-in by the leak of the FBI report in the executive session on Jan. 22, 1964, where the comment is made that “they would like us to fold up and quit.” Boggs: “This closes the case, you see?”
      (at pp. 12-13.)

      Transcript Jan. 22, 1964 session:

      1. PJM:

        January 22 is an interesting date in the context of the FBI issue. On or about the 23rd, Allen Dulles phoned Robert Storey who apparently was acting as liaison in Dallas for the WC at least on that day, and asked about the rumor that Oswald might have had links with the FBI. The following day, Storey, District Attorney Henry Wade, and Asst. DA William Alexander flew to DC for a direct meeting with Dulles. (you may already be aware of this.)

          1. Of course, this led to the executive session on Jan. 27, 1964, spawning the famous phrase “dirty rumor.” Most of the discussion about this point of view centers on the determination of LHO’s status vis a vis the FBI. But the attitude and reaction of the commission to such a “rumor” as something that had to be speedily quashed is itself telling, and is reminiscent of the 11/25/63 Katzenbach memo referring to “rumors and speculation.” The WC Report included a section on Rumors and Speculation that addressed the issue most succinctly.

            “Speculation.–Oswald was an informant of either the FBI or the CIA. He was recruited by an agency of the U.S. Government and sent to Russia in 1959.

            Commission finding.–Mrs. Marguerite Oswald frequently expressed the opinion that her son was such an agent, but she stated before the Commission that “I cannot prove Lee is an agent.” 93 The Directors of the CIA and of the FBI testified before the Commission that Oswald was never employed by either agency or used by either agency in any capacity. Investigation by the Commission has revealed no evidence that Oswald was ever employed by either the FBI or CIA in any capacity.94″ (WCR Appendix 12, p. 660.)

            It may be a measure of the public’s trust in the government at that time that the Report could baldly state that Oswald’s mother can’t prove it and the Directors say “No,” and expect the matter to be squelched. That was before “The Credibility Gap.”

            From my point of view, this terse technique in an effort to dispose of a potentially damaging issue is also reminiscent of the equally succinct and equally unsatisfying language in the HSCA report to the effect that the dented cartridge (CE 543) was a non-issue (addressing Josiah Thompson’s concerns, at p. 371).

      2. PKM,
        Great points. You probably know that Robert Storey was acting as advisor to the Texas Attorney General from whose jurisdiction the entire investigation was summarily yanked. And I couldn’t agree more – the undertow of events beginning January 22 until the “dirty rumor” statement was issued suggests alarm followed by serious damage control. Nicholas Katzenbach, who married into the Phelps Dodge dynasty, left government in ’64 to join IBM.

  5. As I often say, the murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death. Dudman himself later succombed to the peer pressures of the JFK assassination cover up:

    Also, google “The importance of Connie Kritzberg – Education Forum” for more information on the shot to JFK’s throat as described by the Parkland doctors on day 1 … and more importantly the FBI editing Connie’s article in the Dallas Times-Herald, adding a sentence:

    “A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.”

    1. Robert,

      I agree with you that the doctors (McClelland, Perry and others such as Crenshaw) did think that they saw an entrance wound in the throat, and an entrance wound in Kennedy’s right temple, blasting out the back of his head (even though he was lying on a stretcher). But I’ve been challenged by some pretty tough posters who claim that these doctors in the ER can’t be fully accurate—in other words, only the pathologists in Bethesda can be trusted to know where the bullet paths actually were. I’m not saying that I agree with this sentiment, but it’s out there, it’s argued quite forcefully, and it stops debate right there.

      I’m interested in hearing how you would respond to these counter-arguments. I don’t seem to be getting anywhere with them.

      1. JSA,

        I’ll jump in.

        First, you are never going to change the mind of someone whose mind is unalterably biased as to the JFK assassination.

        Second, look for firsthand observations. For example: Kellerman and Greer both testified to a rear-of-head blow-out. Kellerman and Greer were present in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland as well as the entire autopsy. They were trained observers.

        The deniers will continue to deny and bluster and obfuscate. But you can ask for facts of equal weight in opposition. You won’t get any, and that will be that.

        Footnote: Kellerman told the W.C. there was a “flurry of shots” into the limousine after the initial two shots.

        1. Thanks Jonathan.

          Back in 1992, I tried to show my copy (VHS tape was the format then) of Dr. Charles Crenshaw, interviewed on ABC-TV (my girlfriend had dutifully taped it for me). My family would have NOTHING OF IT. They didn’t even want to see it! It’s the oddest form of behavior, when folks don’t want to see something. You can bet your boots that if someone had a new clip or testimony showing Oswald firing from the 6th floor window, I’d want to see it right away, and I’d be willing to accept what I saw. For the record, my family worked in, let’s just say, military-industrial complex jobs, including my dad, who began working in defense in the fifties. He considered himself a ‘liberal’ but when the JFK assassination topic came up, he said he didn’t buy any conspiracy theories, saying they were just too implausible. Yet he wouldn’t watch the Crenshaw video! I just can’t figure people out.

          1. JSA,

            You hit the nail on the head. I’ve come across plenty of intelligent, even well-educated, folks who are utterly close-minded. I’ve learned NOTHING works to undo close-minded-ness.

          2. Many people do not understand the sub rosa war that was going on between the Kennedys and LBJ. When they understand that, the “anomalies” of the JFK assassination cover up become clear.

            Even Robert Caro describes the Kennedy-Johnson relationship as one accurately defined as hatred.

            Caro also writes about the LIFE magazine expose that was being prepared on LBJ in November, 1963, and the large number of reporters they had working on the case.

        2. Yeah. I’ve had doubts about Kellerman and Greer over the ears, especially Greer. But their post-assassination testimonies were devastating for the Oswald-did-it-alone crew.

    2. Robert,

      The Connie Kritzberg editing you cite reflects how quickly the FBI lined up behind the LHO-did-it-alone storyline. It was practically instantaneous, beginning with J.E. Hoover.

      I don’t believe the FBI was part of the plot; the plotters made far too many errors, which the W.C. had to cover up. The FBI would have done a much more polished job.

      It’s clear, though, the FBI had a big dog in the fight post-assassination.

      1. I think Hoover was fully aware of the plot to murder JFK. I have always thought this had merit:

        From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

        “The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA’s counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, “What group were these tapes identifying?” Parker replied: “Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover.” I asked, “What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?”

        I don’t have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, “Are we going to have any problems?” And he said, “No, we aren’t going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we’ll do our job.” There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn’t realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]

        1. You listened to such a tape and believe it’s for real?

          I’ve no doubt Hoover was being monitored in some way by the mob (photos) and by LBJ’s crew (Bobby Baker in particular).

          What you’re saying here is explosive if (a) the tape recordings can be produced, and (b) the voices you ascribe to Hoover and N. Rockefeller can be verified as such. Lots of ifs.

          1. I have not listened to the tapes. It is what CIA counterintelligence Trenton Parker told Rodney Stich in 1993. I called Stich and he confirmed Parker did indeed say that.

            LBJ & Hoover were very close. LBJ & Nelson Rockefeller had some sort of sub rosa relationship. GHW Bush was supported by the Rockefellers, as was LBJ, and Bush and LBJ were supported by the exact same oil-military industrial complex crowd in Texas.

  6. “One shell would have been in the chamber, so that the bold would have had to be moved only twice.”

    Here Dudman makes an error. He’s correct as far as he goes. What he probably didn’t know is that the Carcano allegedly found on the 6th floor contained a live round in the chamber. So Oswald would have operated the bolt a third time, after the final shot.

    But that Carcano was not the murder weapon. Its barrel was rusted. Even one shot would have cleaned the barrel of rust.

    1. I’ve gone back and re-read “The Gun That Didn’t Smoke.” Terrific article. Thanks.

      The authors focus on the clip stuck in the Carcano and the massive problems this caused for the Warren Commission and the DPD. Especially the DPD.

      And there’s this: The three empty Carcano shells held up as Commission exhibits include one that COULD NOT have contained a bullet, because it has a bent lip.

      Moreover, a first or second photo of the “sniper’s nest”shows two spent cartridges and a live round. Clearly.

      The LN-ers ask for facts. The rifle and its alleged cartridges are rife with facts — all of which point to a rifle that’s been planted as part of a frame-up.

      1. May I respectfully disagree?

        The dented shell was dented during ejection, when it was already empty. The FBI, HSCA and several MC owners have accidentally duplicated this dent by ejecting shells rapidly during firing.

        The clip is partially visible in photos of Day carrying the rifle out of the TSBD. It didn’t always fall out after the last round was chambered.

        A clearer photo shows that the “live round” in the SN is actually an empty shell next to a piece of debris.

        Scroll down here:


        1. Is the clip visible in the reenactment involving at least one photographer and various people passing the rifle back and forth?

        2. “A clearer photo shows that the “live round” in the SN is actually an empty shell next to a piece of debris.”

          C.E. 512 is a crude Warren Commission attempt to divert attention from the clearer photo, which does appear to show a live round. In C.E. 512, the round in question is replaced, crudely, with a spent cartridge. The Warren Commission obviously was quite uncomfortable with your “clearer photo.”

          As for the clip, I’ve read a well functioning, loaded clip in a well functioning Carcano does not have a propensity to stick in the magazine; rather it has a strong propensity to fly out the bottom of the magazine when the last round in the clip is chambered.

          On the other hand, an empty clip fed into the magazine will invariably stick.

          No tests were performed with the clip allegedly found in Oswald’s rifle. Nor were any fingerprints found on the clip.

          IMO, the clip could not be used as evidence against Oswald in a trial. Insufficient basis for believing he placed it into the Carcano’s magazine.

          You assert the dented shell was dented during ejection. From what I’ve read, a properly fired Carcano round will eject without denting; the act of denting would necessarily cause the expended cartridge to jam in the chamber. On the other hand, tests have shown it’s easy to dent an empty shell by hand-loading it into a Carcano and then ejecting it.

          Once again, a key physical item would not be admitted into evidence. It would be rejected on the grounds of relevance.

  7. The most important statements in this article are:

    “Another unexplained circumstance is a small hole in the windshield of the presidential limousine. This correspondent…saw the hole, which resembled a bullet hole, as the automobile stood at the hospital emergency entrance while the President was being treated inside the building.”

    This is firsthand knowledge, as to which Dudman could have testified at a trial of Oswald. Everything else of which he writes would be inadmissible hearsay.

    The question would become, how credible a witness would Dudman be? My guess is, pretty credible to an ordinary jury.

    Therefore, it’s fair to argue Dudman’s observation establishes, at the very least, criminal cover-up by members of the Secret Service in misrepresenting damage to the windshield.

    FWIW, I’ve long believed certain members of the SS Presidential Detail covertly turned against JFK because of JFK’s sexual adventures.

    1. larry wheeler

      jonathan you are correct that the secret service were not kennedy fans. check former secret service man Abraham Bolden’s account of the secret service in relation to jfk. his story sets the context for what was allowed by laxity of the secret service in dallas. bolden was himself framed and run out of the secret service for speaking up.

  8. Interesting that Dr. Perry and McClelland seem to be cited as thinking that the throat wound in which the trach tube was inserted (enlarged to do this) had initially been an entrance wound, and this passage and quote caught my eye:

    But we are familiar with bullet wounds,” he said. “We see them every day—sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an entrance wound.”

    It’s perhaps not unusual for the evidence of the presidential limousine to be carefully sealed off and kept from tampering by the public—so far, so good. But to have it secreted away and THEN cleaned and refitted (I can understand the cleaning part to get the gory stuff away) but REFITTED?? It should have been kept as evidence, especially any bullet holes, which would help the Warren Commission in their search for the truth of what happened. As for photos taken of the car while it was in the White House basement, I’ve seen these, but they are not very detailed, and although I’ve seen one photo that shows a bullet hit on the windshield, it isn’t something that I think was included in the Warren Report. Rather, it seems to be something that slipped out (people can’t keep secrets after all unless all but one are dead).

    1. Going to respectfully disagree here. Of course they would have had to clean the limo but it was a crime seen

      CSI or police investigators would have to investigate, take pictures, properly document any bullet fragments were found.

      The fact that this was not done means that none of this evidence could be used to convict Oswald.

      1. larry wheeler

        Oswald had his trial when he was framed as the patsy. then executed by a mob associate who put the “fix’ in with the police in dallas. you got it right -none of that limo evidence could be used at a trial because the texas boys were not having no trial.

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top