The Magic Bullet: A Legal-Scientific analysis of the Warren Commission’s Single Bullet Theory Andrew M. Mason1

Since its publication in 1964, the Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy 2 has been mired in controversy. In reaching its conclusion that President Kennedy was the victim of a lone assassin, the Warren Commission adopted the “single bullet theory” to explain the sequence of three shots directed at the President’s limousine. Three of the seven Commission members apparently disagreed with the theory on the grounds that the evidence did not support it. The lack of clear evidence for the theory and its inconsistency with key eyewitness testimony has provided fertile ground for conspiracy theorists who allege that the explanation was concocted to support the Commission’s conclusion that all shots were fired from Oswald’s rifle.3 According to the single bullet theory, a one-inch long, copper jacketed, lead core 6.5 millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck, Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. In doing so, the bullet traversed 19 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a tie knot, removed 4 inches of rib and shattered a radius bone. Despite leaving several small particles of lead behind in the Governor’s wounds, the missile emerged from its tortuous journey remarkably unscathed. The bullet that is supposed to have done all this damage was found on Governor Connally’s stretcher in the corridor at the Parkland Hospital in Dallas. It became a key Commission exhibit, identified as CE399. It resembled a pristine bullet with its copper jacket completely intact. The bullet’s nose appeared normal but the tail was compressed laterally on one side. It weighed 158.6 grains, or about 2.2 grains less than the average weight of an unfired bullet.4 Despite much criticism of the single bullet theory, no one has been able to offer another explanation that is consistent with the Commission’s conclusion that all shots were fired from the same gun. It is not surprising, therefore, that the single bullet theory has been staunchly defended by those who believe the Warren Commission’s finding was correct and roundly criticized by those who disagree.5 In this paper a comprehensive review and analysis of the evidence relating to the single bullet theory is undertaken. Evidence that has become available since 1964 is included in this review. As a first step in this analysis, fact and opinion are separated to see what conclusions flow from the evidence. When the expert opinion is put to the side, a consistent picture emerges from the photographic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and the physical and medical evidence. This picture is not consistent with the Commission’s single bullet theory. In reviewing the expert evidence, it becomes apparent that much of the opinion relating to the trajectory of the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the neck is based on a badly flawed re-enactment of the assassination in which the wrong vehicle was used. By examining the photographs and scale drawings of the President’s car, the trajectory for the first bullet can be determined by geometry, based on the simple and probable assumption that the first bullet did not change direction in passing through the President’s neck. Given the magnitude of the task and the relatively short time to work, it is not surprising that the Commission made mistakes.6 This paper is not intended as a criticism of the Commission. The purpose of this paper is merely to demonstrate that the single bullet theory is incompatible with the facts and to 2 show that a simpler explanation flows naturally from the evidence. Nevertheless, the conclusion that Governor Connally’s wounds were not all caused by the same bullet that struck the President casts doubt upon other findings of the Warren Commission, including its view that Oswald was the lone assassin. This paper raises, but does not answer, these questions.

The Reasons For and Against the Single Bullet Theory The single bullet theory was created to explain how both Governor Connally and President Kennedy could have been wounded by frame 240 of the Zapruder film if, as the Commission found, neither had been hit before frame 210.7 There was not sufficient time for Oswald to have fired two shots from his bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within this time interval. The Commission concluded it was likely that one bullet caused the President’s neck wound and all of the Governor’s wounds. The Report of the Warren Commission provides two reasons the majority of Commission members found the single bullet theory compelling: 1. The bullet that passed through President Kennedy’s neck did not directly hit any bone and made a clean exit wound. Simulation tests showed that the bullet likely exited the President’s neck at more than three-quarters of its original speed. Its trajectory indicated that it must have continued on to hit something or someone inside the car. It should have made a noticeable mark if it struck the interior of the car traveling at this speed and no such mark was found. The absence of a bullet mark in the interior of the President’s limousine meant that the bullet that exited the President’s neck must have struck Governor Connally. The Commission accepted that Governor Connally’s three wounds were made by the same bullet. 2. Although the trajectory of the first bullet seems to go to the left, it was thought that the Governor could have been seated sufficiently far to the left for his right armpit to align with the bullet trajectory. Since the Warren Commission Report was published, a third reason has been advanced to support the single bullet theory: 3. The FBI arranged for physical analyses of bullet CE399 and the various bullet fragments found in the Governor’s wrist wounds and on the car floor. Pieces of the metal fragments and whole bullet were subjected to Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) which is a very accurate method of determining relative proportions of trace elements in material. The Warren Commission apparently found that this evidence was inconclusive and did not refer to it in its report. However, in 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) revisited these tests and heard from an expert who was of the opinion that the data supported the single bullet theory.

There are three main arguments against the single bullet hypothesis: 1. Governor Connally was adamant that he was hit by the second shot. He said that after he heard the first shot and after he had turned to his right to see the President he felt the bullet hit him from behind. He said that he reacted immediately and collapsed into his wife’s lap. Mrs. Connally recalled that she heard the first shot, saw the President clutch his throat and then heard the second shot and saw her husband hit by it. Other witnesses said they saw much the same thing. 2. For the single bullet theory to work, the bullet path from President Kennedy’s throat to Governor Connally’s right armpit had to align with a path moving from right to left through both men. This required Governor Connally to be seated with his right shoulder to the left of the President’s neck. It is not apparent that the bullet paths are ever aligned or even close. 3 3. If the single bullet theory is correct, one of the three bullets must have missed the President’s limousine entirely. An FBI reconstruction of the shooting showed that this was unlikely.

A critical examination of these reasons requires a careful review and analysis of the evidence.

1. The Eyewitnesses

The Time of the First Shot The Warren Commission acknowledged that it was difficult to pinpoint the time of the first shot but concluded that it likely occurred between frames Z210 and Z225 of the Zapruder film.8 The President showed no clear sign of reacting to a bullet when he all but disappeared from Abraham Zapruder’s view at frame Z204 as the car passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. He was visibly reacting to his neck wound when he began to emerge from behind the sign about a second later at Z225 and his hands appear to be at the same position in the previous frame, Z224 (see infra, page 12). If the President was reacting to his neck wound at Z224, the first shot must have occurred before Z224. Allowing for some time for the human brain to realize that something happened and for the muscles to respond, the latest time for the first shot would have to be a few frames before Z224. According to the evidence, there were two photographs taken very close to the moment of the first shot. The first is Hugh Betzner’s #3 photograph which, as Mr. Betzner testified in an affidavit sworn on the day of the assassination, was taken just before the first shot. He said that he took this photograph and had just started winding his camera to take another when he heard the first shot.9

Hugh Betzner’s #3 photo said to be taken less than a second before the first shot at Z186 Enlarged detail, right: President Kennedy between Secret Service agents and man on left.

The second is Phillip Willis’ #5 photograph. Willis testified that this photograph was taken at the very instant the first shot was heard. Mr. Willis stated that he was poised to take the picture at that time and he thought the noise of the shot may have triggered a reflex response prompting him to press the shutter button at that moment.10 If the photo was taken at the moment the sound of the first shot reached Willis, the first bullet struck the President about one frame earlier, at Z201.11 4 Both photographs capture Abraham Zapruder holding his camera and the Zapruder film shows both photographers taking their pictures. Consequently, the exact Zapruder frame at which the photos were taken can be found by comparing the alignment of persons in the film with that in the photographs. From this it can be determined that the Betzner photograph was taken between frame Z185 and Z186 and the Willis #5 photograph at frame Z202.12

Phillip Willis’ #5 photograph purportedly taken at the instant of the first shot. Abraham Zapruder is standing on the white block just above and to the right of the Stemmons sign

Phillip Willis’ 14 year old daughter, Linda Willis, stated that the first shot occurred when the President’s car was directly between her and the Stemmons Freeway sign.13 She can be seen in the Zapruder film, the second person to Phillip Willis’ left in frame Z202 wearing a dark coat. The passenger portion of the car appears to be directly between her and the Stemmons sign in frame Z202. An honest and clear recollection by Mr. Willis that he pressed the shutter at the moment he heard the shot is a recollection of a single non-complex event that should be fairly reliable. It also fits with the evidence of Hugh Betzner and of Linda Willis.

The motorcade position at the time of the shot Abraham Zapruder stated that the first shot occurred when the President was about half way down Elm Street.14 But what does his film show? Since the shots occurred as cars in the motorcade were turning the corner at Elm and Houston Streets, the evidence of persons in the motorcade as to the location and direction of their car at the moment they heard the first shot provides an independent means of determining when the first shot occurred. The positions of these cars can be seen in parts of the Zapruder film. The Secret Service follow-up car was followed by a blue convertible carrying the Vice President’s party. Following the Vice-President’s car was a yellow sedan carrying Secret Service agents and behind that a white convertible carrying Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell and Mrs. Cabell. The occupants of the Vice-President’s car indicate that their car had already turned the corner and was proceeding along Elm Street when the first shot was heard: 5

Linda Willis

Zapruder frame 202 showing Phillip Willis taking his photograph #5. Note that the alignment of Mr. Willis and the Secret Service agent on the left front side of the follow-up car (just below Willis’ camera) matches the alignment seen in the photograph (opposite). The Warren Commission stated that the Willis #5 photograph was taken at approximately frame 210, which is not correct.

“We were rounding a curve, going down a hill, and suddenly there was a sharp loud report-- a shot.” 15 Lady Bird Johnson, seated in the rear of the Vice-President’s convertible. “My car had just straightened up from making the left turn. I was looking directly at the President's car at that time. At that time I heard a shot ring out which appeared to come from the right rear of the Vice President's car.” Hurchel Jacks, driver of the VP car.16 Witnesses in the Vice-President’s follow-up car stated that they had just completed the turn when the first shot rang out. "I was instructed by the Secret Service man to stay as close to the Vice President's car as possible and so that actually about the only thing I was watching was the car ahead of me. I was staying right on his bumper . We turned off of Houston Street onto Elm Street and that was when I heard the first shot.” Joe Rich, driver of the VP follow-up car.17 "our automobile had just turned a corner (the names of the streets are unknown to me) when I heard a bang which sounded to me like a possible firecracker--the sound coming from my right rear." SA Warren W. Taylor - left rear seat of the VP follow-up car.18 "At approximately 12:30 p.m., our car had just made the lefthand turn off Houston onto Elm Street and was right along side of the Texas School Book Depository Building when I heard a noise which sounded like a firecracker. Clifton Carter - front middle seat of the VP follow-up car.19

The occupants of the Cabell car, immediately behind the Vice-President’s follow-up car, indicate that their car had just begun to turn but they were facing the Book Depository at the time of the first shot: Mrs. CABELL. ... The position of our car was such that when that first shot rang out, my position was such that I did not have to turn to look at the building. I was directly facing it. Mr. HUBERT. In other words, your car was still really on Houston? 6

Mrs. CABELL. No. We were making the turn. Mr. HUBERT. Just on the turn? Mrs. CABELL. Just on the turn, which put us at the top of the hill, you see. ....I heard the shot, and without having to turn my head, I jerked my head up. Mr. HUBERT. Why did you do that? Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and I just jerked my head up.20

Frame 160 - full frame version of the Zapruder film. The Vice President’s car is part way around the corner. The VP follow-up car (sedan) behind it is just beginning the turn. According to their occupants, both cars had completed the turn before the first shot was heard. The Cabell car is behind the VP follow-up car and is not visible as it has not yet reached the corner. Based on this evidence, frame 160 was exposed full seconds before the first shot was heard.

Frame 190: All cars have advanced about one car length from their positions in frame 160. The VP follow-up car has not completed the turn and the Cabell car is still not visible, indicating that frame 190 was taken before the first shot.

It is apparent from an inspection of the full Zapruder frames that the Vice-President’s car is in the middle of its turn at frame Z160 and the follow-up car is just beginning the turn. This must be well before the 7 first shot, unless all these witnesses in the motorcade were seriously mistaken. At Z186-191 the follow- up car is still turning. It is evidently pointing toward the depository building. The Cabell car is not visible as it has not yet reached the corner. The evidence of the motorcade witnesses is consistent with Hugh Betzner’s statement that his photograph was taken before the first shot was heard.

The Warren Commission’s finding In determining the time of the first shot, the Warren Commission used a line of reasoning based on the re-enactment of the assassination made by the FBI in May of 1964. In this re-enactment the positions of the limousine as it moved down Elm Street were captured by a camera attached to Oswald’s rifle pointing down from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Part of CE893 showing the re-enacted position of the President’s car and occupants at Zapruder frame 210 as seen from the sniper’s window.

The tree in front of the Texas School Book Depository as it appeared from the sixth floor sniper’s window on December 5, 1963, (from CE875). The President’s car passed beneath the thin outer branches of an oak tree between frames Z161 and Z207. The branches of the oak tree never seem to completely obscure the car or its occupants. This is 8 apparent in the photographs taken of the tree on December 5, 1963, two weeks after the assassination (see above). The Commission found it unlikely that the sniper would have fired the first shot before frame Z210 when the car and its occupants were clear of the tree. In frames Z207 and Z210, the back of the trunk and bumper of the re-enactment vehicle are quite visible through the leaves and forward of that point is practically clear. The back of the trunk represents a position 9½ feet behind President Kennedy and 12 feet behind Governor Connally. This means that a sniper at the window would have had a good view of the President’s head by frame Z198 and of Governor Connally by frame Z195.21 The Commission’s conclusion - that the sniper would not shoot as soon as the President or Governor became visible but would wait until the car was completely beyond all branches of the tree - lacks evidence. No one knows what was going through the assassin’s mind and it is unwise to speculate.22 The Commission did not reject Phillip Willis’evidence that he took his #5 photograph at the moment of the first shot. Rather, it believed - incorrectly - that the Willis picture was taken at around frame 210.23 Since there is no objective basis for rejecting Mr. Willis testimony, the possibility that the first shot occurred just before Z202 cannot be excluded. What did the first shot hit? Despite suggestions by the Commission that it was not clear whether the first bullet struck the President, there is abundant evidence that it did. Many witnesses stated that the President reacted by moving his hands to his neck immediately after the first shot was heard. Nellie Connally, Jacqueline Kennedy, Secret Service Agents Clint Hill and George Hickey, bystanders Gayle Newman, Linda Willis, and others recalled this.24 Presidential aide David Powers described the shots this way: Shortly thereafter the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head and had the sickening sound of a grape fruit splattering against the side of a wall. The total time between the first and third shots was about 5 or 6 seconds. 25 Abraham Zapruder also saw the President react after the first shot and before the second shot was heard: And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this [Zapruder leans over to his left]. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn’t say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting.

Gerald Posner, in his book Case Closed, suggests that the first shot missed.26 He theorizes that the first shot occurred very early, about frame 160 of the Zapruder film, just as the President passed beneath the branches of an oak tree in front of the Texas School Book Depository, and that the bullet was deflected by a tree branch. He maintains that the second shot occurred at Z223 and the third shot at Z313. Posner’s theory is fraught with problems, however. In addition to the lack of any evidence indicating that the first shot struck the tree, it is not apparent that any part of this tree was capable of deflecting a high speed rifle bullet at all, let alone the 20 degrees suggested by Posner (see comments on bullet deflection at page 13). The evidence of Hugh Betzner, Phillip Willis, Linda Willis, and the occupants of the cars in the motorcade would have to be completely wrong if the first shot occurred before Z191. The many eyewitnesses who had clear recollections that the President reacted immediately to the first 9 shot would have to be mistaken.27 Mr. Posner fails to address any of these evidentiary short-comings. The overwhelming weight of the evidence appears to be against his theory. From the evidence the following conclusions may be drawn: · the first shot did not occur until after Z191 · the first shot likely occurred at about Z202 or a few frames earlier; · it is possible that the first shot occurred later than Z202 if Phillip Willis was wrong in his recollection that his photograph #5 was taken at the moment he heard the first shot; · the first shot could not have occurred later than Z223.

The time of the first shot is not absolutely critical in the determination of the essential facts. However, it is important. Placing the first shot later makes the single bullet theory more plausible as it reduces the amount of delay in the reaction of Governor Connally.

The evidence that Governor Connally was hit by a second shot No eye-witness suggested that Governor Connally was hit by the first bullet. More problematic, however, is the fact that unimpeachable witnesses testified that the Governor was not hit by the first bullet. Nellie Connally, who was seated in the limousine to the left of her husband, said that she heard the first shot and looked back and saw the President with his hands at his neck. She recalled that her husband turned right and said “oh, no, no, no” after the first shot. She said that she then saw her husband hit by a second shot: Mrs. CONNALLY. …Then I don’t know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over grip- ping your own neck? Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was—he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, “Oh, no, no, no.” Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.” 28

Mrs. Connally remains adamant that the Governor’s chest wound was not caused by the same bullet that hit President Kennedy in the neck.29 Jacqueline Kennedy recalled hearing the Governor yelling “oh, no, no, no” after the first shot: Mrs. Kennedy. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motor- cycles beside us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motor- cycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no.” 30 It must be pointed out that Governor Connally testified that he thought he had said “Oh, no, no, no” immediately upon being hit: I immediately, when I was hit, I said, “Oh, no, no, no.” And then I said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.” 31 But in a 1966 interview published in Life Magazine, the Governor stated that he said “oh, no, no, no” 10 before he was hit: Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong, and said, ‘Oh no, no, no.’ After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood. 32 It is apparent from his later HSCA testimony in 1978 that he was not sure: When I was hit, or shortly before I was hit—no, I guess it was after I was hit—I said first, just almost in despair, I said, “no, no, no”, just thinking how tragic it was that we had gone through this 24 hours, it had all been so wonderful and so beautifully executed. The Presi- dent had been so marvelously received and then here, at the last moment this great tragedy. I just said, “no, no, no, no”. Then I said right after I was hit, I said, “My God, they are going to kill us all.”33 This latter testimony suggests that Governor Connally did not say “no, no, no, no” in response to being shot. He recalled that the words “no, no, no, no” were prompted by a sudden realization that an assassination attempt was unfolding spoiling a wonderful visit by the President. His statement “my God, they are going to kill us all.” was a response to the realization of being shot himself. This tends to support his wife’s recollection that the “Oh, no, no, no” utterance occurred before he was shot in the chest. Governor Connally’s evidence relating to the actual shots is critical. He said he felt the impact of the shot that went through his chest and reacted immediately. He was sure it was the second shot that caused his chest wound: Governor CONNALLY. …We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back. … Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally? Governor CONNALLY. The second one. Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir? Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn’t conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don’t know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything. It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn’t hear it. I didn’t hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.34 The Governor had a very clear recollection of the moment of impact of the second bullet: Senator COOPER. Would you describe again the nature of the shock that you had when you felt that you had been hit by a bullet? 11 Governor CONNALLY. Senator, the best way I can describe it is to say that I would say it is as if someone doubled his fist and came up behind you and just with about a 12-inch blow hit you right in the back right below the shoulder blade. Senator COOPER. That is when you heard the first rifle shot? Governor CONNALLY. This was after I heard the first rifle shot. There was no pain con- nected with it. There was no particular burning sensation. There was nothing more than that. I think you would feel almost the identical sensation I felt if someone came up behind you and just, with a short jab, hit you with a doubled-up fist just below the shoulder blade.35

One of the Governor’s doctors, Dr. Shaw, agreed that he must have felt the hit and reacted promptly. The doctor acknowledged that a person can be shot and not feel it right away, but not if the bullet hits bone as occurred here.36 Gayle Newman was standing with her husband and their two small children on the sidewalk ahead of the President’s limousine when the first shot was heard. For some reason she was not called to testify in person before the Warren Commission but she did provide an affidavit. Mrs. Newman stated in her affidavit that she saw the President react immediately after the first shot by putting his hands to his head. She stated that she then heard the second shot and saw the Governor react: After I heard the first shot, another shot sounded and Governor Connally kind of grabbed his chest and lay back on the seat of the car.37 If Governor Connally was hit through the chest by the first bullet after it passed through the President, it is difficult to understand how all these witnesses could have had the same false recollection of the Governor being hit by the second bullet. No basis is offered for rejecting this evidence other than its inconsistency with the single bullet theory.

When does Governor Connally first react to his chest wound? The photographic evidence, with the notable exception of Zapruder frame 313, does not provide clear visual evidence of the shots themselves. An opinion that the Governor is hit at a certain point is necessarily an interpretation of what is seen on the film. Whether the opinion is correct depends on its agreement with the evidence. The Governor is not visibly reacting to a shot by frame Z225. The President is holding his neck, evidently reacting to his neck wound at this point. The Governor prepares to turn to his right at about Z229. This is consistent with the evidence of Governor and Mrs. Connally who stated that he turned to his right to see the President after the first shot and before he (the Governor) was hit in the back. From the finding that the first shot occurred very close to frame Z202, one can conclude that the Governor waited almost two seconds to react to his chest wound if the single bullet theory is correct. Given the nature of the Governor’s chest wound and his evidence that he felt the moment of impact and reacted immediately, a delay of this magnitude could not have occurred.38 12

Frames 224 to 228: These frames show the reaction of President Kennedy to the first bullet - and the lack of reaction of Governor Connally.

Frames Z231 - Z235: the right hand holding the stetson moves suddenly and Governor Connally turns to his right. Frames Z 238-242: Is the Governor reacting to his chest wound? 13 If the first shot occurred later than Z202, the amount of delay that has to be explained is less but he still takes significantly longer to react than the President. The evidence does not disclose any reason the Governor would have a much slower reaction than the President. The Warren Commission did not identify any evidence to support the delayed reaction hypothesis other that a general acknowledgment that it has been known to occur. The evidence was that delayed reactions are not known to occur when the bullet strikes bone and the person recalls feeling a forceful impact at the moment it occurred.39

The ‘Lone Assassin’ conclusion The Commission heard evidence from an FBI ballistics expert, Robert Frazier, who stated that Governor Connally could not have been hit by a bullet to the chest after frame Z240. His view was based on the apparent trajectory of the bullet through his chest.40 The Governor and Mrs. Connally also gave their opinions that the Governor was struck in the chest at some time between frames Z229 and 234.41 This causes a problem if Oswald was the lone assassin. FBI experts had tested Oswald’s Mannlicher- Carcano rifle and found that around 2.3 seconds (42 Zapruder frames) were needed to aim and fire two shots.42 This means that the single bullet theory is essential to the Commission’s ‘lone assassin’ conclusion if Governor Connally was hit in the chest before Z242 (based on a first shot occurring at around Z200). The evidence that Connally suffered his chest wound this early consists entirely of opinions from the Connallys, Robert Frazier and others relating to the Zapruder film.

2. The evidence relating to bullet trajectory and body positions

FBI ballistics tests provided ample evidence that the bullet that passed through the President’s neck exited at sufficient speed to cause noticeable damage to something or someone in the car. The interior of the President’s limousine was thoroughly inspected by FBI agent Robert Frazier and no bullet marks were found.43 Since the first bullet did not hit the car, it must have hit Governor Connally. This is a very persuasive argument in favor of the single bullet theory. A speeding bullet will travel in a straight line if no force is applied to it. Even a large force will not move a 10 gram bullet significantly if the force is applied only for a very short time.44 The forces applied to a high speed bullet when it passes through an object operate only for a tiny fraction of a second. A lateral force would have to be enormous to change the bullet’s direction appreciably in such a short time. The force required to deflect a high speed bullet is so great that the bullet structure usually cannot withstand it. That is why bullets become distorted and often fragment when they are deflected. It is apparent from the autopsy evidence that the bullet passed through the President’s neck in a straight line and did not strike anything capable of deflecting it.45 The bullet, traveling at 2000 feet per second, would have passed through the President’s neck in about 1/4000th of a second. In order to deflect the bullet in such a short time, an extremely large force would be needed. It is a safe assumption that as it passed through the soft tissue of the neck the bullet was not subjected to a lateral force sufficient to deflect it from its path: the bullet continued to travel in a straight line without any deflection. If the bullet was fired from the ‘sniper’s nest’ on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the trajectory after it exited President Kennedy’s neck can be determined very accurately from the location and position of the President when he was hit.46 It should be a relatively simple matter to recreate the position of the car and its occupants just before frame Z202 and see what would have fallen in a straight line path from the 6th floor window through the President’s neck. A re-enactment of the assassination was done by the FBI in May of 1964 using the 1956 Cadillac follow-up car. The President’s Lincoln was not then available because it was being remodeled. This was unfortunate as the Lincoln had a unique arrangement of seats. It had a elevated back seat. It also had 14 individual jump seats with low backs separated by a large space whereas the middle seats of the Cadillac had high backs with no separation. The Lincoln’s jump seats appear to be much closer to the floor than the equivalent seats in the Cadillac. This meant that the position of the Governor could not be accurately reconstructed with the Cadillac.

The interior of the President’s Lincoln. Note the low position of the jump seat which causes the thigh to be elevated above the waist. The rear seat in the picture on the right is shown in an elevated position. It was about 6 inches lower during the Dallas motorcade.

CE873 and CE874 - showing the jump seats in the President’s car. Note the low seat backs and the placement of the seats directly on the floor of the car.

In the FBI re-enactment, the President’s Lincoln was replaced with the Cadillac shown above. The relative seat heights of Gov. Connally and President Kennedy are not accurately recreated in this re-enactment. Gov. Connally appears to be much too high. 15 The Alignment of the wounds of President Kennedy and Governor Connally From the President’s entrance and exit wounds in the back and neck, it was determined that the bullet passed through the President’s neck at an 18 degree right-to-left angle.47 The right-to-left angle of the car to the sixth floor sniper’s window at Z190-200 was only 13 degrees.48 However, the Willis photograph and the Zapruder film show the President’s head and neck turned to the right for several frames before he disappears behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Zapruder frames 193 and 196 a fraction of a second before the first shot. Note both men are looking right and Governor Connally’s shoulders are turned to the right.

If the President was turned 5 degrees to the right when hit, which is consistent with the above Zapruder frames, the trajectory of the bullet relative to the car would have been 13 degrees. In such case, a bullet originating at the sixth floor window and traveling in a straight-line path would have struck the President in the back, exited close to the midpoint of his throat and crossed the plane of the Governor’s seat back 5½ inches further to the left.49 For the Governor’s chest wound to have been caused by this bullet after it exited the President throat, his right armpit (located 7.87 inches or 20 cm inches to the right of his spine 50) had to be positioned 5½ inches left of the President’s neck. The Governor appears to be directly in front of the President in the Zapruder film before they disappear behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and after they emerge about a second later. If this appearance is correct, his right armpit was well to the right of the President’s neck. The HSCA tried to resolve this problem when it examined the evidence relating to the single bullet theory in 1978. Thomas Canning of NASA’s Ames Research Center presented an analysis of Governor Connally’s seating position based on Hugh Betzner’s #3 photograph. He deduced that from Betzner’s line of sight to the limousine there was a separation between the President’s left shoulder and the Governor’s right shoulder. This inference was based on the inability to see Governor Connally’s shoulder at all. Canning concluded that the Governor had to have been further to the left.51 The purported separation between the two men in Betzner’s photograph is not clear (see enlargement of photo on page 3). One cannot see Governor Connally at all in the picture. His head is blocked by the man standing in front of Betzner. But whether his right shoulder is also blocked by the man is not so clear. The Governor’s shoulders may have been below the line of sight to Betzner. Oddly enough, the section of the HSCA report that explains Thomas Canning’s conclusions also contains the following photograph showing that Governor Connally’s shoulders were not visible from the rear. In light of this, one cannot conclude that there is a separation between the two men based on the inability to see Governor Connally’s shoulder. 16

James Altgens’ photograph of the limousine on Houston street as shown in the HSCA Report. This shows the relative positions of the two men’s shoulders. This demonstrates that Governor Connally’s shoulders were below the line of sight from the rear.52

(2)

(1)

Thomas Canning’s drawing prepared for the HSCA.53

Mr. Canning’s technique is quite good. He used lines of sight through the camera lens to identify points on the car and its occupants that fall in the same vertical plane. Those planes, shown as lines superimposed on an overhead view of the limousine, provide a simple and accurate means of locating the lines along which the car occupants were positioned. The problem is not with the technique but with the assumption that Governor Connally’s shoulder would have been visible had the man in front of Betzner not been there. The correctness of that assumption is called into question by the Altgens’ photo (above). Betzner’s photo can be seen from a reverse angle in Zapruder’s frame 186. Sightlines are shown in the next photograph. It is apparent that Zapruder’s line of sight from the base of the front edge of the roof support passes through Governor Connally’s head and well to Mrs. Kennedy’s right side whereas, on Thomas Canning’s drawing, a similar line from the front edge of the roof support through Governor Connally’s head would go through Mrs. Kennedy (see line (1) above). A line from the right rear door 17 handle to the middle edge of the hand-hold on the left rear side passes through the left side of the President’s head (line (2) above). In frame 186 (below) such a line passes a few inches further left.which suggests that President Kennedy is sitting further toward the back of his seat than Canning shows.

Zapruder frame 186 taken at the same moment as Betzner’s photograph. The sight lines from Zapruder’s position intersect with fixed points on the vehicle allowing accurate placement of the President and Governor within the car.

From the sight line analysis using frame 186 (see above photograph and the scale drawing, page 18), one can conclude that Governor Connally was not in the awkward far-left position proposed by Canning. With the corrections made, the positions seen in Zapruder frame 186 match a seating arrangement that has the Governor seated in the middle of his seat, very slightly to the left of the President but with his right armpit to the right of the President’s neck. Such a position appears to fit the evidence. The position is wholly inconsistent with the single bullet theory in which the bullet must follow a right-to-left straight line path through the President’s neck but strike the far right side of the Governor’s back.

If the first bullet did not wound Gov. Connally in the chest, what did it hit? The easiest way to answer this question would be to place a person having the same physical dimensions as Governor Connally in the right jump seat, recreate his position at the time of the first shot (which was turned to the right, as seen in the previous photographs) and take a look from the rear. Apparently, this was never done. At frame Z200, the elevation angle to the car from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository was 21 degrees and the car was on a 3 degree downward incline.54 Therefore, a shot from the window would have struck the President’s back at a downward angle of approximately 18 degrees. Since it did not hit any bone, it should have traveled through the President at a similar downward angle. This is consistent with the entrance and exit wounds on the President’s back and throat if he was slumped forward slightly when hit, as he appears in the Croft, Betzner and Willis photographs. Assuming that the President’s neck was approximately 20 inches horizontally from the back of the jump seat, the bullet would have dropped a further 6.4 inches by the time it crossed the plane of the jump seat back. 18 Position of Governor Connally required for Single Bullet Theory (Canning)

Zapruder's sight lines (Z186) through the occupants connecting points on the car. correct seat placement of JFK and JBC based on Zapruder sight lines in frame Z186 (previous page). Scale Drawing of the President’s Limousine from 6 HSCA 50 with sight lines and figures added to show 19 This trajectory is marked on Robert Croft’s photograph taken seconds before the first shot:

The Robert Croft photograph. A bullet traveling at a downward 18° angle and 13° right to left angle and traversing the President’s neck, would pass over the back of the jump seat to the left side of Governor Connally. Note that the top of the back of the jump seat cannot be seen (the low seat back is seen on Mrs. Connally’s side and in photos, p. 14).

A person of Governor Connally’s dimensions (6 feet, 4 inches tall) sitting on a seat similar to the Governor’s jump seat with shoulders positioned as in frames Z190 - Z204. The scale diagram of the car (opposite) illustrates the lateral trajectory based on an angle from the sixth floor window which, as explained above was 13 degrees. The Croft photo illustrates the vertical angle. As shown in the above photograph depicting a re-enactment of the Governor’s position, the top of his left thigh could have been directly in line with the path of the bullet exiting the President’s neck. 20 3. Medical and Ballistics Evidence and Analysis The Governor’s wounds - one bullet or two? Since a rifle bullet traveling at full speed striking a wrist will shatter the forearm, the Governor’s doctors were satisfied that the wrist wound was made by a bullet that had slowed down significantly. 55 A bullet that had just passed through the Governor’s chest would have been moving sufficiently slowly to have caused this wound. In the Zapruder film, the wrist always appears to be in front of the Governor and not exposed to a direct shot from the rear until he fell back onto his wife, after frame 290 or so, just before the third shot. A finding that the wrist wound was caused by the bullet that exited his chest appears to be reasonable but it is not conclusive. The possibility that the third shot was caused by a fragment from the third shot cannot be excluded. The path of the bullet through the chest and wrist and then into the leg is not as reasonable. The evidence that the Governor’s chest, wrist and leg wounds were all caused by the same bullet appears to based on the testimony of Dr. Shaw, Dr. Shires and three Army doctors. These doctors simply agreed that it seemed plausible due to the possible alignment of these wounds. Governor Connally said that he believed the chest, leg and wrist wounds had been caused by the second shot but he could not remember being hit in either the leg or the wrist.56 However, Dr. Gregory, who attended to the Governor’s wrist wound, was not so sure. He had treated hundreds of gunshot wounds in his military service. In his opinion, the wrist wound was made by an irregularly shaped object because it tore the tissue in the wrist and drew cloth fibres into the wound. Many threads had to be removed to avoid infection. He noted that the thigh wound was quite different: Dr. GREGORY - This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted. Mr. SPECTER - Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570. Dr. GREGORY - These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other. These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist. Mr. DULLES - In his wrist? Dr. GREGORY - Yes. Mr. DULLES - And in his thigh? Dr. GREGORY - I don’t know about that, sir. It is possible. But the rather remarkably round nature of the wound in the thigh leads me to believe that it was produced by something like the butt end of an intact missile.57 If the bullet that caused the wrist injury was grossly distorted and the thigh wound was caused by the “butt end of an intact missile”, it is apparent that the object that caused the thigh wound did not cause the wrist wound. It is clear that the third bullet struck only the President so the wounds sustained by the Governor must be attributed to the first two shots. The bullet that passed through the President’s neck very likely emerged intact since it struck only soft tissue. Thus the medical evidence alone indicates that only the Governor’s leg wound was caused by the first bullet after it passed through the President. As seen from the scale drawing of the car, this fits with the expected trajectory with both men in their normal seating positions. If the thigh wound was made by the butt end of an intact missile, the bullet must have tumbled after it exited the President and planted itself in the Governor’s thigh backward and at an angle. This would 21 explain why the only damage to CE399 was on the side of the bullet at its base. That was the only part of the bullet to strike a hard object, the femur - the strongest bone in the human body.

Bullet CE399 viewed from the tail end The thigh wound was about one inch deep and somewhat elongated on the surface as if it had been struck obliquely. X-rays taken after surgery indicated that some bullet lead remained embedded in the femur.58 Dr. Shires, who treated the thigh wound, thought the wound could have been made by a bullet traveling at close to full speed striking tangentially: Mr. SPECTER. Well, is it possible that the bullet could have hit GovernorConnally with the thigh being the initial point of impact and do the damage which was done here with the high velocity missile that I have just described for you? Dr. SHIRES. Is it possible to get a wound like that? Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir. Dr. SHIRES. Yes, as long as it’s on a tangent. Mr. SPECTER. Is it likely to receive a wound like that from a high velocity weapon of 2,000 feet per second and at about 160 to 250 feet? Dr. SHIRES. If it’s a tangential wound, tangential wounds can be very strange. A large bullet can cause a small hole if its on a tangent or a small bullet can rip out a fairly large hole on a tangent. It just depends on the time of contact and the angle of contact with the skin. That’s why it’s awfully hard to predict.59 If this scenario is correct, Governor Connally did not notice the thigh wound immediately. It is sufficient here to merely point out that he did not notice the thigh wound on the ride to the hospital or at any time until the next day. It will be left to others to explain why this might occur.

The ballistics experiments The plausibility of the single bullet theory was supported by the evidence of the three Army doctors, Drs. Olivier, Dziemian and Light.60 The testimony of these doctors was almost entirely based on their tests involving the shooting of goats and bags of meat and gelatin. This evidence permited the Commission to find that a single bullet could have had sufficient energy to traverse the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist and finally puncture his leg.

CE399 - the whole bullet found on Governor Connally’s stretcher 22 The Army doctors were unable to produce a bullet looking anything like CE399 in recreating a shot that caused damage comparable to the President’s neck and the Governor’s chest and wrist wounds (through goat flesh, bone and gelatin). Moreover, their experiments did not rule out the possibility that a separate bullet hit the Governor. Dr. Light thought it “barely possible” that one bullet passed through both men but conceded that it probably did only because there seemed to be no other way to explain where the first bullet went after it passed through the President.61

Did one bullet miss the entire car? The corollary to the single bullet theory is that one of the shots must have missed the President’s limousine and its occupants. The Warren Commission’s Report contains a whole section entitled “The Shot that Missed”.62 There was evidence that, at the time the shots were heard, bystander James Tague was hit on the cheek with a piece of material. He was standing a few feet from the triple underpass located about 250 to 350 feet from the assassination scene and sustained a slight scratch on the cheek that drew a trace of blood. An inspection of the curb about 15 feet east of Mr. Tague’s position revealed a fresh scratch in the concrete. There appeared to be no concrete missing from this scratch mark.63 It is not necessary for one of the bullets to have missed the car in order to account for the ricochet experienced by Mr. Tague. The Warren Commission conceded that a fragment traveling from the car just above the windshield could have gone on to strike the curb near Mr. Tague.64 We do know that the bullet that struck the President in the head fragmented in the skull. A least two pieces hit high on the front windshield, one on the top metal frame. The two pieces recovered from the front of the car weighed about 65 grains, so a large portion of the original 160 grain bullet remained unaccounted for.65 It is not difficult to imagine another fragment going slightly higher, above the windshield in a forward direction. Mr. Tague was standing directly in line with the trajectory of such a fragment.66

CE349. The windshield of the President’s limousine showing a dent in the metal frame above the glass. Another fragment struck the windshield just below this dent and cracked the glass. It is apparent that the bullet or fragment that struck the curb near Tague had hit something first as there were traces of lead and antimony on the curb but no copper, indicating that the copper jacket had separated from the lead core.67 It can be demonstrated that a bullet striking the road would have to deflect at a small fraction of its incident speed if it subsequently dropped to the level of the curb in front of Mr. Tague.68 One would expect such energy loss in striking the road to leave a significant mark in the pavement. No such mark was observed. From this analysis it can be reasonably concluded that the object that struck Tague had not struck the ground before it hit the curb. It must have hit something above ground level, slowed down and then dropped to curb level near Tague. The only such objects 23 were the President and Governor Connally. It is particularly difficult to explain how a sniper could have missed the entire car. According to Army firearms expert, Ronald Simmons, the occupants of the presidential limousine were easy targets. In simulations performed by three FBI marksmen using Oswald’s rifle and three targets spaced from 175 to 270 feet, a nine inch target was hit on all 21 of their shots.69 From this evidence, one can conclude that the probability of the sniper unintentionally missing a wide target like the car was virtually nil. For all of these reasons, it is improbable and inexplicable that a shot missed the entire car.

4. Neutron Activation Analysis of the bullet fragments Warren Commission documents released after the publication of its report revealed that the FBI had arranged for bullet CE399 and the various fragments found in the car and in Governor Connally’s wounds to be examined using a method known as neutron activation analysis (NAA). NAA is a very accurate method of determining the relative concentrations of trace elements in material. It is potentially a valuable forensic tool, since NAA testing does not consume or damage the test material. The data from the tests performed for the FBI was inconclusive as to the origins of the fragments.70 In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations asked physicist, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn to review the data and conduct new tests. Dr. Guinn stated that initially he agreed with the earlier conclusion. How- ever, after examining the data further, he concluded from the NAA that the bullet fragments fit into two distinct groups rather than three and that the fragments from Governor Connally’s wrist likely came from the whole bullet, CE399, but possibly not.

Silver Antimony WC Exhibit No. (ppm) (ppm)

399 Whole bullet 7.9 ± 1.4 833 ± 9

567 Limousine fragment 8.1 ± 0.6 602 ± 4

843 Limousine fragment 7.9 ± 0.3 621 ± 4

842 Wrist fragment 9.8 ± 0.5 797 ± 7

840 Limousine fragment 8.6 ± 0.3 638 ± 4

- second 7.9 ± 0.5, 647 ± 4

573 fragment from bullet fired at Gen. Walker 's residence 20.6 ± 0.6 17 ± 2

141 unfired bullet recovered from Oswald's rifle - 15 ± 1

- second 22.4 ±1.0 - The NAA data obtained from the various bullet samples 71

Dr. Guinn had difficulty in stating the precision with which he could make this statement: Dr. GUINN. I wish that I could put a number on it, as we often can do, that is, calculate a probability, but we really don’t have the background information to make a numerical calcu- lation in this case. One can only show what information we do have, and that is that you simply do not find a wide variation in composition within individual WCC Mannlicher- Carcano bullets, but you do find wide composition differences from bullet to bullet for this kind of bullet lead. Thus, when you find two specimens that agree this closely, you can say it looks indeed like they are pieces from the same bullet . Mr. WOLF. Would you state that your conclusion is more probable than not, highly probable, or what is the degree of certainty of your conclusion? 24

Dr. GUINN. I would say highly probable, yes. I would not want to say how high, whether it was 99 percent or 90 percent or 99 .9 percent. I can’t make a calculation like that.72

The NAA data and the conclusions of Dr. Guinn have been extensively reviewed by Dr. Arthur Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University. 73 He does agrees with Dr. Guinn that the data is consistent with a “two bullet” scenario, but he is less certain about being able to draw a conclusion that the data is inconsistent with a “three bullet” conclusion. The underlying assumption in Dr. Guinn’s analysis was that silver and antimony concentrations in the bullet lead varied significantly between bullets but not within individual bullets. Significant differ- ences in concentrations between samples, therefore, meant that the samples originated with different bullets. Dr. Guinn acknowledged that with most ammunition, bullets from the same box are indistin- guishable. However, he believed that this was not so with Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition from West- ern Cartridge Co. He based his belief on sample data that he had obtained earlier.74 It is apparent, however, that the data derived from the testing of sample bullets does not consistently support that assumption. Concentrations of antimony, for example, varied within a sample bullet by as much as 275 per cent.75 The lack of homogeneity within individual bullets was acknowledged by Dr. Guinn: The results are shown in Table II-C . As can be seen, of the three bullets sampled, one (6001 C) is fairly homogeneous in all three elements ; one (6002 A) is fairly homogeneous in Ag and Cu, but not so homogeneous in Sb ; and one (6003 A) is fairly homogeneous in Cu, but not homogeneous in Sb or Ag . However, compari- son of Table II-C with Table II-A indicates that, in general, the heterogeneity within an individual Mannlicher-Carcano bullet is much less than the heterogeneity from one bullet to another. One of the primary conclusions, therefore, of the results of the UCI background study of MC bullet lead indicates a wide range of Sb values, from bullet to bullet, but reasonable homogeneity within an individual bullet.76

With respect to the heterogeneity between bullets, it must be noted that there are only a limited number of discrete partitions of ± 40 ppm that can fit between 0 and 1200 ppm (as in samples CE842 and CE399 which differed in antimony concentrations by 36 ppm or about 4.5 per cent). If the difference in antimony concentration is significant, a good case can be made that the fragments are not from the same bullet. But the converse is not necessarily true. That is why Dr. Guinn stated that it is easier to exclude than to prove a common origin hypothesis.77 Dr. Guinn’s evidence does not determine conclusively whether the differences between CE399 and CE842 (which also had a 20% difference in silver concen- trations) are due to the heterogeneity among bullets or the heterogeneity within an individual bullet. This uncertainty was admitted by Dr. Guinn: “However, the earlier data and these more recent data do show some Mannlicher- Carcano bullets that cannot be distinguished from one another via only their anti- mony and silver concentrations. From these data, it appears that if 2 cartridges are removed at random from a box of Mannlicher-Carcano cartridges, although it is highly probable that they would differ significantly in their antimony and silver concentrations, it is at least possible that they might not.” 78

Dr. Guinn was quite correct in stating that the NAA data does not provide evidence that three bullets supplied these fragments. But that in itself does not exclude such a possibility. The following analogy illustrates the problem: A target is struck by discretely coloured paint balls. The balls are selected at random from a box of 100 paint balls, each containing one of 15 different colours. We do not know how many of the balls have the same colour. The paint splatters all over the target when the paint ball hits. Other evidence indicates that either two or three paint balls struck. Several paint samples are taken from 25 the target. Two are red and the rest are green. We can say that at least two paint balls struck. But we cannot rule out the possibility that the target was struck with three paint balls, two of which were red and one green.79 One has to look at other evidence. The “colors” of the fragments from the President’s limousine and Governor Connally’s wrist are their ranges of antimony. So, while there is evidence in the samples taken from the limousine and from the wounds that at least two bullets were involved, the possibility that three bullets struck cannot be excluded.

Dr. Snyder points out that the likelihood that parts of two different bullets could have silver and anti- mony concentrations within the observed range of difference between CE399 and CE842 must be accurately determined in order to ascribe reliable meaning to the data. Detailed repeated measurement of the base of CE399 would be especially useful to determine how homogeneous it is. If the silver and antimony concentrations in the lead contained in the base of CE399 were very uniform, the data might actually exclude the possibility that the fragments from the wrist (CE842) originated from CE399. He suggests that further NAA testing is likely to be inconclusive.80

SUMMARY

The following is a summary of findings that can be drawn from the evidence, all of which lead to the conclusion that the single bullet theory is not correct: 1. The first shot likely occurred at or a few frames before Z202 based on the evidence of Phillip Willis, Hugh Betzner and Linda Willis, all of which appears to be independent of each other and otherwise reliable. From the evidence from the re-enactment of the assassination, after Z198 the occupants of the President’s car were completely visible to a sniper on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. The first shot could have occurred later if Phillip Willis was wrong in his recollection that his photograph #5 was taken at the moment of the first shot but not as late as Z224. 2. The Zapruder film shows the President reacting to his neck wound at Z224. Governor Connally was showing no signs of reacting at this point. If the first shot occurred at around Z202, such a delay in reaction lacks any explanation. It is inconsistent with the recollections of Governor Connally who said that he felt the impact, knew that he had been hit and reacted immediately. 3. For the single bullet theory to work, Governor Connally’s right armpit had to be positioned about 5.5 inches to the left of the President’s neck. It appears that he was directly in front of the President at the time of the first shot. An analysis of Zapruder frame 186 shows that the two men were in their normal seating positions, the President being almost directly behind the Governor with his right armpit about 7 inches right of the President’s neck. This is over 12 inches right of where it would have to be for the single bullet theory to work. 4. The FBI re-enactment of the assassination was badly flawed. The failure to recreate the seats in the President’s Lincoln was particularly unfortunate. Upon close examination of the first-hand medical testimony and of the physical evidence, and by applying principles of geometry, one finds support for a conclusion that only the leg wound was caused by the missile that passed through the President. A re-creation of the Governor’s seating position shows that the exposed left thigh could have fallen within the path of the first bullet. 5. The FBI shooting tests provide compelling evidence that none of the three shots missed the limousine. There is no evidence that would explain how or why a shot could have missed the limousine entirely. The object that struck James Tague had hit something before striking the curb near where he was 26 standing. It could not have deflected from the road surface. It had hit something above ground level and was moving much more slowly than a full speed bullet. It very likely was a fragment from the third shot. 6. The NAA data presented to the House Select Committee on Assassinations by Dr. Vincent Guinn is consistent with a two bullet scenario, so it does not rule out the single bullet theory. But it does not exclude the possiblility that three separate bullets struck the occupants of the President’s limousine.

Comments Generally, a scientist works with reliable evidence that can be reproduced and verified. The forensic fact-finder, on the other hand, must draw inferences from many pieces of evidence, some of which may be unreliable and non-reproducible. Deducing facts from circumstantial evidence, therefore, can be difficult and challenging. The correctness of the findings ultimately depends on their consistency with all objectively proven facts. There are no absolute rules for interpreting and weighing evidence. One cannot say, as some have suggested, that scientific evidence is (or is not) more reliable than the testimony of eyewitnesses.81 The fact-finding body must examine all the evidence on its merits. Some general rules, however, are useful: • An expert witness must be given the full picture before he or she is asked to provide an opinion. In this case, it was not clear that the expert witnesses who supported the single bullet scenario were aware of critical medical and eyewitness evidence, particularly the details of the evidence of the Connallys. • Re-enactment evidence must be meticulously accurate in all essential detail. The root of the prob- lem in this case may have been the admission of the evidence of the FBI re-enactment in which the wrong car was used. Expert opinion based on such a re-construction is necessarily weakened or rendered worthless by such inaccuracies. • A fact theory that purports to explain evidence may start out as a postulation of possible fact but, if it is to form the basis of a conclusion, it must be consistent with all found facts. A consistent fact theory or model is constructed by comparing plausible scenarios with the evidence, modifying the model to fit with the evidence and repeating comparisons. If a proposed fact theory does not agree with a piece of evidence, the fact-finder may change the theory. Or, if the piece of evidence is not reliable for reasons other than its disagreement with the model, the evidence may be put to the side. Rejection of such evidence may come at the end of the process if the tribunal concludes that it is unreliable when considered with the entire body of evidence. • Evidence must not be rejected or ignored simply because it does not fit a preferred fact theory. It should only be rejected due to some characteristic that makes it unreliable, such as inconsistency with evidence that is considered more reliable. It appears that these principles were not always followed by the Commission. Key evidence that was inconsistent with the single bullet theory, particularly the testimony of Governor John Connally and Nellie Connally, was ignored or rejected for no apparent reason other than its disagreement with the single bullet theory.

The analysis carried out in this paper is based on the photographic evidence, the geometry of Dealey Plaza, the scale drawings of the President’s limousine and the medical and autopsy evidence. It should be accurate, provided the information on which it is based is correct. A meticulous re-enactment of the assassination in Dealey Plaza using an accurate model of the Lincoln limousine would provide the best evidence. To date, no such reconstruction has been performed. 27 The single bullet theory was a device created to explain the unexplainable. The inconsistency in the evidence was due, in large part, to the use of the wrong vehicle in the FBI “re-enactment”. It should not be surprising that the pieces of the jigsaw did not quite fit given that one piece was from a different puzzle. The single bullet theory appears to have been an honest attempt by the Warren Commission to reconcile the evidence placed before it, but it does not explain what really happened. To be fair, the theory was not entirely wrong. The first bullet likely did strike Governor Connally after it passed through President Kennedy’s neck - but in the left thigh, not his chest.

The demise of the single bullet theory naturally raises questions about the Warren Commission’s main conclusion that Oswald acted alone. This conclusion is in doubt if Governor Connally received his chest wound prior to frame 242 of the Zapruder film. This was the finding of the Commission and has a great deal of support from many experts. It has never been seriously questioned.

Notes 1 Andrew M. Mason, B.A., LL.B. of the Saskatchewan Bar practices law in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. He has an undergraduate background in mathematics and physics. 2 Report of The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, U.S. Gov. Pub. Off., 1964, hereinafter cited as WCR. 3 In its conclusion (WCR 18), the Commission found that a single bullet likely caused all the wounds in both the President and the Governor but stated that this was not essential to its conclusions. It is apparent from a reading of Chapter III of the Report, however, that the single bullet theory forms an integral part of the Commission’s findings. There was no formal dissent from the members of the Commission contained in the Report. However, Sen. Richard Russell, Rep. Hale Boggs and Sen. John Cooper have since admitted that they did not agree with the single bullet theory. Chief Justice Earl Warren, Rep. Gerald Ford, Allen Dulles and John McCloy agreed with the theory. 4 According to FBI ballistics expert, Robert Frazier, Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 3, page 430 and 432- 436, (hereafter cited as WC 3 H 430, 432-6), several small pieces of lead were found in Governor Connally’s wounds in the Governor’s thigh and in the Governor’s wrist that were never removed. The pieces removed from the wounds weighed 2.3 grains. Consequently, bullet CE399 (158.6 grains) together with all of the pieces extracted from Governor Connally’s wounds (2.3 grains) would have weighed 160.9 grains. Doctors who had examined the x-rays of Governor Connally’s chest and wrist estimated that the pieces of metal left behind in the Governor’s wounds weighed, in total, less than a grain. This would put the total maximum weight of the bullet at about 161.9 grains. A grain is about 1/16th part of a gram. Robert Frazier suggested that the mass range for a bullet would be from 159 to 163 grains (161 ± 2 grains). From an analysis of 100 unfired bullets of the type used in the assassination (manufactured by Western Cartridge Co.) by Dr. John Lattimer (Lattimer, KENNEDY AND LINCOLN, Medical & Ballistic Compari- sons of Their Assassinations, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980., p. 285-288), it was found that the weight of a single unfired bullet ranged from 159.8 to 161.5 grains with an average weight of 160.844 grains. On this evidence, it is not possible to ascertain the original mass of bullet CE399 to the precision required to determine whether these pieces of lead exceeded the amount lost from the original bullet. 5 Much criticism has been leveled at the single bullet theory by conspiracy writers such as Mark Lane, (Rush To Judgement, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), and Robert Groden (The Killing of a Presi- dent, New York: Penguin Group, 1993). The theory drew stinging rebuke from Jim Garrison, the New Orleans District Attorney who prosecuted Clay Shaw on a charge of conspiring to murder President Kennedy. Supporters of the Commission’s conclusions all endorse the theory although some, such as Gerald Posner, Case Closed, (New York: Doubleday, 1993) have come up with different scenarios in which a single bullet caused the President’s neck wound and all of Governor Connally’s wounds. 28

6 Warren Commission assistant counsel, David Belin, identified some key mistakes in his book Final Disclo- sure (New York: Scribners, 1988), chapter 7. 7 WCR 106. In his book, Final Disclosure, loc. cit, Belin stated that the single bullet theory was developed in response to his attempt to prove that the President and Governor received their wounds so close together in time that one sniper could not have done it alone. The theory emerged after he located expert evidence (apparently from Robert Frazier) suggesting that the Governor was wounded prior to frame 240. See Robert Frazier’s evidence, WCD 5 H 169-170. Citing the thorough review of the theory by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, Belin maintained that the single bullet theory has now been proven as fact. 8 WCR 105 9 WC 19 H 467 (part of Decker Exhibit No. 5323). The House Select Committee on Assassinations photo- graphic panel concluded that it corresponded to Zapruder frame 186: House Select Committee on Assassi- nations, 95th Cong., 2d sess., Washington, D.C.; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979, vol. 7, p. 51, hereafter abbreviated: 7 HSCA 51. 10 WC 7 H 493. Willis’ photograph #5 was marked as Hudson Exhibit No. 1, WC 20 H 183 11 Sound travels at approximately 1100 feet per second or a little more than half the speed of the bullet. The President was about 160 feet from the sniper’s window at frame Z202. Willis was about 50 feet from the President and about 135 feet from the window at frame Z202. From this, one can determine that the time delay between Willis hearing the shot and the bullet striking the President is very small, about 50 millisec- onds (about the time between two Zapruder frames). If he heard the shot precisely at Z202, the bullet would have struck one frame before, at Z201. 12 The HSCA photographic panel used the alignment of the photographers, Abraham Zapruder and Clint Hill, the secret service agent on the left running board of the President’s follow-up car, to determine which Zapruder frames were taken concurrently with the Betzner and Willis photographs. 1 HSCA 44 and 51. 13 WC 7 H 498 14 ABC television interview of Abraham Zapruder, broadcast live November 22, 1963 an hour after the assas- sination, Jay Watson interviewer. The complete transcript of the interview is available at: http://www.jfk.org/ Research/Zapruder/Transcript.htm. The video of the interview is available at 15 WC 5 H 564. Statement of Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, dictated in early Dec. 1963, signed July 16, 1964. 16 CE1024, WC 18 H 801 - statement dated November 28, 1963 17 CE1024, WC 18 H 800 - statement dated November 28, 1963 18 CE1024, WC 18 H 782 - statement dated November 29, 1963 19 Affidavit of Clifton Carter sworn May 20, 1964. WC 7 H 474 20 WC 7 H 485; See the scale drawing of the 1956 Cadillac limousine, CE 871, WC 17 H 86. The rear portion of the Cadillac is over a foot longer than that of the President’s Lincoln. 21 Since the President’s car was traveling at slightly less than 18 feet per second, the car moved slightly less than one foot per frame (film speed: 18.3 frames per second). The President’s head was at least a foot higher than the level of the trunk so his body from the shoulders up would have been in clear view by Z198. 22 The Commission assumed that the sniper’s first target was President Kennedy and not Governor Connally. The FBI found that due to the motion of the car, the sniper would have to aim slightly ahead of the target to hit it. The FBI also found that the imperfect alignment of the telescopic sight actually partly compensated for the motion of the car. In order to hit the President the sniper needed to aim six inches above and to the right of the President (Frazier WC 3 H 409). This meant he had to aim toward Gov. Connally to hit the President in the head. The first shot hitting the President is consistent with the sniper aiming at Gov. Connally and not allowing any lead or aiming at the President with the correct lead. Governor Connally would have emerged from any obscuring foliage about three frames before the President. 23 WCR 112. The HSCA subsequently determined that the correct frame is Z202: 6 HSCA 44. 29 24 See: statement of SA Clinton Hill, CE 1024, WC 18 742; statement of Gayle Newman, WC 19 H 488, (Decker); testimony of Nellie Connally WC 4 H 147; testimony of Jacqueline Kennedy WC 5 H 180; testi- mony of Linda Willis, WC 7 H 498. Others who saw the President react to the first shot include SA George Hickey, David Powers, John Chism, Marvin Faye Chism, S.M. Holland, Jean Newman and Malcolm Summers: statement of SA George Hickey, CE 1024, WC 18 762 and 765; affidavit of David Powers WC 7 H 472; statement of John Arthur Chism, WC 19 H 471, (Decker Exhibit 5323); statement of Marvin Faye Chism WC 19 H 472, (Decker); statement of S. M. Holland, WC 19 H 480, (Decker ); statement of Jean Newman, WC 19 H 489, (Decker); statement of Malcolm Summers, WC 19 H 500, (Decker); 25 Affidavit of David Powers dated May 18, 1964, WC 7 H 472 26 Posner, Gerald, ibid, note 5. 27 Although one witness, SA Glen Bennett, signed a statement (CE 1024, WC 18 760) saying that the Presi- dent was hit in the shoulder by the second shot, it is not clear what he saw that caused him to draw this conclusion. Bennett was not called to testify before the Warren Commission, so we have only his statement and notes. At least ten witnesses said the President reacted right after the first shot and before the second so, in the absence of some evidence to explain how so many witnesses had the wrong recollection, it should be difficult to accept Bennett’s statement as being accurate. If the other witnesses (see note 23 and Zapruder - note 13a) are wrong and Bennett is correct, one would have to assume that the chance that a given witness would recall such an event correctly is likely about 1/ 10, which defies common sense. If the probability that a witness would have the right recollection was 9/10, the chance that 9 out of 10 witnesses would get it wrong is extremely small - about one in one billion. This assumes the absence of a common factor that could lead to incorrect observation or recording of the observation for these witnesses. Nothing of this nature is apparent in the evidence. 28 WC 4 H 147 29 Nellie Connally recently repeated her firm conviction that the single bullet theory is wrong: “Nellie Connally again disputes finding in death of JFK”, Associated Press, Dallas, Nov. 15, 1998. 30 WC 5 H 180 31 WC 4 H 139 (Dr. Shaw testifying with Gov. Connally). 32 WC 4 H 133 33 Testimony of John B. Connally, Sept. 6, 1978, 1 HSCA 43. 34 WC 4 H 135-6 35 WC 4 H 144-5 36 WC 4 H 116 37 WC 19 H 488, contained in the Decker Exhibit 5323 38 WC 4 H 136 A bullet may not be felt so quickly if it passes through a body without losing significant speed. The momentum transferred to the target body is proportional to the change in speed of the bullet between entry and exit from the body. This evidence indicates that there was a forceful impact. The medical evi- dence (see section 3.) indicated that the bullet was travelling at much less than full speed when it went through the wrist. This means that a significant part of the bullet’s momentum was imparted to the Governor’s torso. 39 See Dr. Shaw’s testimony, ibid. Note 47. An interesting anecdote was provided by Commission member John McCloy during the House Select Committee hearings in 1978. He testified that after World War II he had occasion to be standing beside a friend in Berlin when the friend was shot (oddly enough, they were rehearsing a ceremony at the time for the arrival of the President of the United States and the friend was playing the part of the President). The friend simply stood there and said: “I think I am shot” and then fell over (he survived). McCloy said that this incident convinced him that a person could have a delayed reaction to being shot. This experience may have been related to other Commission members and may have been a factor in their acceptance that Governor Connally had a delayed reaction. See: 3 HSCA 204 30

40 Testimony of Robert Frazier: WC 5 H 170 - discussed at WR 106 41 Testimony of John Connally: WC 4 H 145; Testimony of Nellie Connally: WC 4 H 149 42 Testimony of Robert Frazier: WC 3 H 407 - discussed by the Commission at WR 106. Much has been read into this figure as an absolute minimum but what Frazier said, in relation to the time required to aim and fire three shots, was: “I would say from 4.8 to 6 seconds, in that area - 4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.” This was taken to mean that 2.3 seconds is the minimum time between two shots. FBI expert, Ronald Simmons conceded that the FBI marksmen had practiced with Oswald’s rifle for only 2 or 3 minutes and that the times could be reduced with practice. See testimony of Ronald Simmons: WC 3 H 447 and 449. 43 Frazier: WC 5 H 169 44 The distance moved by the bullet is proportional to the square of the time interval during which the force is applied. The distance d a body of mass m moves in time interval t when a force f is applied to it is: d = ½ t2 f/m

45 Dr. (Captain) James Humes who attended at the autopsy of President Kennedy testified that the bullet made a straight path and struck no bone: WC 2 H 364. Although it did not strike bone directly, the tip of a bone protruding from one of the President’s vertebrae may have been broken by pressure this bullet as it passed near it. See the testimony of Dr. Michael Braden before the House Select Committee on Assassina- tions:1 HSCA 199. 46 Dr. Larry Sturdivan was retained by the HSCA to provide a comprehensive ballistics analysis of the assas- sination. He stated that Mannlicher Carcano ammunition was among the most stable ammunition he had ever tested: “So that at a target of 4 or 5 inches of soft tissue, that bullet would not deviate appreciably from its path.” 1 HSCA 394 The ballistics evidence did indicate that the bullet may have been tumbling (rotating end over end) after it exited the President’s neck but this would not alter the bullet’s direction of travel. The center of mass of the bullet would continue traveling in the same direction unaffected by any changing orientation of the bullet. 47 The positions of the President’s entrance and exit wounds were examined by Thomas N. Canning a senior engineer with NASA’s Ames Research Center. It was found that the entrance wound was 4.5 cm. right of the midpoint of the spine and the exit wound .5 cm left of the center of the throat. For a neck thickness of 15 cm., the angle works out to 18 degrees. See 2 HSCA 170. 48 The proper right to left angle of the first shot has been the subject of some discussion. The HSCA panel believed that the proper angle should be 13 degrees on the basis that the President was turned about 5 degrees to the right when hit. The panel found that a path of 13 degrees to the position and direction of travel of the car at Z190 aligned with the south east corner of the Texas School Book Depository. See: 6 HSCA 46. At Z200, the angle appears to be just slightly more than 13 degrees. 49 This distance, 5.5 inches, is the tangent of 13 degrees multiplied by 24 inches. The distance between the President’s throat and Gov. Connally’s back was at least 24 inches based on a scale drawing of the limou- sine that was entered as exhibit CE872, WC 17 H 867. A clearer and more detailed scale drawing was used by the HSCA and is found at 6 HSCA 50. The front to back distance between the fronts of the President’s and Governor’s seats is shown as 30.8 inches. However, the President’s seat appears to recline more than the jump seat, placing the President’s shoulders and neck further back. If the neck was 6 inches thick, and the men were seated 30 inches apart, the distance between the front of the President’s neck and the Governor’s back would be about 24 inches. 50 See the drawing of Gov. Connally’s wounds by T. Canning based on actual measurements: 2 HSCA 181. 51 2 HSCA 183-4 52 6 HSCA 53 53 2 HSCA 183 and 6 HSCA 54 54 6 HSCA 46 55 WC 6 H 102. Dr. Gregory stated that a 6.5 mm bullet striking the wrist at full speed would likely have 31 destroyed the arm. He based his opinion on his experience in treating soldiers who had been shot in the forearm. He had treated over 500 bullet wounds: WC 6 H 96. 56 WC 4 H 135. The possibility that the wrist was struck by a fragment from the third shot that emerged from the President’s skull was not canvassed by either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. 57 WC 4 H 127-8 58 WC 6 H 106 59 Dr. Shires: WC 6 H 111. There is some controversy over whether there was a fragment in the femur. Dr. Gregory appears to refer to two different fragments in the thigh: one near the femur and one just below the skin (Gregory: WC 4 H 125). These can be seen on the x-rays. The fragment near the femur was marked with an arrow in the pre-operative lateral view (CE696). However, the HSCA examined this and found that the item marked with the arrow was not a fragment but was an artifact on the film. See: Dr. Baden, 1 HSCA 295: “What was interpreted by some doctors as being within the bone is really an artifact, that is, a marking produced by dirt or a scratch, et cetera, and does not represent injury to the bone.” This is difficult to understand since the same mark appears in the same place on the AP view pre-operative view (CE695). Unfortunately, the reasons for concluding this mark was an artifact are not given. 60 Dr. Olivier: WC 5 H 74; Dr. Dzieman: WC 5 H 90; Dr. Light: WC 5 H 94 . 61 WC 5 H 97 62 “The Shot that Missed”, WCR 111 63 A close-up photograph of the curb section taken by the FBI shows a scratch but no concrete missing: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 34, WC 21 H 482 64 WCR 117 65 Evidence of Robert Frazier: WC 3 H 432 and 435. 66 A photograph showing the south curb of Main Street looking toward depository shows that the sixth floor window was directly in line with the position of the car at the time of the third shot: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 32, WC 21 H 481. 67 FBI report on the analysis of the curb fragment, August 12, 1964: Shaneyfelt Exhibit 27, WC 21 H 475. See also testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt. The FBI report concludes that the mark on the curb was not caused by “the first impact of a high velocity rifle bullet”. 68 A familiar baseball analogy is useful: a wild fastball striking home plate will never hit the catcher on the toe. But if it hits the dirt in front of the batter and slows down enough, it could drop to ground level by the time it reaches the catcher. In such case, the energy of the ball would be transferred to the dirt, moving the dirt and thus leaving an impact mark. Similary, a bullet striking the road before Tague, say 300 feet from the sniper’s rifle, and deflecting upward without much loss of energy would be traveling too fast to drop to ground level 200 feet further on near where Tague was standing. For the bullet to strike the road at 1700 feet per second, deflect upward and drop to the curb level 200 feet further on, it would have to lose nearly all of its energy in hitting the road. If the angle of deflection was the same as the angle of incidence (about 11 degrees at 300 feet) the bullet’s speed after deflection would have to be about 130 feet per second. A bullet traveling at this speed has .5 percent of the energy of the bullet traveling at 1700 feet per second. In other words, 99.5 percent of the energy of the bullet would have to be imparted to the road. 69 Evidence of Ronald Simmons, WC 3 H 447-448. Three FBI shooters using Oswald’s rifle fired seven sets of three shots as quickly as possible while aiming at three targets spaced at distances comparable to those from the sixth floor Texas School Book Depository window to the President’s limousine. All 21 shots hit within nine inches of the centre of the respective targets.