WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jack Nessan]

Harold Norman Affidavit 12/4/1963

Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me.


B. R. Williams and Junior Jarman back him up and all three were a floor directly below the snipers nest. What more do you need?

BRW and Jarman both give a different recounting of the assassination than does Norman. Norman's first statement does not occur until 4 days after the assassination while BRW hand writes his first statement minutes after  the assassination.

Bonnie Ray Williams hand wrote his initial affidavit at the Sheriffs office immediately after the shooting and he stated he heard two shots. On the 23RD he still states he heard just two shots. On the 24th BRW adds another shot to his statement.

BR William's Hand Written affidavit from 11/22/63.

"Just after we got on the fifth floor we saw the President coming around the corner on Houston from Main Street. I heard two shots it sounded like they came from just above us."
--------------------------------------------------
James Jarman's first statement about the assassination was two days after the assassination. The 2nd shot is the head shot and the third shot takes place after the motorcade has accelerated to get to the hospital which is contrary to what the other witnesses state, that the head shot was the last shot. Anyway you look at it, Jarman with the second shot as the head shot puts the first shot wounding both JFK and JBC.

James Jarman  11/24
Jarman did say what JFK's reaction was to the first shot and then what happened after the second shot. The car accelerated. In the Zapruder Film the car does not accelerate until after the headshot which he places as the second shot.

"He said that he heard a shot and then saw President KENNEDY
move his right hand up to his head. After an elapse of three
or four seconds, he heard a second shot and then the vehicle
bearing President KENNEDY speeded up and he was unable to
observe any more about the vehicle. He said a
third shot was heard- by-him closely following the second shot
possibly within/second or two afterward. He said these shots
sounded to him to be too loud to have been anywhere outside the
TSBD building."
----------------------------------

The cartridges hitting the floor did not become part of Norman's statement until 12/4 twelve days after the assassination. Four days after the assassination he stated there were three shots with the final two being closer together. That is not a description of a separate shot wounding JBC. It is known the first shot hit JFK

Harold Norman 11/26 FBI
He stated that about the time the car in which the President was riding turned on to Elm Street, he heard a shot. He said he thought the shot had been fired from the floor directly above him. He further stated at that time he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had puled his head back in from the window.

[Rob Caprio]

I want to be clear that I am not in any way endorsing your general view that Oswald did not fire all the shots.  But your points about the SBT are valid. The SBT was a theory that legal counsel to the WC developed to explain where the bullet that passed through JFK went.  There was never any actual evidence that it occurred and a great deal of evidence that conflicted with it.  There is even more conflict between the "second bullet SBT" that is now popular and the evidence - particularly the "first bullet hit JFK" evidence, the evidence that the first shot was after z186, and the overwhelming evidence that the last two shots were closer together.

The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter.

[Rob Caprio]

The question that was asked was answered.
R Caprio: "So you can't quote her saying that the same bullet hit both JFK and JBC. Got it."
-----------------------------------
What JBC stated was he cried Oh no no no after he was wounded.

What Nelly and Jackie stated was he cried out Oh no no no after the first shot and before the second. JBC never heard an additional shot just felt the pain. Where is the confusion. What more proof do you need.
----------------------------
The thread is about Sen Russell and three distinct shots. Prove the three shots. From where I stand if there is a difference between yourself , Chapman, and Mason only you three know what it is. Nothing but pure blind faith. Each with his own placement of a shot that never happened. If there was a third shot there would be no argument over where it happened, let alone being placed at all times and locations in the shooting sequence.

You still haven't quoted her. I am not interested in your tangents. You have NOT shown that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet, thus, the SBT is false. This means that there was more that one shooter.

[Rob Caprio]

The twofer hit heavy rib bone only at a glance, not nose first.

Nonsense. It hit either a wad of cotton or water. There is NO supporting evidence for the SBT.

[Jack Nessan]

You still haven't quoted her. I am not interested in your tangents. You have NOT shown that JFK and JBC were hit by the same bullet, thus, the SBT is false. This means that there was more that one shooter.

You believe JFK raising his arms and slumping is a definitive action as to when he was struck by the first shot but JBC stating he cried out when he is struck by a bullet is a tangent and we shouldn't believe him? We shouldn't believe Jackie and Nelly when they say they heard JBC cry out after the first shot? Is this representative of all the analysis you are posting?

Any progress on proving there was three shots?

[Rob Caprio]

You believe JFK raising his arms and slumping is a definitive action as to when he was struck by the first shot but JBC stating he cried out when he is struck by a bullet is a tangent and we shouldn't believe him? We shouldn't believe Jackie and Nelly when they say they heard JBC cry out after the first shot? Is this representative of all the analysis you are posting?

Any progress on proving there was three shots?

I am going by the actual evidence and not body movement. I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred.

If you disagree then start citing some evidence to show that it occurred.

[Jack Nessan]

I am going by the actual evidence and not body movement. I have done numerous posts on this topic in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series and they show unequivocally that the SBT never occurred.

If you disagree then start citing some evidence to show that it occurred.

Physical evidence vs body movement?  It is not really the point Rob. JFK's body movement isn't an indication he was wounded? JBC crying out isn't an indication he was wounded? Your whole thread is based on what JBC said and Sen Russell believed,  but now JBC states he cries out when he was wounded and you don't believe him. Now you are claiming you have physical evidence to refute all this but you don't want to post it?

Here is the statement that started the thread.

"The two principal reasons Russell rejected the single bullet theory: (1) John  B. Connally's (JBC) WC testimony, in which JBC absolutely, positively, and unequivocally asserted that before he was hit he heard a previous shot that struck JFK ("It's a certainty.  I'll never change my mind"), and, (2) Russell's own examination of the Zapruder film."

 The fact there was at least two shots is a given. To believe there was three shots you have to believe there was at least two. Numerous eyewitnesses stated there was just two shots. You stated you are certain there was three distinct shots. Bill Chapman believes there was an early missed shot, which is in direct contradiction to the eyewitness statements. You believe there was a second gunman who, I am guessing,  apparently just shot JBC. Andrew Mason believes-- I am not sure what Andrew believes, but a later shot than you or Bill, or something along those lines.  You have been repeatedly asked to prove there was three shots. Up until now you have not offered the slightest proof of any kind to show there really was three shots, let alone a second gunman as you claim.

If in fact somewhere in your "Statements.....WC" posts you actually offered proof there were three shots it should be easy for you post it again or at least allude to it.

 I want to believe as you do Rob, but I just can't.  There is evidence of two shots but not three.