The First Shot

[Jack Nessan]

"There is abundant evidence that the head shot"

There is conflicting evidence that the head-shot was the last shot.

James Altgens was 15 feet away from the limousine at the time of the head shot and was definite about the headshot being the last shot.

LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head.

[Dan O'meara]

James Altgens was 15 feet away from the limousine at the time of the head shot and was definite about the headshot being the last shot.

LIEBELER - You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
Mr. ALTGENS - Yes, sir; that's correct.

Mr. LIEBELER - The important thing is--it's not all that important as to how far you were away from the car at the time you took the picture--the thing that I want to establish is that you are absolutely sure that you took Exhibit No. 203 at about the time the first shot was fired and that you are quite sure also in your own mind, that there were no shots fired after you saw the President hit in the head.
Mr. ALTGENS - That is correct; in both cases.

Mr. ALTGENS - Well, it seems obvious now, when you think back on it--of course, at the time you don't reason these things out in a state of shock, but it seemed obvious to me afterwards that there wouldn't be another shot if the sniper saw what damage he did. He did enough damage to create enough attention to the fact that everybody knew he was firing a gun. Another shot would have truly given him away, because everybody was looking for him, but as I say, that's an obvious conclusion on my part, but there was not another shot fired after the President was struck in the head.

Excerpt from Charles Brehm's FBI statement 11/24/63

When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.


As I say, there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the head shot was the last shot or not.
Note, Brehm was ex-military and "had experience with bolt-action rifles".

[Andrew Mason]

The witness statements stand on their own merit and do not require your explanation. The only explanation for the adding a shot to their original statements, that makes sense at all, is the WC's and HSCA's explanation about media influence. Keep telling yourself media influence. It was media influence creating the phantom third shot. Media influence.

Third party information can have an influence, but studies have shown that it is not that dramatic. See: Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1978, Ch. 4 "Retaining Information from Memory". 

But it does not matter. Let's suppose that Williams was persuaded by the accounts of others to say there were three shots.  That would mean he was not confident that there were only two shots originally.  So the question is: on what basis can you conclude that his first statement was accurate? 

If a large proportion of witnesses confidently recalled only 2 shots and only a small proportion confidently recalled 3 then I would agree with you that his original statement is more likely to be accurate.  But the opposite is the case here.  Numerous witnesses not only recalled 3 distinct shots but they described the distinctive pattern of those shots.  The best you can do with Williams is not take his evidence of 3 shots or 2 shots into account.

There is a 5.3 second spacing between BRW's first and second shot. He specifically states he heard two shots. There is a 5.3 second spacing between Jarman's first and second shot. Jarman adds a shot as the car accelerates to leave. He states there was a shot as the car accelerates to leave. "Speeded up" like in accelerating to leave. I have no idea what you are referring to.

He said the car speeded up after the second shot.  That is a true statement because z338 is after the second shot.  But it doesn't mean that it speeded up after the second and before the third shot.  We know that head shot was the last shot. We know the car did not speed up before the last shot. The Connally's recalled three shots and the third shot struck JFK in the head. They heard it and they felt it. The Secret Service as well as Powers and O'Donnell in the follow-up car all said the third and last shot was the head shot.

Thanks again for referencing to these two witnesses, they resolve the issue for you about a shot at Z250+.  There wasn't one.

Just curious, your whole identity seems to revolve around this fantasy shot. What theory will you be proposing now? How about there was an echo. You would actually be correct, new territory.  LHO took the first shot with the rifle barrel retracted inside the building and the second shot was taken with the barrel outside the window.

It would be a fair criticism to say I am relying on a fantasy third shot if it was something I had made up.  But, of course, I didn't make it up. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and that the last two shots close together, in rapid succession, 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' (Hudson, WCD5 30).  It is more of a fantasy to believe that this could happen if there were only two shots.

[Dan O'meara]

Third party information can have an influence, but studies have shown that it is not that dramatic. See: Loftus, Eyewitness Testimony, 1978, Ch. 4 "Retaining Information from Memory". 

But it does not matter. Let's suppose that Williams was persuaded by the accounts of others to say there were three shots.  That would mean he was not confident that there were only two shots originally.  So the question is: on what basis can you conclude that his first statement was accurate? 

If a large proportion of witnesses confidently recalled only 2 shots and only a small proportion confidently recalled 3 then I would agree with you that his original statement is more likely to be accurate.  But the opposite is the case here.  Numerous witnesses not only recalled 3 distinct shots but they described the distinctive pattern of those shots.  The best you can do with Williams is not take his evidence of 3 shots or 2 shots into account.
He said the car speeded up after the second shot.  That is a true statement because z338 is after the second shot.  But it doesn't mean that it speeded up after the second and before the third shot.  We know that head shot was the last shot. We know the car did not speed up before the last shot. The Connally's recalled three shots and the third shot struck JFK in the head. They heard it and they felt it. The Secret Service as well as Powers and O'Donnell in the follow-up car all said the third and last shot was the head shot.
It would be a fair criticism to say I am relying on a fantasy third shot if it was something I had made up.  But, of course, I didn't make it up. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and that the last two shots close together, in rapid succession, 'just about as fast as you could expect a man to operate a bolt action rifle' (Hudson, WCD5 30).  It is more of a fantasy to believe that this could happen if there were only two shots.

We know that head shot was the last shot.

No, we don't.

[Jack Nessan]

No.  It proves that he was not sure how many shots there were.  Besides, there was very little if any publicity regarding the relative spacing of the shots.  How is it that so many witnesses said not only that there were three shots but they also recalled the same pattern: 1......2...3? 
What publicity was there regarding the timing of the shots?  Give us a cite to one newspaper article that talked about the relative spacing of the shots in the week following the assassination. 

First of all, it helps when you provide a cite.  The cite is WCD 5, 334-335.  For some reason it is not included in the WC index or in Stuart Galanor's list of witnesses and their statements.

In this statement, James Jarman does not say that the second shot was the head shot.  Where do you get that?  And he clearly states that there were three shots.  Again, why do you think he is saying there were only two?

The vehicle started to speed up about a second after the head shot (about 3 seconds after the second shot, if the second shot was around z271 or 2.3 seconds before the last shot).  He never describes the head shot.  He did not say that the car speeded up between the second and third shots.   We know that the car did not speed up before the head shot. There is abundant evidence that the head shot was the last shot and Jarman does not say that it wasn't.

I do not think Elizabeth loftus is someone you should be referencing.
Elizabeth Loftus: "Frankly, we are all vulnerable to having our memories tampered with," she says. "Your memory is not a recording device. It's more like a Wikipedia page. You can change it, but other people can, too."

Walter Cronkite, within minutes of the assassination, anounced on air there was three shots and this infomation was then widely circulated in the press. The people in Dealey Plaza would have been subject to these broadcasts.

-------------------------------

You chose BRW and James Jarman and now they are not working out as witnesses supporting this extra fantasy shot theory of your making.. They could not have been closer. BRW is flat out just a two shot witness and even Jarman, who does not make a statement for several days, adds a shot to his statement but he still has the second shot as the headshot and adds another shot after the car accelerates, which did not happen.

You like the earwitnesses, are mistaking an echo for a shot. A shot that the press was led to believe happened by the original news bulletin of Merriman Smith which was read by Cronkite.

  "The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

The eyewitness statements are basically two shots. All five occupants of the limo are two shots or head shot as the second shot,   six with Clint Hill riding on the trunk. Two shots answers all questions. Three shots cannot even be defined as to when the third shot occurred in the firing sequence. That alone tells you it never happened.

 

[Jack Nessan]

Excerpt from Charles Brehm's FBI statement 11/24/63

When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.


As I say, there is contradictory evidence regarding whether the head shot was the last shot or not.
Note, Brehm was ex-military and "had experience with bolt-action rifles".

Brehm was military and he is also a two shot witness. A lot of the eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press immediately after  the assassination and their first statements appear in the press.

Brehm after a short period of time on 11/22, during an interview states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired and adds a third shot to his recollection. The third shot he adds is sometimes at the end, sometimes between the neck  and head shot and sometimes the first shot.

Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63:   TWO SHOTS
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.

Two hours after the interview for the Dallas Herald Times, Brehm was interviewed by WBAP TV where he stated there were two shots. Later that day Brehm was interviewed by KLIF Radio and by now he was starting to question the number of shots and states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired. By the next day a third shot became part of the story but the head shot was still reported as the second shot. The FBI report on 11/24 is the result of the transformation from Charles Brehm believing there was two shots to being told and stating he heard three shots

-----------------------------------------------

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter7morepiecesofthepuzzle

Pat Speer's WWW2 :

 (11-22-63 KRLD news report, around 2:00 PM CST) "A man named Charles Brehm was standing in the big crowd at curbside about fifteen feet away as the President's car approached. Brehm said 'He was waving and the first shot hit him, and that awful look crossed his face." (11-22-63 phoned-in interview first broadcast around 2:15 on NBC affiliate WBAP TV. The film of this interview is broadcast a bit later, around 3:16 PM) “Unfortunately I was probably 15-20 feet away from the President when it happened… He was coming down the Street and my five-year old boy and myself were by ourselves on the grass there on Commerce Street. And I asked Joe to wave to him and Joe waved and I waved (breaks up)…as he was waving back, the shot rang out and he slumped down in his seat and his wife reached up toward him as he was slumping down and the second shot went off and it just knocked him down in the seat." (When the interviewer interjects 'Two shots?') "Two shots."

[Andrew Mason]

Brehm was military and he is also a two shot witness. A lot of the eyewitnesses were interviewed by the press immediately after  the assassination and their first statements appear in the press.

Brehm after a short period of time on 11/22, during an interview states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired and adds a third shot to his recollection. The third shot he adds is sometimes at the end, sometimes between the neck  and head shot and sometimes the first shot.

Dallas Times Herald 11/22/63:   TWO SHOTS
The witness Brehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. "The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back." Brehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as if he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting.

Two hours after the interview for the Dallas Herald Times, Brehm was interviewed by WBAP TV where he stated there were two shots. Later that day Brehm was interviewed by KLIF Radio and by now he was starting to question the number of shots and states "there is some discussion now" about how many shots were fired. By the next day a third shot became part of the story but the head shot was still reported as the second shot. The FBI report on 11/24 is the result of the transformation from Charles Brehm believing there was two shots to being told and stating he heard three shots.

That is the problem with relying on a single outlier witness.  You have to look at all the evidence.  There are many more witnesses who were clear from the start and never wavered on the number of shots or the shot pattern.

One thing that you, and I and Dan O'meara seem to be in complete agreement on, however, is that the first shot struck the President.  That is a very important fact that is based on two independent pillars of evidence:

1.  the many witnesses, like Brehm, Nellie Connally, Dave Powers, Clint Hill, Faye and John Chism, Gayle and Wm. Newman, Ike Altgens, SA Hickey, SA Kinney, SA Landis, who saw JFK react to the first shot (together the fact that not a single witness said he smiled and waved after the first shot, let alone for 3 seconds afterward).

2.  the many witnesses including Betzner, occupants of the VP car and VP security car, Mary Woodward, who put the first shot well after z180.

But it is also the only conclusion that is possible with the 1........2....3 shot pattern recalled by over 40 witnesses (which is also consistent with the many witnesses who described a shot and then two more shots without explicitly stating the relative spacing) if the head shot was the last shot.