The First Shot

[Charles Collins]

I think you are right. Jackson was not in the same car as Merriman Smith. He was in the car immediately behind the first open press convertible.  He said he was in the eighth car in the motorcade but I think he was not counting the lead Sheriff's car.  The Cabell car was #6, the White House pool car was #7, then there were two open press cars and Jackson was in the second so that would be #9.  It is a bit odd that no one in the pool car gave statements or testified before the WC.

Bob Jackson was in the right rear of the third open press convertible. I believe that Tom Dillard was right in front of him in the front seat of the same car. And it was Bob Jackson’s description that helped Dillard aim his camera at the correct window just seconds after the shots. They would have been in car #10 in the diagram.

[Andrew Mason]

Bob Jackson was in the right rear of the third open press convertible. I believe that Tom Dillard was right in front of him in the front seat of the same car. And it was Bob Jackson’s description that helped Dillard aim his camera at the correct window just seconds after the shots. They would have been in car #10 in the diagram.

It is not a major point but why do you say Jackson and Dillard were in the third open press convertible?  Jackson said this (2 H 157):

Mr. SPECTER. And then there was one car filled with photographers?
Mr. JACKSON. Directly in front of US.
Mr. SPECTER. Between your car and the cars which you believe to have been
filled with White House newsmen?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Were there two White House press cars - the second one being an open convertible?

[Charles Collins]

It is not a major point but why do you say Jackson and Dillard were in the third open press convertible?  Jackson said this (2 H 157):

Mr. SPECTER. And then there was one car filled with photographers?
Mr. JACKSON. Directly in front of US.
Mr. SPECTER. Between your car and the cars which you believe to have been
filled with White House newsmen?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Were there two White House press cars - the second one being an open convertible?

The national press car had Kilduff and the others in it. It was not a convertible. Camera car #1 (yellow convertible) John Hoefen, Dave Weigman Jr., Thomas J. Craven, Cleve Ryan, and Thomas M. Atkins. Camera car #2 (silver convertible) Donald C. “Clint” Grant, Frank Cancellure, Cecil W. Staughton, Arthur Rickerby, Henry D.Burroughs. Camera Car #3 (grey convertible) James R. Underwood, Thomas C. Dillard, Robert Jackson, Malcom O. Couch, Jimmy Darnell.

See the Hughes film clip earlier in this thread for a visual confirmation.

[Chris Bristow]

Skeptics often point out that witness testimony is not reliable. As an example they point to is that test done in a classroom in which a spontaneous event was acted out in front of the students. Right after the event they asked all the students to detail what they saw. Even though it just happened almost 25% of them got it wrong. This is used as evidence that witness testimony is not reliable but they're really missing something here. That is that 75% of the people got it right. It is the consistency of the majority that detectives use to determine which Witnesses are correct. The majority of the Witnesses in the JFK case said the last two shots came closer together. In about 75% of them felt the shots came almost at the same time or within a second of each other. It would be interesting to compile a list of witnesses that gave their statements within a half hour of the assassination and compare that to people who gave statements that weekend or the week after or long after. Those students in the class we're asked again after a few days and their accuracy went from 75% to 60%. Would be interesting to see the difference between Witnesses from Friday the 22nd and a few days later and see how that compares to the 60%.

[Jerry Organ]

Skeptics often point out that witness testimony is not reliable. As an example they point to is that test done in a classroom in which a spontaneous event was acted out in front of the students. Right after the event they asked all the students to detail what they saw. Even though it just happened almost 25% of them got it wrong. This is used as evidence that witness testimony is not reliable but they're really missing something here. That is that 75% of the people got it right.

I believe the experiment with a revolver/pistol usually has one shot fired or none fired. No shot spanning to be recreated in the mind.

It is the consistency of the majority that detectives use to determine which Witnesses are correct.

Ever heard tell of the Innocence Project?

    The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a study
     by the United States Department of Justice and United States
     Senate, in conjunction with the Jewish Yeshiva University's
     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which claimed that
     incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a factor in over
     70% of wrongful convictions.

     There are many reasons why wrongful convictions occur.
     The most common reason is false eyewitness identification,
     which played a role in more than 75% of wrongful convictions
     overturned by the Innocence Project. Often assumed to be
     incontrovertible, a growing body of evidence suggests that
     eyewitness identifications are unreliable.

          -- Wikipedia

The majority of the Witnesses in the JFK case said the last two shots came closer together.

I think they're right about generalities, like the number of shots and seeing Kennedy struck in the head and the left-behind motorcade pausing at the top of Elm and on Houston. But shot spanning strikes me as a non-priority detail and for some an afterthought; I doubt any of the witnesses were prepared to or thought to assess shot spanning in real time.

     A review of the student responses apparently reveals that most
     of the students got the prominent facts right, but varied on lots of
     subsidiary details, and that they omitted important facts.

          ( Link )

In about 75% of them felt the shots came almost at the same time or within a second of each other. It would be interesting to compile a list of witnesses that gave their statements within a half hour of the assassination and compare that to people who gave statements that weekend or the week after or long after.

So you think the witness record supports the last two shots occurred within a second of each other, which I guess would be shots that struck near Z295-onward and at Z313.

It that's not right, then 75% of the 75% actually did get it wrong.

Those students in the class we're asked again after a few days and their accuracy went from 75% to 60%. Would be interesting to see the difference between Witnesses from Friday the 22nd and a few days later and see how that compares to the 60%.

Seems like apples and oranges the classroom experiment compared to the assassination.

[Chris Bristow]

I believe the experiment with a revolver/pistol usually has one shot fired or none fired. No shot spanning to be recreated in the mind.

Ever heard tell of the Innocence Project?

    The Innocence Project was established in the wake of a study
     by the United States Department of Justice and United States
     Senate, in conjunction with the Jewish Yeshiva University's
     Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, which claimed that
     incorrect identification by eyewitnesses was a factor in over
     70% of wrongful convictions.

     There are many reasons why wrongful convictions occur.
     The most common reason is false eyewitness identification,
     which played a role in more than 75% of wrongful convictions
     overturned by the Innocence Project. Often assumed to be
     incontrovertible, a growing body of evidence suggests that
     eyewitness identifications are unreliable.

          -- Wikipedia

I think they're right about generalities, like the number of shots and seeing Kennedy struck in the head and the left-behind motorcade pausing at the top of Elm and on Houston. But shot spanning strikes me as a non-priority detail and for some an afterthought; I doubt any of the witnesses were prepared to or thought to assess shot spanning in real time.I think they're right about generalities, like the number of shots and seeing Kennedy struck in the head and the left-behind motorcade pausing at the top of Elm and on Houston. But shot spanning strikes me as a non-priority detail and for some an afterthought; I doubt any of the witnesses were prepared to or thought to assess shot spanning in real time.

     A review of the student responses apparently reveals that most
     of the students got the prominent facts right, but varied on lots of
     subsidiary details, and that they omitted important facts.

          ( Link )

So you think the witness record supports the last two shots occurred within a second of each other, which I guess would be shots that struck near Z295-onward and at Z313.

It that's not right, then 75% of the 75% actually did get it wrong.

Seems like apples and oranges the classroom experiment compared to the assassination.

The innocence project is a completely inappropriate comparison. The strength of the testimony of the Dealey witnesses is in the majority giving the same description of the shots fired. When a large number of witnesses give the same version of the event you can assume it is unlikely they all made the same mistake. You don't have to take it as a fact but it lends credence to a particular theory and illuminates a path to further investigation.
 The innocence project dealt with convictions based on as little as one eye witness not a majority of witnesses. Also in a court of law a single witness who gives a 'positive" id can be made to outweigh 2 witnesses who could not positively identify a suspect.
 The innocence project often deals with eyewitnesses who attempt to identify a suspect by looking at their face and demeanor and comparing that with their memory. Well identifying peoples faces by memory is worlds apart from a memory of the spacing between shots heard. Remembering a face is hugely subjective while the time between shots is far less subjective.

You say "you think" they are right about the generalities but wrong about things you don't agree with. It sure sounds likes confirmation bias to me.
   It is plausible that after hearing the first shot witnesses became alert and keen to the next two sounds. Many people heard the first shot and were not sure, but fearful that they just heard a shot and became immediately concerned. They likely paid close attention to the last two shots.
You stated that many of the students got smaller details wrong and omitted some facts entirely. I think this argument reflects a misunderstanding of the point made in the consistency of the Dealey witness testimony. It has nothing to do with who got details wrong or who omitted details. The strength of witness testimony is when a large majority AGREE on the facts. When witness just pull it out of their arse they don't agree! you don't get 75% of the witnesses giving the same story when the story is an incorrect memory!
"So you think the witness record supports the last two shots happened within a second of each other?"
  I think the witnesses location affected the timing they heard. If the shots happened 1/4 sec apart a witnesses next to the TSB would hear and additional 1/4 second delay. Then consider a witnesses memory could be less than accurate and you may expect them to vary some. But the 2.3 seconds needed to fire the Carcano seems very inconsistent with the majority of the witness statements.
  Some of the most qualified testimony comes from Greer and Kellerman because they were seated inches from where the rounds were landing and of course they said the last rounds "Came in as a flurry of shells" and the Last shots were "Almost simultaneous".
The classroom experiments may seem like apples and oranges to you but I think that argument applies well to the innocence project too.
I brought up the classroom experiment because skeptics use it to argue that witness testimony is unreliable. My point to that is when 75% of the witnesses are consistent you can't claim it proves witness testimony as unreliable or completely unreliable as they tend to claim. The fact is that modern defectives still use the consistency of witness testimony to solve cases. When the majority of witnesses give consistent accounts it most likely due to their accounts being correct for the most part.
 

[Andrew Mason]

The majority of the Witnesses in the JFK case said the last two shots came closer together. In about 75% of them felt the shots came almost at the same time or within a second of each other.

The first sentence is correct. The second is not.  See my compilation of their evidence. Few witnesses quantified the time intervals.  Many indicated that the spacing was longer than a second. Greer said he turned around AFTER the second shot and he is already turned around by z282. All you can really conclude is that the last two shots were closer together.

[Charles Collins]

The accounts in which the last two sounds were almost simultaneous or very close together (less than the time required to aim and fire the rifle) were most likely describing the sounds of the impacts of the bullet (or one of its fragments)  with the skull, or the inside of the windshield or the sound of the skull exploding (not the sound of a separate shot). In these cases their accounts would be describing a sound that was mistaken for a shot. And therefore these accounts should not be considered as describing the last two shots closer together and should removed from this category.

That said, using statistics of witness accounts alone (without other evidence to substantiate it) to attempt to make sense of this aspect is pointless. There are too many variables, and most witness accounts were taken after a period of time in which other descriptions from other witnesses (seen on TV or heard on radio or read in the papers and magazines or communications in person) could have colored their memories.

Our memories are reconstructions (not taped replays) and are based on associations. They are one of the least reliable forms of evidence. Basing one’s theory on witness accounts, without confirmation from other evidence, is not recommended. And if one bases a theory solely upon statistics of witness accounts then starts to look for some other evidence to support it, confirmation bias is most likely going to follow.