The First Shot

[Lance Payette]

FWIW, yesterday I happened to watch Mary Woodward's entertaining 2015 interview at the Sixth Floor museum. She described the second and third shots as so close together that the sound from the second had not faded before the third was heard.

[John Corbett]

FWIW, yesterday I happened to watch Mary Woodward's entertaining 2015 interview at the Sixth Floor museum. She described the second and third shots as so close together that the sound from the second had not faded before the third was heard.

I wonder if Andrew Mason will continue citing Mary Woodward to prop up his claim that JFK was hit by the first shot since she clearly says in this interview that the first shot didn't hit anybody. Go to the 11:10 mark to hear her describe the shooting.

[John Corbett]

They all heard the shot pattern that occurred.

Not everyone paid attention to the rhythm of the shots. Of those who recalled a pattern without prompting almost all said that the last two were closer together. 

Those who didn’t notice a pattern, when asked said they were about equally spaced.  James Romack was asked about the spacing in his WC testimony on April 8, 1964:
"Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4 seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They rang out pretty fast.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever operated a bolt action rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you own one?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did it sound like the shots were faster than it could be operated with a bolt action rifle?
Mr. ROMACK. No, sir."

A few did not offer a recollection about the shot spacing in their initial statement but, later, in describing the shots gave their opinion of how they were spaced.  For example, Steven Wilson said this in his detailed statement to the WC on March 25, 1964 (22H685):

“In a matter of ten seconds or less after car and occupants were obscured from my view by the trees, I heard three shots. I am positive there were three shots, no more and no less. It is my opinion there was a greater space of time between the second and third shots than between the first and second. The three shots were fired within a matter of less than five seconds”.

Note: Wilson was observing from the third floor TSBD on the south-east corner almost directly below the SN. If the first shot had occurred early before JFK passed under the oak tree, as is required by the SBT, Wilson’s view of the car would not have been obscured by a tree. So Wilson’s observation that the shots occured after his view of the car was obscured by a tree means there was no early shot.

Although the first shot was fired before the car passed under the tree, it is not a requirement of the SBT. The WC proposed several possible scenarios including one in which all three shots were fired after the car came into the clear. That is the one with the second shot missing and all three shots being fired in 5.6 seconds or less. For reasons I do not understand, that became the accepted WC scenario even though the WC never concluded that. It was only one possibility. Even clueless Walter Cronkite bought into that myth. It was the basis for Tink Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas.

[Andrew Mason]

What is there to corroborate those witnesses? Oh, yeah. Other witnesses.

You seem not to understand that independent reports of the same fact make them reliable.  It is just a simple application of the mathematics of probability.

Example: One witness reports a licence plate no. beginning AZR at the scene.  Another independently reports seeing licence plate AZR 109 while another says they saw the car with licence AZR 1O4.  You would say that means nothing and the fact that none of them agree completely shows that they are unreliable. I say that the licence plate almost certainly began with AZR if the reports were independent.

[Andrew Mason]

I wonder if Andrew Mason will continue citing Mary Woodward to prop up his claim that JFK was hit by the first shot since she clearly says in this interview that the first shot didn't hit anybody. Go to the 11:10 mark to hear her describe the shooting.

Do you mean the sense that she got after things were “a little hazy”?  She was much surer that the last two shots were much less than five seconds apart.  And that means the first did not miss.  It is really unfortunate that no one ever asked her if she knew that JFK was visibly reacting five seconds before the last shot.

[Andrew Mason]

Although the first shot was fired before the car passed under the tree, it is not a requirement of the SBT.

It is a requirement of the second shot SBT and almost no one has been suggesting a first shot SBT - Dan O’ meara is the exception. Dan’s first shot SBT has fewer problems with the evidence but still requires rejecting the evidence of JBC, Nellie, Greer, Hickey, Gayle Newman and requires a shot after z313 to fit 3 shots.

[John Corbett]

It is a requirement of the second shot SBT and almost no one has been suggesting a first shot SBT - Dan O’ meara is the exception. Dan’s first shot SBT has fewer problems with the evidence but still requires rejecting the evidence of JBC, Nellie, Greer, Hickey, Gayle Newman and requires a shot after z313 to fit 3 shots.

Still trying to save your turkey of a theory? For months you were using Mary Woodward as your principal witness to argue that JFK was hit by the first shot and now we find out she has ALWAYS known that the first shot she heard didn't hit anybody. That takes you back to square one.

Dan O'Meara and Jack Nessan both seem to have a bee in their bonnets over an early shot miss. Unless I am conflating their scenarios with someone else's, I think they both believe a first shot single bullet followed by the headshot and no other shots. While the WC identified that as a possible scenario, I don't think they really believed that was plausible although I can't say for sure. To believe the first shot single bullet is to believe JBC was wrong about hearing a shot before he was hit and turning to look over his shoulder in response, even though we see him do that in the Z-film. While I don't see anything in the Z-film that directly supports Mary Woodward, her account conforms with JBC's knowledge that he was not hit by the first shot. JBC rejected the SBT solely because he was led to believe JFK had been hit by the first shot and he knew he had been hit by the second. I don't know what led him to believe that, but that is the belief he seemed to hold for the rest of his life. It follows that if JFK was hit by the second shot and JBC was also hit by the second shot, they were hit by the same shot.  Mary Woodward's account dovetails perfectly with a second shot single bullet.