When Was JBC Hit?

[Andrew Mason]

You maintain a theory that requires JFK to not react to the first shot for several seconds and to smile and wave for several seconds afterward, despite the lack of a single witness who recalled seeing that and dozens who said he reacted quickly.

The Warren Commission indicated that they could not determine which shot missed. Although I have indicated that I believe that the first shot missed, I have not closed my mind to other possibilities. If another one of the shots missed, the reaction of JFK would fit with the witness accounts that you cite. That would make much more sense than your idea does.

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.  There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

You insist that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that struck JFK despite not having a single witness who said that occurred and JBC, Nellie, Powers, Gayle Newman, Hickey and Greer who gave evidence that it did not.

Charles Brehm was one of the closest witnesses and he said he came up with the single bullet idea right away. When the Warren Report came out and confirmed his idea, he felt that they got it right. So, please correct yourself regarding “not a single witness who said…” Also, even JBC said in his book that he could be wrong, and he is the one who was shot.

You cannot be referring to anything said by Brehm in his statements. In his interview with the Dallas Times Herald on 22Nov63 he recalled only two shots in total and JFK reacting to both. 

In a later FBI statement he described the same two shots but added that there was a third shot afterward. He said the President was very close at the time of the first shot. 

He was very detailed in both statements about JFK’s facial and bodily reactions to the first shot. In his FBI statement he said he thought the President was badly hit in the head but he describes seeing the President’s hair fly up on the second shot. No mention of his head exploding or even seeing blood. The hair flying up does not describe the dominant impression of the head shot.

He mentioned a third shot after that but does not describe any effect.  Mind you he was there with his 5 year old son so he may have been momentarily distracted. So his failure to notice the effect of the third shot may be because he had stopped looking at the President by the time of the third shot.

 What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.  His observation of JFK’s hair flying up on the second shot (which Hickey also observed at the time of the second shot) and his subsequent learning of JFK being shot in the head may explain why he thought the second shot struck him in the head.

And you ignore the vast majority of witnesses who recalled the shot pattern with the last two shots close together.

If there was a first shot miss that occurred near Z133, as some evidence suggests, then that pattern would be okay. Also, many of the witness accounts indicate the last two shots extremely close together. I suggest that those accounts are people who heard the bullet impact before the sound of the muzzle blast reached them. Therefore, those accounts should not be counted as hearing three separate shots.

Very few said the last two were that close. Even Brehm said they sounded like they were spaced “just about as quickly as an individual can manoeuvre a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.” 22H837

That is a hard to fit with three shots over 10 seconds.

JBC said he turned around to check on JFK.

Actually JBC’s testimony is that he turned as an instinctive reaction to the sound of the shot. Then when he didn’t catch JFK in the corner of his eye, he started to turn the other way in order to look over his left shoulder.

He also said he was interested in seeing JFK because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination taking place. So his purpose in turning around was to see the President.

So long as the knees are well above the hips, that is all you need.  The legs will be apart. Try it.

I have, and I disagree with you completely.

You naturally sit with your legs up well above your hips with your legs together?

Dr. Shires said it went down to the femur.

Not the bullet, only a very small particle [that was shed off of the bullet]. He said the bullet only penetrated as far as the muscle (just below the skin).

Shires said the bullet passed through the subcutaneous fat and penetrated the outer thigh muscle. How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur? Explain the physics of that for us.

You can't say he must have felt it because a. he didn't and b. many people who are shot do not feel it.

He also said he didn’t feel his wrist being shattered and only discovered that injury when he woke up in the hospital after the surgery. The reason is because of his back/chest wounds.

But you cannot conclude that he must have felt it immediately or even likely felt it immediately without evidence. The evidence is a. That he never felt it and b. many if not most people feel nothing initially from being shot when they remain conscious and the bullet produces no immediate functional impairment.

[Charles Collins]

He said it went through the skin and subcutaneous fat and penetrated the thigh muscle. He said he disagreed with the suggestion that it did not penetrate far. How does a fragment embed itself in the femur without the rest of the bullet?

You can't say he must have felt it because a. he didn't and b. many people who are shot do not feel it.

He also said he didn’t feel his wrist being shattered and only discovered that injury when he woke up in the hospital after the surgery. The reason is because of his back/chest wounds.

Ok. So how can you say he must have felt it if it occurred separately from the other wounds?

Charles Brehm from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed, pages 62-63:


Within hours after the knowledge was given to me that Connally was also wounded, I said the only thing that I could think of was that a bullet that went through the President had also obviously hit Connally because there were only three shots fired: one went wild and two hit the President. The question then was how could it have happened? At that time, it was very easy for me to open up my shirt and show the bullet wound in what was the solar plexus, to come over here and show the exit wound where it passed through my body and came out between my ribs; then the second part of the bullet, the damage, because the bullet was softened and out of shape, tore my arm apart. One bullet did that to me! Any questions that night about what a single bullet can do, my God, I was living proof of it that day!


Edit: I don’t know what the problem is. But I was trying to respond to the part of your post where you commented about Charles Brehm.

[Andrew Mason]

That's not what Shaw actually said. He said that he debrided tissue "down to the region of the femur."

"The region of the femur" is a non-specific phrase that could mean anywhere relatively close to the bone. More importantly, he's the guy digging the hole that deep. The bullet wound is generally not as deep as the debrided volume around it, and as any Fackler will tell you, surgeons were in the habit of over-treating these wounds by removing too much tissue.

Well, he said there was a lead fragment embedded in the femur. Please explain how that occurs if the bullet does not touch the femur.

[Charles Collins]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.  There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.


You cannot be referring to anything said by Brehm in his statements. In his interview with the Dallas Times Herald on 22Nov63 he recalled only two shots in total and JFK reacting to both. 

In a later FBI statement he described the same two shots but added that there was a third shot afterward. He said the President was very close at the time of the first shot. 

He was very detailed in both statements about JFK’s facial and bodily reactions to the first shot. In his FBI statement he said he thought the President was badly hit in the head but he describes seeing the President’s hair fly up on the second shot. No mention of his head exploding or even seeing blood. The hair flying up does not describe the dominant impression of the head shot.

He mentioned a third shot after that but does not describe any effect.  Mind you he was there with his 5 year old son so he may have been momentarily distracted. So his failure to notice the effect of the third shot may be because he had stopped looking at the President by the time of the third shot.

 What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.  His observation of JFK’s hair flying up on the second shot (which Hickey also observed at the time of the second shot) and his subsequent learning of JFK being shot in the head may explain why he thought the second shot struck him in the head.

Very few said the last two were that close. Even Brehm said they sounded like they were spaced “just about as quickly as an individual can manoeuvre a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.” 22H837

That is a hard to fit with three shots over 10 seconds.

He also said he was interested in seeing JFK because he recognized the sound as a rifle shot and feared an assassination taking place. So his purpose in turning around was to see the President.
You naturally sit with your legs up well above your hips with your legs together?

Shires said the bullet passed through the subcutaneous fat and penetrated the outer thigh muscle. How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur? Explain the physics of that for us.
But you cannot conclude that he must have felt it immediately or even likely felt it immediately without evidence. The evidence is a. That he never felt it and b. many if not most people feel nothing initially from being shot when they remain conscious and the bullet produces no immediate functional impairment.

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.


There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.


What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.



How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).

[Mitch Todd]

Well, he said there was a lead fragment embedded in the femur. Please explain how that occurs if the bullet does not touch the femur.

Yeah. He said there was a bullet fragment in the femur. That was his interpretation of Connally's leg x-rays. However, every other physician I can think of who has studied them says that Shaw's interpretation erroneous. Shaw was misled by an x-ray artefact on one of the images, and they place the actual fragment fairly near the surface. 

[Andrew Mason]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.

In the section “The Shot That Missed” they went through evidence for each of the shots. For each shot they listed evidence that the shot did not miss and then discussed how that evidence may be flawed.  For each shot there were multiple independent pieces of evidence that each shot did not miss.  But they do not cite any evidence of anyone saying that the shot missed.

The closest they come is with the first shot and the statement of SA Bennett. After suggesting that he was a very important witness (but carefully fail to offer any explanation of why he was not called to testify) as one of his statements - but not his notes made shortly after the events - suggest that the second shot struck JFK in the back. They then go through evidence that it missed and suggest that JBC could support a finding that the first shot missed because he turned “slightly” to the right and didn’t see JFK so maybe he had not been hit. They suggest that Nellie may have been confused about seeing JFK reacting before the second shot (not mentioning the film showing her watching JFK in the z250s but not looking at him anywhere around z225). They then practically concede that there is a lot of other evidence that the first shot struck and then suggest that JBC didn’t feel it right away.

There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the shot on which Tague was hit (which he said was not the first and not the last of the three shots he heard) was a missed shot.  The fragment that deflected up off the curb had already struck something substantial before that, as it left residue of lead/antimony but no copper on the curb. There is absolutely zero evidence for a bullet impact anywhere outside the car.

What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.

If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.

[/quote]

How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).
[/quote]It was your contention that Dr. Shires did not say the bullet struck the femur.

 If your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that stopped the bullet

[Andrew Mason]

And in their analysis they presented all the evidence for each of the shots definitely not missing.

No, they presented the evidence that the Single Bullet Conclusion is the only conclusion that fits the evidence.

The WC suggests that the SBT must be correct and, therefore, one shot missed.  But they acknowledge the evidence that each shot did not miss and cannot reach any conclusion as to which shot missed.  They cling to the SBT despite being unable to conclude which shot must have missed.

In the section “The Shot That Missed” they went through evidence for each of the shots. For each shot they listed evidence that the shot did not miss and then discussed how that evidence may be flawed.  For each shot there were multiple independent pieces of evidence that each shot did not miss. There is almost no evidence that any of the shots missed.

The closest they come is with the first shot and the statement of SA Bennett. After suggesting that he was a very important witness (but carefully fail to offer any explanation of why he was not called to testify) as one of his statements - but not his notes made shortly after the events - suggest that the second shot struck JFK in the back. They then go through evidence that it did not miss.  They suggest that JBC could support a finding that the first shot missed because he turned “slightly” to the right and didn’t see JFK so maybe he had not been hit. They suggest that Nellie may have been confused about seeing JFK reacting before the second shot (not mentioning the film showing her watching JFK in the z250s but not looking at him anywhere around z225). They then practically concede that there is a lot of other evidence that the first shot struck and suggest that JBC didn’t feel it right away.

There is really no definite witness testimony of any shot missing and certainly no physical evidence.

Tague would disagree with this opinion of yours.

There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the shot on which Tague was hit (which he said was not the first and not the last of the three shots he heard) was a missed shot.  The fragment that deflected up off the curb had already struck something substantial before that, as it left residue of lead/antimony but no copper on the curb. There is absolutely zero evidence for a bullet impact anywhere outside the car.

What Brehm does not mention is seeing any reaction of JBC on any shot, so I am not sure how anyone can say he observed a shot hit both men.

No one said that Brehm saw it hit JBC. But when he learned that JBC had also been shot, he said that he deduced “within hours” that a bullet that hit JFK also hit JBC.
I suggest that you read the chapter on Charles Brehm in “No More Silence”. Then you won’t need to guess about these things.

If that is your definition of a witness who said that JBC was hit in the back by the same bullet that passed through JFK, you would have to include Arlen Specter, David Von Pein, and anyone else who reached that conclusion from seeing the film.

How does it embed lead in the femur without the butt end of the bullet striking the femur?

First, I am not certain that it did embed in the femur. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the x-ray. In response to your question, the same way a passenger (who is not wearing a seatbelt) in an automobile is thrown through the windshield when the automobile comes to an abrupt stop (in a crash for instance).

It was your contention that Dr. Shires did not say the bullet struck the femur. Shires always maintained that the lead was embedded in the femur.

Your only answer is that a piece of lead could have separated from the base somehow and somehow avoided striking the same material that the bullet encountered? Or was it like a car accident in which your body is stopped by the seatbelt but your nose flies off your face and hits the windshield?

[Jerry Organ]

The artifact is a different size and hard-edged. The Reynolds Fragment is identical in height (blue lines).

The bullet hole is 2 1/2" from the inner seam of the pants. Bullet was traveling right-to-left and struck the inner thigh.