John Orr's analysis of the shots

[Lance Payette]

At the risk of seeming uninformed, I don’t recall ever having heard of John T. Orr before his name surfaced in connection with the Knott Lab animation “disproving” the SBT. I learned he had been with the Justice Department as an antitrust attorney and had been on an anti-SBT crusade since 1995. Since no one can locate the Knott "study," if there is one, I did a search for any research Orr might have published.

This is his exceedingly well-illustrated and well-argued 66-page analysis of what occurred: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JohnOrrReport.pdf. It appears, weirdly, at the site of “Mountain River Cabins,” a development in Georgia that Orr apparently owns. I don’t know when this analysis was published or that it represents Orr’s current thinking, but I assume it’s close.

Orr posits four shots: Oswald hits JFK in the back at Z204, the bullet exits the throat at a slight upward angle and dents the windshield. 1.75 seconds later, Z236, Oswald shoots Connally in the back, and this is CE 399 but not what caused JBC's wrist injuries. The third shot, the kill shot to the head, was fired 4.15 seconds later (Z312) by a pro on the roof of the County Records Building, using a fragmenting, hollow point .257 Roberts bullet in the .30 caliber shell found years later on the roof of the CRB (i.e., a sabot). The lead core of this third shot is what caused Connally’s wrist injury. The fourth shot, which missed completely, was fired by Oswald ¾ of a second later and caused the damage to the curb and Tague’s injury.

In the abstract, something like this seems to me to be by far the most plausible conspiracy theory – i.e., Oswald does pretty much exactly what the LN narrative posits him doing, but a pro firing on roughly the same trajectory with a highly fragmenting bullet makes sure the job gets done. Or perhaps the other gunman wasn't a pro but simply had a better rifle. Perhaps Oswald was a patsy in the sense of thinking he was involved in a pro-Castro plot when it was actually something else, or perhaps it was actually a pro-Castro plot and the other gunman was aligned with Oswald.

Orr’s theory as to how this all worked seems less plausible. The conspirators were unspecified “skilled professionals.” Basically, Oswald had been setting himself up far in advance to take the blame for the JFKA, as well as making sure he was seen in the sixth-floor window. The plan was for him to escape along with the pro and for the JFKA to be blamed on him as the “obvious” assassin – not as a patsy per se, but as the lone gunman when there in fact were two. If Oswald had managed a kill shot, the pro would not have fired at all. When the pro was forced to take the kill shot, Oswald quickly fired the fourth shot to cover the pro’s tracks. Both were under instructions to escape the scene as quickly as possible.

This all sounds fantastically improbable to me. If the Mafia had planned it all and had duped Oswald into thinking the pro were a fellow Castro supporter, which I suppose might be consistent with what Orr is saying, this would be halfway plausible. It still all seems like ad hoc speculation – i.e., Dealey Plaza is what occurred, so we have to fit our conspiracy theory into it. All the risks associated with Oswald in the TSBD, and the complete lack of anything resembling a rational escape plan, seem to me almost impossible to square with “skilled professionals.” I mean, just shoot JFK from the CRB or Dal-Tex building and leave behind some sort of pro-Castro manifesto; much simpler and less risky, no? Why do we need Oswald and all the risks his participation from the TSBD would entail? We need this because it's what happened and thus our after-the-fact ad hoc theory must address it somehow.

Anyway, Orr’s analysis is very interesting. Make of it what you will if you haven’t seen it before.

[Lance Payette]

Ah, more from Orr: http://www.mountainrivercabins.com/JFK.htm

The report dates from 1995 and was submitted to Janet Reno. His 5-page letter to Reno is included. Orr notes a few errors but nothing significant. He also gives his email address for contacts.

It's amazing to me how obscure a piece of work of this quality seems to be.

[Lance Payette]

Here's a YouTube video with Orr. From listening to parts of this, it appears he's talking about Oswald as a Mafia (Marcello) patsy. This would explain his association with Larry Schnapf, who is a Marcello-did-it guy. If he thinks Oswald was a "sham Marxist," which he apparently does, I must consign him to the nutcase bin while still admiring his analysis of the shots. No way (IMO) would the Mafia have needed or bothered with Oswald. No way (IMO) was Oswald a faux Marxist.

[Lance Payette]

Watched more of the video. Jack Ruby was the "local coordinator" and "in charge of this thing." Oh, dear. Yep, nutcase bin. Oh, well, perhaps someone can take Orr's analysis and posit a more plausible theory.

[Charles Collins]

Here's a YouTube video with Orr. From listening to parts of this, it appears he's talking about Oswald as a Mafia (Marcello) patsy. This would explain his association with Larry Schnapf, who is a Marcello-did-it guy. If he thinks Oswald was a "sham Marxist," which he apparently does, I must consign him to the nutcase bin while still admiring his analysis of the shots. No way (IMO) would the Mafia have needed or bothered with Oswald. No way (IMO) was Oswald a faux Marxist.

… while still admiring his analysis of the shots.


Why would you admire that analysis? I have only read what he suggests about the first shot. But I think it is ridiculous.

[Lance Payette]

… while still admiring his analysis of the shots.


Why would you admire that analysis? I have only read what he suggests about the first shot. But I think it is ridiculous.

This wasn't armchair theorizing. Orr did a vast amount of work. As stated by Knott, "In fact, he was one of the few private citizens ever allowed by the Archives to examine original pieces of evidence in person. He viewed the president’s shirt, coat, necktie, bullet fragments, and the section of the curb struck by one of the bullets." It seems to me a coherent and not implausible theory (talking only about the shots, not the rest of his theory). I don't pretend to have the expertise to critique the details, but it strikes me as pretty much what would have to have happened IF there was a conspiracy. If you find his analysis of the first shot ridiculous, feel free to critique it.

Larry Schnapf is a member here, isn't he? Perhaps he can weigh in as to whether Orr's thinking on the shots has changed significantly or whether he (Larry) finds it ridiculous. Since he and Orr formed a limited partnership to continue with the study after the Knott project went south, presumably either Orr's thinking has changed or Larry doesn't find it ridiculous.

From Orr himself:

On my own time, completely separate from my Justice Department job, and using my own money, I began a research project with the goal of uncovering every speck of original, raw evidence that existed of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza.

If I did not accomplish that goal, I came very close.

I went to Dallas and walked around Dealey Plaza, inspecting it from every angle, including from Oswald's sixth floor window, from the roof of a nearby building, and from the grassy knoll.

I made numerous trips to the National Archives and read every document and studied every photo they had related to the events in Dealey Plaza.

Based on a preliminary report of my analysis of the gunshot trajectories, I became one of the few private citizens ever allowed by the Archives to examine in person original pieces of evidence in the case--the president's bloody shirt, coat, and tie, the magic bullet, the bullet fragments from the limousine, and the section of curb that a bullet struck.

I also read thousands and thousands of pages of private books, magazines, and reports on the assassination.

On April 17, 1995, I mailed a 72-page report on the final results of my research project to Attorney General Janet Reno.
It presented what was then, and I believe still is, the only complete visual reconstruction of the gunshots together with all of the evidence supporting it.

[Tom Graves]

This wasn't armchair theorizing. Orr did a vast amount of work.

So did John Armstrong.

[Lance Payette]

So did John Armstrong.

Indeed, he did. And I respect him for it. The Armstrong Collection at Baylor University is a goldmine. His theory may be wacky, but his research stands on its own merits. Walt Brown said he kept a copy of Harvey & Lee beside his bed because it is an invaluable resource regardless of what one may think of the theory. I try to be a little more nuanced in my thinking than knee-jerk, one-dimensional wackos like ... well, if the shoe fits, etc., etc.