Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[John Corbett]

I might suggest that one of the flaws in your approach is that you would not raise those arguments but would readily accept the evidence of witnesses if it fit with the second shot SBT. 

Not if their recollections conflicted with what the Z-film shows.

The arguments could apply to all the facts observed by witnesses, including the number of shots, just like this  :

BINGO!!! No eye or ear witness account should be accepted as factual without corroboration. If a witness tells us something, we should immediately tell ourselves, "That might or might not be true". We should then compare what that witness tells us to the body of evidence to see if fits or not. If an eyewitness account can neither be corroborated nor refuted, we should neither assume it is correct nor incorrect. It could be either. When I read or hear an eyewitness account and there is no other evidence to compare it to, I would consider it a coin flip whether or not that witness is correct. If I ever serve on a jury again and the prosecution's case rests primarily on the account of an eyewitness and there was no corroborating evidence, I would vote to acquit because I would certainly have reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

The flaw in your approach is that you put absolute faith in witnesses' ability to accurately remember a bewildering event that popped up out of nowhere and took place over a period of about 6 seconds. Do you think any of those witnesses at the time was trying to discern the number of shots fired? For starters, many people did not even realize the first shot was a gunshot. Some didn't seem to hear it or if they did, thought it might have been a firecracker or a motorcycle backfire. So how could those people accurately describe the number of shots?

The actual timing (z271-z313) is 2.3 seconds.  Would you expect any witness to say they thought they were 2.3 seconds apart? In whole seconds, not more than two seconds means less than three.

I'm saying no witness would have any idea what frame of the Z-film the second shot was fired at. Therefore any computation based on the elapsed time in the Z-film is meaningless in terms of corroborating the witnesses.

[Andrew Mason]

When I read or hear an eyewitness account and there is no other evidence to compare it to, I would consider it a coin flip whether or not that witness is correct.

What if there was another independent witness who said the same thing?  What if you flipped a coin for 21 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot and rejected them if it said tails?  Would you get 21 straight tails? What if you did the same thing for the 63 witnesses who provided evidence of the relative shot spacing, would you get 53 or 57 tails?

If I ever serve on a jury again and the prosecution's case rests primarily on the account of an eyewitness and there was no corroborating evidence, I would vote to acquit because I would certainly have reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.

I want you on my next jury.

I'm saying no witness would have any idea what frame of the Z-film the second shot was fired at. Therefore any computation based on the elapsed time in the Z-film is meaningless in terms of corroborating the witnesses.

Of course no one was counting in zframes! But it is easy to place their recollection of the time of the first shot in relation to the zfilm.

For example, we know that Croft took his photo at z161 and that it was taken before the first shot. He said it was enough before the first shot for him wind his camera to take another before the first shot sounded.  Linda Willis said that JFK was passing between her and the Stemmons sign when she heard the first shot.  We can plot that and see that this meant JFK was between about z195 and z205 when he passed between her and the Stemmons sign.  Mary Woodward said that JFK had just passed by where she was standing hen the first shot sounded.  She was standing a few feet past the lamp post which JFK passed at z190.  Hugh Betzner said he took his photo just before the first shot.  His photo was taken at the same time that frame 186 was exposed.  Occupants of the VP car said that they had just completed the turn and were going down Elm St. toward the triple underpass.  The VP car is still turning when last seen in the zfilm at frame 180. Mrs. Cabell said her car had entered the intersection and she was facing the SE corner of the TSBD so all she had to do was look up and see the rifle in the 6th floor window.  Her car is still on Houston St. at z180. Karen Westbrook was standing farther along Elm about 10 feet west of Woodward where JFK was opposite at about z202.  She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when i heard the first explosion."

[John Corbett]

What if there was another independent witness who said the same thing?  What if you flipped a coin for 21 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot and rejected them if it said tails?  Would you get 21 straight tails? What if you did the same thing for the 63 witnesses who provided evidence of the relative shot spacing, would you get 53 or 57 tails?

All of your selected witnesses were subject to the same challenges of witnessing a sudden, unexpected, and traumatic event which took place over the course of just 9 seconds. Then were asked to piece together what they saw, in what order they saw it, and the time frames of those events. How could anybody be expected to get it all right under such stressful circumstances. There is only one witness that wasn't subject to any of these difficulties, and that witness is Zapruder's camera and I know that witness got it right even if it conflicts with all the other witnesses.

I want you on my next jury.
Of course no one was counting in zframes! But it is easy to place their recollection of the time of the first shot in relation to the zfilm.

What isn't easy is corroborating their accounts of the event.

For example, we know that Croft took his photo at z161 and that it was taken before the first shot.

How do we know that? Because he said so? You're using Croft to corroborate himself.
[/quote]
He said it was enough before the first shot for him wind his camera to take another before the first shot sounded.  Linda Willis said that JFK was passing between her and the Stemmons sign when she heard the first shot.  We can plot that and see that this meant JFK was between about z195 and z205 when he passed between her and the Stemmons sign.  Mary Woodward said that JFK had just passed by where she was standing hen the first shot sounded.  She was standing a few feet past the lamp post which JFK passed at z190.  Hugh Betzner said he took his photo just before the first shot.  His photo was taken at the same time that frame 186 was exposed.  Occupants of the VP car said that they had just completed the turn and were going down Elm St. toward the triple underpass.  The VP car is still turning when last seen in the zfilm at frame 180. Mrs. Cabell said her car had entered the intersection and she was facing the SE corner of the TSBD so all she had to do was look up and see the rifle in the 6th floor window.  Her car is still on Houston St. at z180. Karen Westbrook was standing farther along Elm about 10 feet west of Woodward where JFK was opposite at about z202.  She said "The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when i heard the first explosion."
[/quote]

A whole bunch of "so-and-so said" accounts without any corroboration for what they said.

[Andrew Mason]

All of your selected witnesses were subject to the same challenges of witnessing a sudden, unexpected, and traumatic event which took place over the course of just 9 seconds. Then were asked to piece together what they saw, in what order they saw it, and the time frames of those events. How could anybody be expected to get it all right under such stressful circumstances.

And, as I said, the same factors apply to counting the shots.  But you accept that evidence.

There is only one witness that wasn't subject to any of these difficulties, and that witness is Zapruder's camera and I know that witness got it right even if it conflicts with all the other witnesses.

I would agree. But I doubt there has ever been a case in which the film unequivocally conflicts with what the vast majority of witnesses said occurred - UNLESS - there is a reason based on evidence that caused the witnesses to make the same mistake.  In any event, the zfilm does not conflict with the evidence at all.  You see JFK and JBC turning their heads right at z164-170 and you say that is in response to the first shot?   Why?  Did anyone say JFK turned his head right after the first shot?  No. In fact, Mary Woodward explained that this turn was immediately after she shouted to the President. She said the President turned, smiled and waved at them and that they were the last people he acknowledged because the first shot immediately followed as his car passed by where she was standing and he turned forward.

You are using JBC's statement that he turned his head in response to the first shot but the turn at z164 not only doesn't fit (he doesn't even try to see JFK, which is why he said he turned) but you ignore actual evidence that the turn of JFK (at the same time) was not in response to the first shot because it was before the first shot.

What isn't easy is corroborating their accounts of the event.How do we know that? Because he said so? You're using Croft to corroborate himself.

No. I am using many others to corroborate his evidence that z161 was before the first shot.  Corroboration of a witness is simply independent evidence that supports the witness recollection. Betzner corroborates him (after his z186 photo). Karen Westbrook corroborates him. Mary Woodward corroborates him. The occupants of the VP car corroborate him. Mrs. Cabell corroborates him. T.E. Moore corroborates him (the first shot occurred as JFK approached the Thornton sign). All those whose evidence puts JFK reacting to the first shot corroborates Croft. All those who said that the last two shots were rapid and noticeably closer together than shots 1 and 2 corroborate him.

A whole bunch of "so-and-so said" accounts without any corroboration for what they said.

You appear to have some odd notion that witnesses cannot independently corroborate each other.  You might want to try your AI on that: "can a witness provide independent evidence that is considered corroboration of what another witness said?