Hypothetical question

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Deleted: Another duplicate.

[Andrew Mason]

Here is where common sense has to enter the picture. The FBI doesn't speculate on probabilities when forensic evidence is not 100% conclusive. That doesn't stop reasonable people from making such judgements. Do you really think the two large pieces found by the SS in the limo came from anything except the headshot. What else could have caused a full metal jacket bullet to break apart like that?

Maybe the shot that hit JBC in the back and wrist, which was the second shot.   According to the evidence, Tague was struck by a fragment on the second shot and Greer sensed an impact in the car on the second shot.  So, according to that evidence, the second shot fragmented. How a bullet that impacted forcefully as JBC described, impacted butt-first and destroyed 10 cm  of rib and caused a comminuted fracture of the radius 2 inches above the wrist joint and came out looking like CE399 is not easy to understand.  It is especially difficult to understand not only how it could do that damage but how it could:
1. fool Agent Hickey into thinking that the second shot occurred at the same time that he was turned forward watching JFK, which we know must have been some time after we see him facing rearward in Altgens 6;
2. fool 75% of the witnesses who recalled a shot pattern into recalling that the last two shots were closer together (which would support the second shot after z255 (Altgens 6))

[John Corbett]

Maybe the shot that hit JBC in the back and wrist, which was the second shot.   According to the evidence, Tague was struck by a fragment on the second shot and Greer sensed an impact in the car on the second shot.

It has never been established which shot caused the injury to Tague.

So, according to that evidence,

What you really mean is your interpretation of that evidence.

the second shot fragmented.

CE399 did not fragment

How a bullet that impacted forcefully as JBC described, impacted butt-first and destroyed 10 cm  of rib and caused a comminuted fracture of the radius 2 inches above the wrist joint and came out looking like CE399 is not easy to understand.

It is very easy to understand if you are willing to listen to people who know what they are talking about. The recently post Nova program covered every one of these points as presented by Luke and Michael Haag. 

It is especially difficult to understand not only how it could do that damage but how it could:
1. fool Agent Hickey into thinking that the second shot occurred at the same time that he was turned forward watching JFK, which we know must have been some time after we see him facing rearward in Altgens 6;

Hickey was out of the frame when the second shot struck about Z222 so we don't know for sure which way he was facing. The last time we can see him prior to that shot was Z207 and he is clearly facing forward.

2. fool 75% of the witnesses who recalled a shot pattern into recalling that the last two shots were closer together (which would support the second shot after z255 (Altgens 6))

Oh, goody. Here we go with your infatuation with witnesses again. No wonder you can't figure this thing out.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From the Shenon book "A Cruel and Shocking Act" and his section on the Zapruder film and the SBT (the frame that Humes saw was CE 398 and ~Z-227 or 228).

[John Corbett]

Very interesting revelation about Humes testimony and Specter's reaction to it. Every once in a while I learn something about the assassination that I didn't know before and this is one of those times. There had to be things that the WC and the staff lawyers were struggling with early on and Humes's suggestion would certainly have helped clear up some of those problems. I had always been under the impression the SBT was the brain child of Specter and Ball.

[Andrew Mason]

It has never been established which shot caused the injury to Tague.

The only evidence we have is that he was struck on the second shot.  The only evidence we have of an impact occurring in the car is on the second shot.  There is no evidence that Tague or anything in the car was struck on the third shot.  In fact we have evidence that the third shot was after Tague was struck.  I will admit it is not overwhelming evidence but it is all we have.

What you really mean is your interpretation of that evidence.

No. It is simply taking the evidence at face value. No interpretation at all.

Hickey was out of the frame when the second shot struck about Z222 so we don't know for sure which way he was facing. The last time we can see him prior to that shot was Z207 and he is clearly facing forward.Oh, goody. Here we go with your infatuation with witnesses again. No wonder you can't figure this thing out.

You have to read what Hickey wrote in his statement (18 H 762).  There was no turn to the rear and then a turn forward between the second and third shots. He observed what happened to JFK while looking at him when the last two rapid shots sounded:

"He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked.  At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."

[John Corbett]

The only evidence we have is that he was struck on the second shot.  The only evidence we have of an impact occurring in the car is on the second shot.  There is no evidence that Tague or anything in the car was struck on the third shot.  In fact we have evidence that the third shot was after Tague was struck.  I will admit it is not overwhelming evidence but it is all we have.

There is no evidence as to any of the 3 shots causing Tague's injury, only speculation. The only one I would rule out would be the second one because that was CE399 was recovered intact except for small fragments of lead from the base.

No. It is simply taking the evidence at face value. No interpretation at all.

What you mean is taking selected witnesses' statements at face value which is a silly thing to do given how often witnesses are wrong about important details. If we take witness statements at face value, we would have to conclude the shooting happened a dozen or more ways.

You have to read what Hickey wrote in his statement (18 H 762).  There was no turn to the rear and then a turn forward between the second and third shots. He observed what happened to JFK while looking at him when the last two rapid shots sounded:

"He was slumped forward and to his left, and was straightening up to an almost erect sitting position as I turned and looked.  At the moment he was almost sitting erect I heard two reports which I thought were shots and that appeared to me completely different in sound than the first report and were in such rapid succession that there seemed to be practically no time element between them. It looked to me as if the President was struck in the right upper rear of his head. The first shot of the second two seemed as if it missed because the hair on the right side of his head flew forward and there didn't seem to be any impact against his head. The last shot seemed to hit his head and cause a noise at the point of impact which made him fall forward and to his left again."

I can read what Hickey said but that doesn't mean I'm going to assume he got everything right. That's your game.