The Hole in the Limousine's Windshield: Proof of a Second Gunman

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dr. Evalea Glanges sure seems like a credible witness. Serious medical student, became a doctor. A gun enthusiast. She says she saw a hole in the JFK limo windshield.

Yes, she was very credible.

Then, why destroy the original JFK limo windshield?

Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole. 

Destroying crime scene evidence is not a good look.

That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.

I have reasonable doubts about the nature of cracks or bullet holes in the JFK limo windshield. I cannot fathom destroying the original windshield.

So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.

How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."

How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole? 

How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.

[John Corbett]

Yes, she was very credible.

Obviously, because they knew that a bullet hole in the windshield would wreck the lone-gunman story. They knew they had no way to explain the hole. 

That's why they secretly flew the limo to the FMC Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and to destroy the original one. If George Whitaker had not reluctantly agreed to do a recorded interview with Doug Weldon, and if he had not left an end-of-life testament about what he saw and did, there would be no first-hand accounts of the windshield's replacement.

So you think Whitaker just made up the whole thing? I find Whitaker compellingly credible. He was down-to-earth, sincere, and reluctant to speak. He never sought publicity, and in fact he insisted that Weldon not use his name until after he passed away because he feared he would suffer repercussions from revealing what he knew.

How about SS agent Charles Taylor's written report in which he mentioned seeing a hole in the windshield? He said the hole was of "particular note" and he located it in the same area as the other witnesses -- left of center (driver's view). Taylor got a long, up-close view of the hole because he drove the limo to the White House garage. I find it impossible to believe he was "mistaken."

How about the two Dallas police officers, Ellis and Freeman, who were certain they saw a hole in the windshield, and on of whom actually put a pencil through the hole? 

How does one dismiss such specific, independent, mutually corroborating accounts? If such accounts conflict with someone's theory of the assassination, that person should adjust their theory to fit the evidence.

The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

I think you misunderstood my comment.

I have reasonable doubts about narratives of the JFKA that assert there was/is no hole in the limo windshield.

Did you see my other post?

Was the windshield destroyed or not? Or is it in the National Archives?

And did the HSCA determine the hole in the windshield resulted from a strike on the interior side of the windshield?

[Tom Graves]

Did the HSCA determine the hole in the windshield resulted from a strike on the interior side of the windshield?

There was no through-and-through hole in the windshield.

[Royell Storing]

The people who claimed there was a bullet hole THROUGH the windshield never got close enough to closely examine it. It's not at all surprising that seeing the crack created by a fragment of the headshot would cause people to believe a shot was fired through the windshield, especially since at the time, none of those people would have had any idea where the shooter had fired from. The Secret Service was able to closely examine the crack and determined the windshield was struck from the inside and the missile had not passed through the windshield. It remained inside the limo.

   Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.
    There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?   

[John Corbett]

   Just my own personal experience, but I have seen several CRACKED Windshields. I Never initially thought I was looking at a windshield with a HOLE in it. Never. If someone connected to law enforcement claimed that on 11/22/63 that they saw the JFK Limo windshield with a HOLE in it, "big enough to put a pencil through it", I believe that law enforcement official.

When you saw those cracked windshield, did you have knowledge that somebody in the car had just been shot? If you did and you weren't in position to get a close-up view of the crack, I think you would have had a very different judgement. The human mind is subject to suggestion and the sight of a cracked windshield combined with the knowledge that JFK had just been shot would very much influence how those witnesses assessed what they were seeing.

    There are plenty of images of the JFK Limo sitting at Parkland Hospital with the Limo Trunk CLOSED and no top on the car. These images would therefore be before the trunk was opened and the Limo Top extracted, etc. These images would be FRESH Images of the car. These images show the JFK Limo from the rear toward Parkland Hospital. These images clearly show the inside of the windshield. These images are clear enough to show the 2 Doors on Parkland Hospital that FACED the JFK Limo. These images even show Wiegman on the (R) as he began to approach the JFK Limo with his camera at his face. These are extremely clear images. These are EARLY ON IMAGES of the JFK Limo. It would Not be difficult to Zoom in on the inside of the Limo windshield and examine the alleged Hole/Crack. This Limo "windshield" issue should have been put-to-bed long ago. Maybe it was?

The limo windshield issue should have been resolved a long time ago by the Secret Service's close up examination of the windshield which revealed a strike to the inside surface of the windshield and no penetration through the windshield.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Weldon’s chapter on the limousine is especially valuable because he documents that the White House garage logs contain no entries for November 25, the same day Ford Motor Company glass technician George Whitaker reported that the limousine was at the Ford Dearborn plant to have the windshield replaced and when Whitaker saw the hole in the windshield.

The government's official version of what happened to the limousine after the assassination appears very simple if one conducts a cursory examination. That "story" alleges that the limousine was flown to Washington D.C. on the evening of 22 November 1963. It then remained in the White House Garage under the supervision of the Secret Service until, according to James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, it was driven to Dearborn, Michigan-approximately 500 miles--on 20 December 1963 to design a new bubble-top. The vehicle was then supposed to have been driven from Dearborn, Michigan to Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 24 December 1963, for the manufacture and installation of the new bullet resistant bubble-top. (See Appendix C.)

This was the official account James Rowley provided to Mr. J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission in a letter dated 6 January 1964, a version of events which has been suspect for many years, . . .

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), during its tenure from 1976 to 1978, became confused about what happened to the limousine in the aftermath of the assassination. In an examination of 11 specific dates regarding the limousine after the assassination beginning with 22 November 1963, the HSCA noted conspicuous discrepancies in testimony about 4 of those dates as it developed its chronology of the movements of the limousine.

An article published in Car Exchange (December 1983) reported that the limousine was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt around the date of 12 December 1963. In addition, however, the HSCA, in referring to the records of Hess & Eisenhardt, also noted that the vehicle was delivered to Hess & Eisenhardt on 13 December 1963. This date was confirmed to me personally by Willard Hess, one of the owners of the company. Notice that both of these dates drastically contradict the information provided by the Chief of the Secret Service to Mr. Rankin in his letter of 6 January 1964. . . .

The Ferguson memorandum raises other questions. An examination of the White House Garage logs is revealing. Mr. Ferguson's name, for example, does not appear on the logs until 26 November 1963. . . .

The logs also reveal more critical information. The most significant aspect of the White House Garage logs is the absence of even one person logging in to see the limousine on 25 November 1963. This critical observation becomes of paramount importance when the statement of a witness from the Ford Motor Company, who asserts that he worked on the windshield at Ford on 25 November, is scrutinized. . . .

On 15 August 1993, I was able to conduct an interview that answered many of the questions raised by the windshield controversy. Awareness of the existence of this individual came to me purely by circumstance and not through any investigative efforts for which I can take credit. I am not revealing the identity of the individual at this time. A number of trusted researchers have been provided this information with an unedited copy of the full interview between us as a verification of its legitimacy. As I write today, this individual is still living but in poor health.

Having been an attorney since 1978, I have literally seen thousands of people testify in the courtroom. While serving as a hearing official for a number of those years, it has been my duty to weigh the credibility of witnesses. This individual was as credible a witness as I had ever observed in any courtroom. . . .

He had worked for the Ford Motor Company for forty years, starting in 1934. He has never forgotten what occurred on 25 November 1963. The two lab men to whom he makes reference are now deceased. These are some important excerpts from my interview:

“Around noon, we got it around 2:00 that he had been killed. So, right away they called meetings to find out what we were going to do. Are we gonna run Monday morning with the President being killed? We didn't decide on anything at that meeting, and being that I had charge of all power service, I was in charge of getting that plant ready to run or to shut it down and everything. So, they decided that they would let everything ride and they would call me on Sunday. So, on Sunday, around noon-I had just finished dinner-they called me up and told me to go in and make arrangements to start the plant up.

“Cause we would have to start that plant up around midnight to get it going for the day shift and number two shift. So, that I did, but then I arrived my normal time on Monday and they had me on a two-way radio and they had me on a Cushman scooter because I was covering a large plant. So I got a call from the Vice President of the division, and he told me on the radio that I was wanted in the glass plant lab, now! So I went down to the lab and the door was locked ....

"I knocked on the door and they let me in. There were two of the lab men in there and they had the windshield there. And they told me that we were to use that to-see now the car was a special built car.

“We were to use that windshield as a template to make a new windshield. And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through. You could see it, from the way it was broken....

"But the car was in the B building, where we had a repair garage. And they had taken the windshield out, it was back in the glass plant, we were using it as a template. And to make a windshield, and we were told to follow it right straight through until it was a finished product and get it back to the B building. We were told if anybody asked us what we were doing, we were running a template for a prototype.... "

After describing the process for making a new windshield he noted,

"We laminated it, when we took it out of there, it was a finished windshield. We took it to the B building; it was put in that limousine. Now that limousine had the entire interior completely stripped out.... The carpeting and everything was gone....

"It was gone, it was nothing, it was down to metal, and they restored the whole interior."

When asked if the limousine had been "stripped" at the plant, he replied, "... I assumed it was there, that's what they did....

"It was a good clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or anything, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it .... This had a clean round hole in the front and fragmented in the back....

"I went on from there and I became superintendent of the division and I had the whole five plant divisions.'' (“The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963,” in Murder in Dealey Plaza, pp. 132-135, 142-143).

I again encourage interested readers to read Weldon's entire chapter. It contains much more information than the quotes from it provided above.  Here's the link:

"The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963"