Why the James Tague Wounding Refutes the Lone-Gunman Theory

[John Corbett]

Forensic evidence is science based evidence that requires evidence from an expert provided to a court in which the expert opines on something on which they have particular knowledge.

Nonsense. Forensic evidence doesn't always require expert testimony to interpret. In some cases, expert witnesses are called to interpret what the forensic evidence for the jury. In other instances, the jury can be presented the evidence and allowed to use their own judgement as to what it represents. That was the case in the murder trial in which I was a juror. We had the medical examiner testify regarding the autopsy evidence and what it established regarding cause of death. We were also presented with the murder weapon and two recovered bullets. The only testimony was by the crime scene investigators who told us where the bullets were recovered from. He didn't attempt to tell us what those bullets indicated. We were able to determine that for ourselves. One bullet hadb bullet had been recovered from the wall and combined with the medical examiners testimony, we were able to determine that was the bullet that had passed through the midsection of the victim. The other bullet had been recovered from underneath the victim's head. It had gone through the victim's head, into the carpet and been stopped by the concrete floor underneath it. That was a lead bullet that had flattened out when it hit the concrete floor. We determined that was the fatal head shot which was fired as the victim was laying on the floor following the first shot.

In another case I sat on, we convicted a forger. While we heard testimony from a handwriting expert, we convicted the forger almost entirely on the handwriting sample which we compared tot he forged check. Even we as laymen could tell both signatures had been written by the same hand. The two were identical in every way. We didn't need the experts testimony to tell us that. I don't recall that we even deliberated about the expert testimony. We passed the checks and the handwriting sample and quickly agreed the guy was guilty.

Often the opinions are with respect to something physical but not necessarily physical.  Experts, for example could be used to establish that certain behaviours indicate that the accused was engaged in trafficking drugs, or smuggling people, or committing fraud.

In this case, a mathematician could provide an opinion on the probability of this kind of distribution of independent witness observations where the vast majority were completely wrong.  That would be forensic evidence. 

BS. Mathematicians can't prove whether witnesses have accurately remembered an event. 

But I also point to forensic evidence in the form of medical opinions of JBC’s doctors that his torso was turned far to the right when hit so that it was almost parallel to the flight path of the bullet.

Since you don't quote those doctors, we are left with your interpretation of what they said on that point.

I could also point to expert lip readers who say that JBC is saying “oh, no, no” around z245-250.

What the hell is that supposed to prove?

So where is your forensic evidence?  You are not an expert on interpreting human responses to gunshot sounds so your opinion on what you think is happening in the zfilm is not forensic evidence.  The zfilm itself is not forensic evidence. It is simply evidence.

We have the forensic evidence of the Z-film corroborating JBC's account that he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot which hit neither him nor JFK. He then tells us after turning and seeing nothing, he was just starting to turn to face the front when he felt the second shot hit him in the back. The Z-film shows us that both he and JFK reacted to being shot at the same instant when both of them suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226 which was immediately followed by JBC twisting and dipping to his right. That footage also corroborates Glenn Bennett's report that he heard a shot before turning to see JFK hit by the second shot. This is a case where the witnesses are supported by the visual evidence of the Z-film. Nothing you imagine is supported by the Z-film or any other forensic evidence. On the contrary, the Z-film refutes your crazy beliefs.

[John Corbett]

It has occurred to me that in various recent threads, MTG has suggested shots being fired from all around Dealey Plaza. It seems to me he has postulated as many as six shots. Even if he doesn't want to accept it was Oswald firing from the sniper's nest, we have several eyewitnesses who saw a shooter at that location, 3 spent shells at that location, and the testimony of the TSBD employees who were right below that location who heard three shots being fired from directly above them. MTG has cited the HSCA acoustic evidence of a shooter firing from the GK. They postulated a missed shot although I believe MTG thinks that was the headshot. Either way, that brings us to four shots. In the past few weeks, he has claimed there was a bullet hole through the windshield which suggests a shooter from in front of the limo as it traveled down Elm St. He has been a little vague as to just where they shooter could have fired from. I'm not certain but I think his belief is that shot entered JFK's throat. I'm not sure where he thinks that shot ended up.

MTG's premise in starting this thread is that Tague's injury could not have been caused by any of the three shots from the TSBD. When pressed, he suggested Tague was injured by a shot fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex building, which sailed over JFK's head, over the limo, all the way down Elm St. to strike the curb in front of Tague standing between Main and Commerce streets. While Tague would have been roughly in line with such a shot, I wonder if MTG has considered how wild that shot would have been. Even if that shooter was firing from a second floor window, he still would have been ailing at a downward angle at JFK. It strains credulity to believe that a shot from the Dal-Tex would have been so much above the intended target that it not only would have missed JFK's head, it would have missed Connally, Kellerman, the dashboard and the windshield so that it could travel down Elm St., cross Main St. and hit the curb in front of Tague.

At a minimum, MTG is postulating six shots. Never mind that there are no eyewitnesses to a shooter from any location other than the TSBD. There is no forensic evidence of shots from any location other than the TSBD, such as a discarded weapon, spent shells, or recovered bullets. There is no medical evidence of any wounds suffered by either JFK or JBC that were not caused by shots fired from above and behind them. Since he has claimed the Dal-Tex shooter wildly missed his target, that would rule out that location unless he wants to claim that shooter fired more than one shot, which brings us up to seven or more shots. I forget. How many shots did most of the people in Dealey Plaza remember hearing?

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are two other problems with Posner's theory, as I explain in my article on the Tague wounding and in my chapter on the subject in A Comforting Lie.

One, Posner assumes that his tree-branch-collision bullet was fired between Z140 and Z166, since this is the timeframe in which five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement behind the limo. Now, before I continue, I should note that Posner deserves credit for at least acknowledging that a bullet did strike the pavement before Z166. Many WC apologists deny the pavement strike because they view it as too problematic for their version of the shooting, even though five witnesses saw it happen.

Anyway, to assume that an FMJ bullet fired from the sixth-floor window hit a branch of the intervening oak tree, we would have to believe that the supposed lone gunman completely missed, not only Kennedy, but the entire limousine, from an elevation of 60 feet and from a distance of less than 140 feet. Even the Warren Commission (WC), in a rare display of logic and common sense, admitted it was hard to believe the gunman would have been so severely off the mark with his first and closest shot:

On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (WCR, p. 111)

Two, in order for Posner's errant shot to have had any chance of fragmenting from hitting an oak tree limb, assuming for the sake of argument this is even possible, the missile would have had to strike far enough up the limb so the limb would not bend or snap when the bullet hit. This would have been a staggering, unbelievable miss if fired between Z140 and Z166 from the sixth-floor window. To hit a limb far enough up its structure during this timeframe, the limo, much less JFK, would not have even been in the gunman's field of aim when he pulled the trigger.

Furthermore, as mentioned in previous replies, a bullet that hit far enough up an oak limb that that the limb did not bend or snap would not have fragmented into several fragments but would have penetrated deep into the limb and would have remained substantially intact. Such a collision certainly would not have caused the copper jacket to separate from the lead core, but Posner must assume this happened because the smear taken from the curb scar contained no copper (WCR, p. 116).

Anyone can verify in sources on bullet behavior that an FMJ bullet will penetrate and not break apart when it hits oak wood. I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at medium velocity hit a piece of oak wood. Google AI answered as follows, just as I knew it would:

When a medium-velocity FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) bullet strikes a piece of oak wood, it punches a deep, narrow hole through the dense grain while staying mostly intact.

Impact and Penetration

Deep entry: The bullet cuts cleanly into the wood instead of mushrooming or flattening out immediately.

Rapid deceleration: Oak is a hard, dense wood. It slows the bullet down much faster than soft pine or drywall.

Stopping power: If the oak board is thick (such as 4 to 6 inches), the bullet will likely lose all its energy and stop inside the wood. If the board is thin, the bullet will pass right through.

When I asked Google AI what would happen if an FMJ bullet traveling at low velocity hit a piece of oak wood, it once again answered just as I knew it would:

A low-velocity full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet will cleanly punch a round hole into oak wood and stop without breaking apart.

What Happens to the Bullet

Stays intact: The hard metal cover keeps the lead core from flattening.

No expansion: The bullet keeps its original shape because the slow speed is not enough to deform the metal.

Slows down fast: The heavy resistance of the wood quickly robs the bullet of its forward motion.

Keep in mind that FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a rather low-velocity rifle (3 H 414), while some experts, using a different velocity scale, say the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is a medium-velocity weapon. No one, but no one, says the rifle is a high-velocity weapon.

Posner obviously knew nothing about FMJ bullet behavior when he formulated his tree-branch-collision theory. He erroneously assumed that his supposed FMJ bullet would not only produce two large fragments but would shed its copper jacketing.

The WC's alternative explanation for the Tague wounding, aside from being hopelessly and intentionally vague, is even worse than its headshot-fragment theory: "or it might have been a product of the fragmentation of the missed shot upon hitting some other object in the area" (WCR, p. 117).

This is a lame, useless explanation. The WC claimed to have no idea where the alleged lone gunman's miss landed, rendering its "hitting some other object in the area" theory useless from the outset. The WC refused to acknowledge that a bullet dug into the grass near the manhole cover in the vicinity of the triple underpass (even though the strike was observed and reported by Officer J. W. Foster, and even though a photo of the hole in the grass was published the next day in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram). The WC also refused to acknowledge that a bullet hit the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street (even though it dug a 4.0 x 0.5-inch scar into the sidewalk, and even though two witnesses saw the scar before it was crudely patched). Thus, it is not surprising that the WC did not even speculate about where the supposed single assassin's errant shot landed.

And, of course, the WC could only float its specious explanations by dismissing the fact that Tague insisted the second shot was the one that caused his wound. The WC clearly leaned toward a first-shot miss, not a second-shot miss, which is why it could not accept Tague's clear, reasonable testimony, even though Tague, like several other witnesses, specified that the first shot he heard sounded different than the others, and even though he specified he heard the third shot after he felt something sting his face (7 H 552-555).

Unless the supposed lone gunman was legally blind, if his alleged second shot missed, it would have landed in the limo's passenger compartment, or on the limo's trunk or hood, or on the right side of the limo. The same would have been true if the alleged single shooter's first shot missed. If the supposed sixth-floor "sharpshooter" somehow managed to miss the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot, it would have landed on the street or sidewalk in the vicinity of the limo, well over 300 feet from the Tague curb scar and with at least five witnesses standing between the impact point and the Tague curb scar/Tague himself.

The fact that the lone-gunman theory simply cannot explain the Tague wounding is the reason that Specter and the FBI tried so hard to ignore it. It should be noted that Specter never asked the Commission's wound-ballistics experts about the WCR's bogus theory that a fragment from the head shot could have caused Tague's wounding. Those experts would have told him that such a fragment would have had to exit from the right side of the skull (whereas Tague was standing to the left of the limo), that it would have had to clear the limo's roll bar and windshield, and that it most certainly would not have had enough velocity to veer over the roll bar, then dive downward and leftward, and then travel over 200 feet and hit the curb hard enough to scar it or hit Tague's face hard enough to cut it.