JFK Assassination Forum

Interesting how you cherry pick which parts of JBC's testimony you want to give credence to. Yes, Connally did make some misstatements of fact in his first interview. As you pointed out, he said left when he actually turned right. He also did not turn far enough to see JFK on his first turn. He didn't do that until his second turn, after he had been shot. By about Z265, he had turned almost completely around and it was only then that he could have seen JFK. Connoly's confusion in his initial interview with Martin Agronsky from his hospital be is understandable given he was in surgery a long time the day before and been heavily anesthetized. In every other telling of the event, JBC was remarkably consistent that he did not see JFK on his initial turn and in every telling, including the one from his hospital bed, he said he was not hit by the first shot. That's the part you always choose to ignore.
That isn't the most compelling proof of the first shot but it does support the other evidence of the early missed shot, most notably JBC's insistence that the second shot is the one that hit him and the Z-film which shows him turning as he described in his WC testimony.

ME: What percentage of the people who voted for Trump in 2024 now disapprove of his job performance?

GROK: Approximately 20-25% of people who voted for Trump in 2024 now give him a negative (disapprove) job approval rating.

pewresearch.org

As stated, I find Oswald the man the most interesting aspect of the JFKA. I’ve read everything there is about him, and my sister-in-law and her husband worked in the Minsk factory at the same time. I think I “know” him about as well as he can be known.

I’m a provisional Lone Nutter but troubled by several aspects of the narrative, including the one I’ll describe here. The standard LN response is, “The evidence says he did it. It doesn’t matter who he was, why he did it, or what was going on inside his head.” Well ...

When he took a shot at Walker (we’ll assume he did), he left behind a detailed note, and Marina said he arrived home in a state of considerable agitation. Compare the JFKA.

1. I’m puzzled by his behavior at the Paine home the evening before the JFKA. He begs Marina to join him in Dallas, makes promises, and gives absolutely no clue he is contemplating the JFKA. He leaves no note.

2. He has long been convinced he is destined for a place in history and has written fairly extensively about his views, but he leaves no explanation or manifesto concerning the JFKA. There is nothing like this in his room on Beckley.

3. He shoots JFK, stashes the rifle, scurries down the stairs, hears Baker and Truly coming up – but then is utterly calm and collected when Baker confronts him and sticks a gun in his stomach.

4. He exits the TSBD, boards a bus, leaves the bus and hails a taxi – but then offers the taxi to an older woman who approaches.

5. He is grilled by Fritz, who is a legend for wheedling confessions out of suspects – but he is so cocky and unflappable that Fritz not only fails to break him but emerges speculating that he has been trained to avoid interrogation.

6. In custody, he tells his brother Robert, “Don’t believe the so-called evidence.”

7. In custody for more than 36 hours, and despite the seemingly compelling evidence against him, he never cracks or gives anything other than flat denials of his involvement in the JFKA and Tippit shooting.

I at least find this all bizarre enough to contemplate that “something more” than the LN narrative may have been going on. It seems to me inadequate to say, "The evidence says he did it and nothing else matters." Yes, Oswald was a massive liar even when lying served no purpose, but all of the above is extremely odd and gives me pause about Oswald as a Lone Nut who just snapped. The problem is, I have no real theory as to what the “something more” might be that would explain his behavior. "He was a wholly innocent patsy" would do it, of course, but that just doesn't fit the evidence unless one postulates a conspiracy so elaborate as to be comical.

Fascinating.

Maybe because we see him reacting to being shot, not at Z230 but at Z226.

On the contrary, my opinions are based on facts. The CTs prefer to believe the myths, of which there are a great many.

One confused witness isn't much corroboration for another confused witness. I prefer to use hard evidence as corroboration for witness statements, such as the Z-film. CTs prefer to put full faith in witness accounts because there is no hard evidence to support what they want to believe.

Interesting that you cite JBC since he was adamant from the start until he died that he was hit by the second shot.

Do you have any hard evidence that supports the other witnesses you have named?
I didn't thinks so.
I cited that murder as an indication that it if Oswald had lived, it is highly unlikely he would have been executed due to the courts halting executions after 1967. Try reading for context next time.
Still no real corroboration for your witnesses.

The witnesses you have named were all people who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves under fire. It is quite understandable that they wouldn't perfectly recall the event.
The first shot did not hit either man. JBC was quite clear about that and the Z-film corroborates that recollection. He also said that upon hearing the first shot he turned to see JFK but could not because he did not turn far enough. We see that turn beginning at Z164. He was turning back toward the front when he felt the second shot strike him in the back.
The Z-film, coupled with JBC's account, clearly shows us there was a missed shot before the two that hit the target. We can debate as to when that first shot was fired, but there is compelling evidence for that missed shot. We see the reactions of two people to that missed shot, JBC and Rosemary Willis. There is a clear consensus there were three shots and we can see when the second shot struck both JFK and JBC. By itself, the consensus is probative if not proof positive that there were three shots. Coupled with the statement of JBC and the visual evidence in the Z-film that consensus becomes compelling.