WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jerry Organ]

Cite?
----------------------------------------------Hudson's WC deposition is not reliable by itself because he contradicted his earlier statements in material particulars. And the problem is there is abundant other evidence that contradicts his statement that the head shot was the second shot. It doesn't. It just tells you that they were close together and after the midpoint - ie. after z250.
If Hickey was incorrect in his observation that the hair flew up but there was no impact, do you not find it rather strange that such an event is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said the second shot occurred (ie. after he turned forward - he is still looking rearward at z256 in Altgens #6)

Hickey didn't say that. You're saying he said that.

- and that this fits with Greer's turn, the forward uniform motion of JBC from z272-278,

Connally sails forward before the Z270s, doesn't he?

the change in appearance of the wrist (z271-72)

A corner of the Stetson below the wrist comes into view and has a sunspot.

and forward movement of the sun-visor (z271-72).  How does the wind make the sun visor move forward into it?

Maybe air flow creates ebbs and flows that make objects buckle in the wind? Anyway, that visor is rocking back-and-forth long before the Z270s.

I started watching "The Making of a Murderer" (Part 2) last night. I can see already from the first chapter how sleezebag defense attorney Kathleen Zellner is conducting "tests" and consulting "experts" in such a way that the prosecution version is "impossible". When it comes to your pet theory, you're the same way.

[Andrew Mason]

Hickey didn't say that. You're saying he said that.

??. Hickey said (18H762):

"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."

Are you suggesting I said something that is materially different?

Connally sails forward before the Z270s, doesn't he?

No.  You have to subtract the apparent motion due to the changing angle of the car to Zapruder.  There is less apparent motion as the angle approaches 90 degrees.  I have provided the analysis for you (click here) if you are having trouble seeing that JBC is sailing foward uniformly away from JFK and Jackie from z272-278.

A corner of the Stetson below the wrist comes into view and has a sunspot.

The appearance does change and it is not because of changing shadow. The amount of visible cuff increases by about an inch between these frames and continues.  That cannot be because of a shadow.  And it fits exactly with the movement of the sunvisor at z271-72.  You can see the changes to both at the same time here:

Maybe air flow creates ebbs and flows that make objects buckle in the wind? Anyway, that visor is rocking back-and-forth long before the Z270s.

Find another two successive frames where the visors move anywhere close to what occurs between z271 and z272.  You can tell that the visor moves because of the angle change.  If it is wind, how does it come from behind and why does it only affect the visor that was struck by a bullet fragment?

I started watching "The Making of a Murderer" (Part 2) last night. I can see already from the first chapter how sleezebag defense attorney Kathleen Zellner is conducting "tests" and consulting "experts" in such a way that the prosecution version is "impossible". When it comes to your pet theory, you're the same way.

Why is she a sleaze-bag (check your spelling)?   Because she is trying to provide every available defence that the law permits? Because she is putting forward every available argument on the evidence that the law permits?  Because she represents someone accused of a horrific crime?  Because she is arguing reasonable doubt, though the evidence may be fairly strong?  What is she supposed to do if the evidence is strongly against her client but there are good defences?  Is she supposed to judge her client and not provide a defence?  Your freedom and my freedom depend on defence counsel upholding these principles in the criminal justice system to ensure that no-one, guilty or not, is convicted if the admissible evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just so you are aware, lawyers have to abide by very stringent ethical standards and can face serious discipline if they don't.  In my experience, defence lawyers are extremely careful in maintaining ethical standards.  There are a few who don't and they usually get disciplined or disbarred.  Defence counsel represent all sorts of accused persons. They do not do that because they agree with what the client may have done. They take on cases without judging their client.  They take a beating in the press from reporters at time like this recent case I had.   Defence lawyers do what they do because it is their profession and their profession requires it.

[Jerry Organ]

??. Hickey said (18H762):

"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."

Are you suggesting I said something that is materially different?

Hickey can't be referring to the hair flutter in the Z270s because he can't see it. Furthermore, per your theory, Hickey has to turn his head completely around and locate the President then and observe some incidental thing as a hair flutter, all in one second.

No.  You have to subtract the apparent motion due to the changing angle of the car to Zapruder.  There is less apparent motion as the angle approaches 90 degrees.  I have provided the analysis for you (click here) if you are having trouble seeing that JBC is sailing foward uniformly away from JFK and Jackie from z272-278.

The sailing forward began in the Z260s. It could have increased in intensity simply because his center of gravity is more upright. Doesn't have to be from a bullet impact.

The appearance does change and it is not because of changing shadow. The amount of visible cuff increases by about an inch between these frames and continues.  That cannot be because of a shadow. 

Your animation adds forward momentum to Connally's body that isn't there. And the "change in appearance of the wrist" seems downgraded to "amount of visible cuff increases".


These frames show the "cuff" communicating with the Stetson brim. More of the hat became visible, not the cuff.

And it fits exactly with the movement of the sunvisor at z271-72.  You can see the changes to both at the same time here:

Find another two successive frames where the visors move anywhere close to what occurs between z271 and z272. 

You can tell that the visor moves because of the angle change.  If it is wind, how does it come from behind and why does it only affect the visor that was struck by a bullet fragment?

Was that visor struck by a bullet fragment. Too bad the particular visor you choose to indicate a fragment strike happens to be the same one that's rocking back-and-forth as the car approaches the Z270s. Obviously the air pressure.

Why is she a sleaze-bag (check your spelling)?   Because she is trying to provide every available defence that the law permits? Because she is putting forward every available argument on the evidence that the law permits?  Because she represents someone accused of a horrific crime?  Because she is arguing reasonable doubt, though the evidence may be fairly strong?  What is she supposed to do if the evidence is strongly against her client but there are good defences?  Is she supposed to judge her client and not provide a defence?  Your freedom and my freedom depend on defence counsel upholding these principles in the criminal justice system to ensure that no-one, guilty or not, is convicted if the admissible evidence does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wouldn't mind her so much but she proclaimed that if a client she took on was really guilty, she was undoubtedly find that out. But then one of her "tests" has it "impossible" that Avery's finger could have transferred blood onto the dash when he turned the key. Couldn't Avery have kept his finger straighten because it had just been cut and it was hurting? I know when my finger is cut like that, keeping it straight helps. The finger kept straight would get the tip of the finger (where his blood could have run to) to the surface of the dash.

If his finger hadn't been cut, he wouldn't have had to straighten it and inadvertently transfer his blood onto the dash. It's the little unnoticed mistakes that undo even master criminals. Now Dassey is a different case; he was railroaded and appears to be innocent, as least at the point I've gotten to in the show.

Just so you are aware, lawyers have to abide by very stringent ethical standards and can face serious discipline if they don't.  In my experience, defence lawyers are extremely careful in maintaining ethical standards.  There are a few who don't and they usually get disciplined or disbarred.  Defence counsel represent all sorts of accused persons. They do not do that because they agree with what the client may have done. They take on cases without judging their client.  They take a beating in the press from reporters at time like this recent case I had.   Defence lawyers do what they do because it is their profession and their profession requires it.

News reporters supposedly abide by a similar standard. I've seen the likes of Cuomo and Lemon and Stetler look into the camera and declared they're "objective" and only want the facts. And I know they lie. Worst still on Fox News.

[Jack Nessan]

Cite?
----------------------------------------------Hudson's WC deposition is not reliable by itself because he contradicted his earlier statements in material particulars. And the problem is there is abundant other evidence that contradicts his statement that the head shot was the second shot. It doesn't. It just tells you that they were close together and after the midpoint - ie. after z250.
If Hickey was incorrect in his observation that the hair flew up but there was no impact, do you not find it rather strange that such an event is seen in the zfilm at about the time he said the second shot occurred (ie. after he turned forward - he is still looking rearward at z256 in Altgens #6) - and that this fits with Greer's turn, the forward uniform motion of JBC from z272-278, the change in appearance of the wrist (z271-72) and forward movement of the sun-visor (z271-72).  How does the wind make the sun visor move forward into it?
I agree.What evidence do you have that media reports of 3 shots influenced all people who gave statements on Nov 22/63?  Why did some others say 2 or 3 shots? Why did Merriman Smith say 3 shots if he didn't hear 3 shots? What influenced him?

Cite?
No it has been posted once, obviously it never registered just like everything else doesn't. Look it up, you need to learn there is a lot more to the witness statements than what is found on the HSCA Report.
--------------------------
You are the one who quoted Hudson as proof a shot at Z270. Now Hudson is not a quality witness for you anymore because he stated the head shot occurred with the second shot and it doesn't fit the program?
-----------------------------------
Midpoint at Z250?
So the shot could have been a shot at Z251 and that would translate to "rapid succession"?
------------------------------------
A bullet would have been traveling at 2000fps. What do you think it was like a cartoon where the bullet passing makes the hair move and Hickey seen that happen? For starters if the bullet would have went by JFK's head it would have hit JBC in the head not near the armpit.
----------------------------------------------
Why did Altgens, Jackie, Hill, Newman, Behm, etc say two if they didn't hear just two. Why did Moorman adjust her shot count down to two or three.  Altgens was an eyewitness and Merriman Smith was an earwitness. Out of 70 reporters in Dealey Plaza, Altgens was the only one that was an eyewitness. The only real thing that could have confused earwitnesses was echoes and not differentiating between the shot and the echo. ---"Rapid Succession"

"The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations
or echoes that followed the initial sound by from 0.5 to 1.5 sec.
While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners
who were prepared and expected to hear them they may well
inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses
during the assassination" HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137

 The best example of the confusion was  the 30th Anniversary Oral histories of Brandt and Templin. The first statement between them "was how many shots did you hear?" Brandt thought two and Templin thought three. Later Brandt added a shot just like so many others.

[Andrew Mason]

Hickey can't be referring to the hair flutter in the Z270s because he can't see it. Furthermore, per your theory, Hickey has to turn his head completely around and locate the President then and observe some incidental thing as a hair flutter, all in one second.

He said he saw it. He was there. Unless you were in his position in the QM you really have no idea what he could see.  He has a second to turn to see the President after the Altgens #6 photo.  There is his evidence that he made that turn and nothing to contradict it.  The fact that the hair on JFK flies forward from z273-276 at exactly the time that JBC's cuff changes appearance and the visor over Greer moves and Greer begins his turn (immediately after the second shot), all fits together very well with what Hickey said he saw. How could he make that up without studying the zfilm? Or are you suggesting he studied the zfilm prior to Nov. 30/63?

The sailing forward began in the Z260s. It could have increased in intensity simply because his center of gravity is more upright. Doesn't have to be from a bullet impact.

JBC appears to raise his head and shoulders but I don't see any increase in separation between JFK's face and JBC's face prior to z272.  After z272 the increase in separation is rather dramatic (see below).

Your animation adds forward momentum to Connally's body that isn't there.

Watch from z271-279 the relative positions of Jackie, Nellie and Kellerman and then look at JBC's position to all three. If I was adding momentum to JBC I would be adding it to all four.  But JBC's position relative to the other three changes noticeably but the relative positions of the other three does not change:

And the "change in appearance of the wrist" seems downgraded to "amount of visible cuff increases".

The cuff of the jacket was penetrated by a bullet, as was the shirt.  One might expect the jacket cuff to move more than the french cuff because it would not be as tight. z271-273 is the only place such relative motion is seen.  That is not light and shadow.  It may be that hand motion could cause that kind of relative motion, but we don't really see the wrist move much, although if you watch the lower part of the hand there appears to be a slight change there with the fingers:

Was that visor struck by a bullet fragment.

There is nothing that I have found that comments on damage to the sunvisor.  But looking at the damage to the windshield frame and the glass indicating several fragments struck inside, plus the fragment that struck Tague.  It would be surprising if the visors were missed.  There does appear to be small hole-like marks in the left visor in the only photo I have found of the visors:


There is also a mark that appears on the front side of the left visor in z272 although that may be a film artifact. The resolution is not good enough to see the windshield frame clearly but it looks like there is a change from z271-272 in the top of the windshield frame.

Too bad the particular visor you choose to indicate a fragment strike happens to be the same one that's rocking back-and-forth as the car approaches the Z270s. Obviously the air pressure.

It doesn't move afterward. It only moves from z271-272 and then goes back to its z271 position.  How can that be by air pressure? It wasn't flopping around. Sun visors are designed to stay where they are set.

[Rob Caprio]

No I think you are a little like a squid and you want to ink the waters and escape in the murk. This as a thread you started about three shots and two shooters and you are being asked to defend your theory and you cannot. Making claims and assertions about me doesn't change that fact. I think it is safe to say that this whole idea that the SBT isn't possible is just so much fluff and nothing more. You can't even prove there was three shots. You said you have but as it turns out that was what was not true.

You're the one muddying the waters as the OP was about how the HSCA found the WC, SS, CIA and the FBI deficient in their "investigation" of the assassination, but you have turned this thread into a discussion about the ridiculous SBT.

Why are you trying to distract from the HSCA's findings?

[Rob Caprio]

Even members of the WC didn't believe in the ridiculous SBT.

[Jack Nessan]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

 It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6%  attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.