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

[Fred Litwin]

Dudman walked back his claim of a bullet hole in the windshield.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dudman walked back his claim of a bullet hole in the windshield.

Fred, this is wrong. Dudman did not tell Mark Lane that he did not see a hole in the windshield. What he told Lane was that Lane was wrong for claiming that Dudman had been discriminated against by "news sources in Washington" over his reporting regarding the throat wound and the windshield hole.

Only in 1988 did Dudman, relying on the replacement windshield, assume he must have been mistaken, but at the time he wrote his accounts, he had no doubt, as noted by one of the other journalists you quote in your article (Dudman "insisted" he saw a small hole in the windshield).

We did not know that the windshield was replaced until the 1990s, so Dudman naturally assumed that the windshield in evidence proved he must have been mistaken. If Dudman had been made aware of the Whitaker and Robinson evidence, he may well have stood by his original accounts, which he wrote while events were still fresh in his mind. Dudman retired in the late 1980s and was no longer involved in the JFK case by then.

[Royell Storing]

Fred, this is wrong. Dudman did not tell Mark Lane that he did not see a hole in the windshield. What he told Lane was that Lane was wrong for claiming that Dudman had been discriminated against by "news sources in Washington" over his reporting regarding the throat wound and the windshield hole.

Only in 1988 did Dudman, relying on the replacement windshield, assume he must have been mistaken, but at the time he wrote his accounts, he had no doubt, as noted by one of the other journalists you quote in your article (Dudman "insisted" he saw a small hole in the windshield).

We did not know that the windshield was replaced until the 1990s, so Dudman naturally assumed that the windshield in evidence proved he must have been mistaken. If Dudman had been made aware of the Whitaker and Robinson evidence, he may well have stood by his original accounts, which he wrote while events were still fresh in his mind. Dudman retired in the late 1980s and was no longer involved in the JFK case by then.

   WHO CARES about this bickering between Lane and Dudman? You guys get knotted up in  that does Not matter.
   Show this Forum the Image Evidence of a hole in the windshield. Personally, I believe there are far better images of the JFK Limo windshield than Altgens 6. There are very clear images of the JFK Limo taken from the rear of the car as it sat at Parkland Hospital. The trunk of the car is closed and there is No Top on the car. These CLEAR Images of the JFK Limo also include Wiegman entering the picture from the (R) with his camera at his face. (time stamp). The entire inside of the windshield is visible in these images. Research 'Work" focusing on these images of the inside of the windshield should reveal whether it had a thru-n-thru HOLE in it or Not.

[Michael T. Griffith]

   WHO CARES about this bickering between Lane and Dudman? You guys get knotted up in  that does Not matter.
   Show this Forum the Image Evidence of a hole in the windshield. Personally, I believe there are far better images of the JFK Limo windshield than Altgens 6. There are very clear images of the JFK Limo taken from the rear of the car as it sat at Parkland Hospital. The trunk of the car is closed and there is No Top on the car. These CLEAR Images of the JFK Limo also include Wiegman entering the picture from the (R) with his camera at his face. (time stamp). The entire inside of the windshield is visible in these images. Research 'Work" focusing on these images of the inside of the windshield should reveal whether it had a thru-n-thru HOLE in it or Not.

I have said nothing about the photographic evidence of a windshield bullet hole. My point is that eight witnesses in three different locations saw a hole the windshield.

When Dudman spoke in 1988, he had no idea that the windshield in evidence was not the original windshield, that the windshield had been replaced. If he had known this, he almost certainly would have stood by his original account as expressed in his two December 1963 articles. He had no doubt that he had seen a hole in the windshield.

Two weeks after Dudman wrote his December 1 article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, fellow journalist Robert Branson noted that "Richard Dudman . . . insists that when he inspected the car afterward, he saw what appeared to him to be a small, round hole near the middle of the windshield."