Compiled by Michael T. Griffith, 2001

------- The Throat Wound -------

Drs. Malcolm Perry and Charles J. Carrico were two of the first doctors to attend the President. In addition to a massive head wound, both observed a small, circular wound situated in the region of the neck below the adam's apple, which they susequently characterized as an entry wound. (7 HSCA 6-7)

Dr. Carrico:

PURDY: Could you describe as best you can how the wound in the anterior neck looked?

CARRICO: My total recollection of that wound was of a small, fairly circular wound, with material issuing from it, And that's really my total recollection. (7 HSCA 269)

Dr. Perry began by stating that one of the wounds that JFK had suffered was "about 1/3 of the way" up on the anterior aspect of the neck. Dark blood (a sign of insufficient oxygen) was oozing from the wound when Perry first observed JFK. Dr. Perry believes that the wound measured approximately 6-7 mm in size and was roughly round. . . . (7 HSCA 292)

Based on his examination of the trachea, Dr. Perry stated that the lateral wall of the trachea was damaged and had the characteristics of a penetrating rather than a blunt trauma. In the vicinity of the strap muscles, Dr. Perry observed some discoloration of the pleura; it looked like "it was bruised, with some blood" present. Perry stated that on the basis of this observation alone, that the blood could have been from the trachea or the lung. For this reason, other Parkland doctors inserted chest tubes into JFK's chest to help treat any possible injury. (7 HSCA 293)

PURDY: Could you give us a characterization of the edges of the anterior neck wound?

PERRY: Yeah. I previously pointed out that they were neither ragged nor clean-cut. I suppose that's a misnomer because, actually, I didn't inspect it that well. What I meant to imply by that initial description was the fact that I couldn't see a clean punched wound; it was roughly round, the edges were bruised and a little blurred because, as I mentioned, there was several big drops of old blood, and some of it coagulated, of course, on and about the wound, so I didn't really inspect the margins carefully. I think the terms I used before was neither ragged nor clean-cut 'and that may not have been appropriate. I should have probably said I couldn't see them that well -- it might have been a better answer. (7 HSCA 302)

Dr. Perry: In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds. Now, this doesn't pertain, of course, in bullets that are deformable or in bullets that are tumblers, and many bullets, especially fired from the handguns and this sort of thing, tend to tumble, and as a result, they make keyhole injuries and various things. But in general, full jacketed bullets make pretty small entrance holes. And 80 I don't really know. I thought it looked like an entrance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any others and so that was just a guess. (7 HSCA 312)

PURDY. Based on your experience with wounds in these intervening years, have you been able to draw any firmer or any different conclusions based on the nature of the wounds you recall?

PERRY: Do you want a short answer? Or a long answer?

PURDY: Like whatever answer you want to give.

PERRY: Okay, let me give you a medium answer, but with a qualified anecdote. The answer is no, I haven't. I haven't changed my mind about any of it and the reason is I have no new information. [PAGE 314 FOLLOWS] As I mentioned earlier, 14 years hasn't sharpened my recall. I've told it as well as I can remember it. But I did it best when I was fresh--and things change a little bit. (7 HSCA 313-314)

------- No Exit Point for Back Wound -------

Sibert and O'Neill stated in their report that during the autopsy Dr. Humes, concluded on the basis of this information and knowing that the Parkland doctors had performed cardiac massage that they may have forced the bullet out of the President's back. This theory would account for a missile track with no bullet. . . .

By the termination of the autopsy at approximately 11 p.m., the pathologist had formulated the following general conclusions:

1. One missile entered in the rear of the skull of the President and exited in the front of the skull; and one missile entered the back of the President and was apparently dislodged during cardiac massage at Parkland Hospital. (7 HSCA 13)

------- Richard Lipsey's Testimony -------

See reference 44, Galloway interview, p. 2. But see staff interview with Richard A. Lipsey, Jan. 18, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No. 014469), in which Lipsey stated that he recalled the doctors concluding that three missiles struck the President from behind. Lipsey said that one bullet entered the upper back of the President and did not exit; one entered in the rear of the head and exited the throat; and one entered and exited in the right, top portion of the head, causing a massive head wound.

The committee agreed that President Kennedy suffered a wound in the upper back, a wound in the rear of the head, a massive wound in the top. right side of the head, and a wound in the throat. Lipsey was wrong, however, in concluding that three shots struck the President and mistaken if he believed the pathologists reached such a conclusion. Only two shots struck the President. One entered the upper back and exited the throat. Another entered the rear of the head and exited on the top, right side of the head, causing the massive defect.

Lipsey apparently formulated his Conclusions based on observations and not on the conclusions of the doctors. In this regard, he believed the massive defect in the head represented an entrance and exit when it was only an exit. He also concluded that the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the doctors. because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only represented a tracheostomy incision. Lipsey did properly relate the preliminary conclusion of the doctors during the autopsy that the entrance wound in the upper back had no exit. The doctors later determined that this missile had exited through the throat. Thus, although Lipsey's recollection of the number of defects to the body and the corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are not supported by any other evidence. (7 HSCA 21)

------- Security Clearance to Type Autopsy Report? -------

Admiral Galloway instructed Elsie B. Closson, his secretary, to type the autopsy report and the supplemental report because he believed he needed a typist with a top secret security clearance. See outside contact report, Elsie B. Closson, May 4, 1978, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document No. 008135 ). (7 HSCA 21)

------- No Beveling and Multiple Fragments in Head X-Rays -------

Dr. William B. Seaman, Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, New York City:

Regarding the lateral skull X-ray, Dr. Seaman said pieces of metal were strewn in a track-like manner. Fractures were evident through the upper part of the right eye, including the top and bottom of the right orbit. The bottom of the frontal sinus was fractured. At the upper rear skull point of possible defect in the skull, Dr. Seaman said it could be an entrance wound and could not be a missile exit wound. He said he could not denote beveling of the skull at that point. (7 HSCA 322)

Dr. Perry: And when he [Dr. McClelland] started helping me with the trache, he asked where he was shot. And somebody told him he was shot in the left temple and he accepted that as being true, when actually it wasn't true and I think Bob wrote that down--or if he didn't write it down, he told somebody that, which was interesting. (7 HSCA 309)

------- Fragments Still in Connally -------

Connally--Wrist-- Comminuted fracture with fragments. He was not sure if the fragments were on the entrance (volar) or exit sides. Dr. Seaman concludes from the spatial orientation that they are fragments of metal.

Thigh--Dr. Seaman denoted a fragment of metal in the subcutaneous tissue, characterized by a tail-like end which make it recognizable on both thigh X-rays and insures it is not bone. There is no metal fragment in the femur. (7 HSCA 322)

Dr. Jack Reynolds, the radiologist who x-rayed Connally's wounds:

Wrist - After examining the original and the enhanced x-rays, Dr. Reynolds stated that there are at least four fragments of metal identifiable in Gov. Connally's wrist wound. Further, since these fragments are all volar to the wrist bone, this indicates that the missile traversed the wrist from the dorsal to the volar side.

Dr. Reynolds stated that all of these fragments are extremely small in size; he stated the the actual size could possibly be ascertained but that the density and thus mass would remain unknown. Dr. Reynolds stated the [sic] Gov. Connally's wrist suffered a comminuted fracture, which means fractured into three or more pieces. Dr. Reynolds also stated that he was not qualified to determine whether the missile struck the wrist directly or tangentially. (7 HSCA 320)

------- Impossible Trajectories of the Single-Bullet Theory -------

Dr. Cyril Wecht:

Despite the semantical sophistry and intellectual gymnastics of the forensic pathology panel report. (FPPR), it is clear that the SBT can no longer be maintained as an explanation for the bullet wounds in JFK's back and neck, and all the bullet wounds in Gov. John B. Connally (JBC). The angles at which these two men were hit do not permit a straight line trajectory (or near straight line trajectory) of Commission exhibit 399 (the so-called magic bullet) to be established. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. In order to accept the SBT, it is necessary to have the bullet move at different vertical and horizontal angles, a path of flight that has never been experienced or suggested for any bullet known to mankind. I am submitting a sketch, marked Wecht exhibit 11, to demonstrate this point in graphic fashion. (560) An examination of the physical relationship between JFK and JBC immediately prior to and immediately following the moment that their wounds are alleged to have been inflicted by Commission exhibit 399 (as required by the SBT) provides unquestionable evidence that the bullet could not have moved in the direction claimed by the FPPR. I am submitting several photographs, marked Wecht exhibits 1 through 6, which demonstrate this relationship. (7 HSCA 198)

------- Magic Bullet Penetrated at a Slightly Upward Angle -------

A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

There is a sharply outlined area of red-brown to black around the wound in which there is dried, superficial denudation of the skin, representing a typical abrasion collar resulting from the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin at the moment of penetration. This is characteristic of gunshot wounds of entrance and not typical of exit wounds. This abrasion extends around the entire circumference, but, is most prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the defect (with the head at 12 o'clock). In addition, there are several small linear, [PAGE 87 FOLLOWS] superficial lacerations or tears of the skin extending radically from the margins of the wound at 10 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 1 o'clock. These measure 0.1, 0.2 and 0.1 centimeter respectively. Photographically enhanced prints of photographs Nos. 38 and 39 reveal much more sharply contrasted color determination and, to some degree, more sharply outlined detail of the abrasion collar described above.

Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward, inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be tunneled from below upward. (7 HSCA 86-87)

Dr. Wecht: There is strong evidence to indicate that the elongation of the wound on JBC's back was in the horizontal plane, and not in the vertical plane, which would be consistent with the shot having struck JBC on a tangential angle from the right rear. (7 HSCA 200)

Anatomic position: The position of the body at attention, with the face forward, the arms at the side, and the palms of the hand facing forward. (7 HSCA 211)

------- Alleged Magic Bullet Tumbling and the Throat Wound -------

Dr. Cyril Wecht:

I do not accept the conclusion of the FPPR [forensic pathology panel report] that the configuration of the gunshot wound on JBC's back indicates that the bullet that struck him at that location had to have been tumbling, and that such tumbling was most probably caused by the bullet (CE 399) having first gone through JFK's back and neck. There is strong evidence to indicate that the elongation of the wound on JBC's back was in the horizontal plane, and not in the vertical plane, which would be consistent with the shot having struck JBC on a tangential angle from the right rear. Furthermore, if, in fact, the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling, such tumbling could just as easily have been caused by the bullet nipping a small tree branch or leaves during the course of its preimpact trajectory. (7 HSCA 198, 200)

Dr. Carrico on the throat wound and tumbling:

PURDY: Was it your impression that the bullet that you felt had caused the wound had been traveling straight, was there a slight tumble, or was there a significant tumble to that bullet?

CARRICO: It's unlikely that there was any significant tumbling action because that would usually result in a larger wound, if that were in fact an exit. (7 HSCA 270)

------- Alleged Magic Bullet Tumbling and Connally's Back Wound -------

The shape of the entrance wound was consistent with a missile striking in a slightly downward trajectory. It is Dr. Shaw's opinion that the wound was not caused by a tumbling bullet. (7 HSCA 326)

------- The Location of the Large Head Wound -------

Dr. Charles James Carrico:

The other wound was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebell/and cerebrum fragments in that wound. (7 HSCA 268)

PURDY: Could you briefly describe for us the nature of the wound in the President's head?

CARRICO: The head wound was a much larger wound than the neck wound. It was five by seven centimeters, something like that, 2 1/2 by 3 inches, ragged, had blood and hair all around it, located in the part of the parietal occipital region,

PURDY: Could you just state in layman's terms the approximate place that would be.

CARRICO: That would be above and posterior to the ear, almost from the crown of the head. There was brain tissue showing through (7 HSCA 278).

[Dr.] Perry "looked at" the head wound "but didn't examine it." He believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing. Dr. Perry did not detect or look for any possible entry wound in the rear of the head. (7 HSCA 295)

Dr. Perry: And I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the perietal occipatal head wound was largely evulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen and I didn't inspect it further. (7 HSCA 302)

------- Missing Brain Tissue -------

Dr. Perry. I did see some evidence of brain tissue on the cart (7 HSCA 300)

Connally: I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was. (1 HSCA 42)

------- McClelland Helped with Tracheostomy -------

Dr. Perry: And about that time a set of hands came into field to help me, which later identified as Dr. McClelland's, and we completed placing the tracheostomy tube into place and hooked him up to the respirator. (7 HSCA 301)

------- Penrose Study and Backyard Rifle Photos -------

Mr. GENZMAN. Would you briefly explain the graph marked as JFK exhibit F-558. [**PAGE 370 FOLLOWS**] Dr. [Clyde] SNOW. Yes, sir. I indicated that we take a number of measurements on the photographs. It is convenient to be able to reduce those, that mass of numbers into some single entities that allow us to compare the overall similarities in shape and size that we see. We have done this. It is a rather involved statistical technique developed by a British biornetrician named Penrose back in the 1940's, and it is widely employed in other areas of anthropology.

Essentially what we have done here is, using the measurements of the three Dallas photographs as our base line, quantitatively com- pared the other sets of Oswald photographs here.

Theoretically, if everything were perfect--which it never is---we would find that two objects or sets of photographs exactly duplicated in every detail in terms of the measurements The Dallas photographs, the points when they are plotted would be down here at the zero point of the graph. You can see that they do cluster very closely to that zero point. This variation reflects differences, we feel, in measurement error and technique.

Mr. FITHIAN. Let me ask you to move that chart about a foot to the right. It is blockout out--we can now see it. I am not sure the panel members on the left-hand side can. . . . (4 HSCA 370-371)

Mr. FITHIAN. Let's turn now to the analysis that you made of the Oswald photographs. On the basis of your measurements and your analysis, can you positively identify or state that the series of Oswald photographs shown pn exhibits JFK F-556 and F-557 are indeed those of Oswald?

Dr. SNOW. No, sir; we cannot. We cannot on the basis of the measurements alone positively state that all of those photographs are indeed of Oswald. However, we can say that they are all consistent with the hypothesis that all of the photographs are of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. FITHIAN. Would the staff put back up the chart and graph which I was blocked from seeing at the first part of the questioning.

In your work how do you compensate or adjust for plastic surgery that might be done on an individual?

Dr. SNOW. In the Oswald photographs specifically we saw no evidence of any plastic surgery. But this does not mean that there might not have been some there. (4 HSCA 382)

Mr. FITHIAN. Would you direct your attention to the chart. The first three right down where the two lines intersect, or very close to it, all seem very tightly arrayed. But the backyard photo seems to have slipped out of orbit somehow or other.

Dr. SNOW. Yes, sir. It is most divergent from the cluster. However, if you will recall those photographs most were of good quality with fairly crisp images. The backyard photographs differ from the rest of the series in that they are rather fuzzy and also they very in the lighting. They are the only two photographs of the series where the lighting is coming from overhead, and we feel that this introduces measurement errors using our technique and would account for this discrepancy. (4 HSCA 384)

Mr. FITHIAN. I have just one more brief line of questioning. Would you put up JFK exhibits F-556 and F-557.

Dr. Snow as I understand it, the two backyard photos, the center and lower right of exhibit--what is that, F-556, for the record? Would you explain again in a sentence or two why those photos would, when you get through measuring, put the spot or the dot outside that very tight cluster on your chart.

Dr. SNOW. Again, I believe when you look at the photographs you see, compared to the rest of the photographs of Mr. Oswald that we analyzed, that these two are much fuzzier and blurrier and to influence the errors that are going to be introduced in our measurements that we take off the photographs. In other words, we simply cannot measure these photographs with the same degree of accuracy that we can in the better quality photographs. (4 HSCA 384)

------- Problems with the Autopsy -------

The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are movable points and should not have been used. (7 HSCA 16)

------- The Back Wound -------

Sibert and O'Neill next observed in their report that Dr. Humes examined a wound situated below the shoulders and 2 inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. (7 HSCA 12)

Dr. Humes probed this wound with his finger and concluded that the missile had only traveled a short distance because he could feel the end of the track with his finger. (7 HSCA 12)

During the autopsy, Dr. Humes stated that he and his colleagues opened the chest cavity and carefully examined the lining of the chest cavity and both lungs. (7 HSCA 12)

------- JFK's Necktie -------

Clothing--Necktie (253) Examination of the necktie in the normal knotted position reveals a linear defect along the left lateral margin of the knot. This defect measures 0.7 by 0.4 centimeter and involves only the outer facing of the tie. The lining is not altered.

These clothing changes were characterized in initial examination by the FBI laboratory:

A ragged, slit-like hole approximately one-half inch in length is located in the front of the shirt seven-eighths inch below the collar button. This hole is through both the button and buttonhole portions of the shirt due to the overlap. This hole has the characteristics of an exit hole for a projectile. bullet metal was found in the fabric surrounding the hole in the front of the shirt. A small elongated nick was located in the left side of the knot of the tie, Q24 [FBI designation], which may have been caused by the projectile after it had passed through the front of the shirt. (9) (7 HSCA 89, citing note 9)

----- Weight of the Brain -------

The autopsy report states that: "The brain is removed and preserved for further study following formalin fixation." (45) The brain, which had been fixed in formalin, the chemical preservative normally used to prevent deterioration, was further examined. The results are described in the "Supplementary Report of Autopsy No. A63-272, President John F. Kennedy" (Commission Exhibit No. 391). This document observes:

Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 grams. (7 HSCA 133)

------- Photographic Evidence Relating to TSBD -------

Dr. HUNT. Now the second picture, the Dillard picture, was taken from a press car which was following the Presidential caravan. I believe testimony that Dillard gave before the Warren Commission indicated that he took that picture just a few seconds, his own term I believe, after the last shot was fired. . . .

Dr. HUNT. Yes. The enhancement of the sixth-floor window [in the Dillard photo] shows there was no one at the window. (4 HSCA 401, 406)

------- Figure at Grassy Knoll Retaining Wall in Willis Slides 1 and 5 -------

Dr. HUNT. Using the label, "the retaining wall," we are looking at the Dealey Plaza wall structure which comes out on the Willis film, and right here at the edge of the retaining wall there is a dark object, which I am pointing to right here. It has been alleged or asserted the dark object represents a gunman standing at or behind the retaining wall. That is the main issue which is being addressed in all these, because each of these images shows the retaining wall at some point in time.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Is this retaining wall in the grassy knoll area of Dealey Plaza?

Dr. HUNT. Yes. This is usually referred to as the grassy knoll. You can see the rise of the slope of land coming up where the retaining wall sits.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I would ask that JFK F-160 be brought to Dr. Hunt's attention.

Dr. Hunt, what type of enhancement method was applied to the Willis photograph?

Dr. HUNT. What was done is the following. The computer was asked to scan this region around the retaining wall, and then an enlargement was made by the computer. The result of the enlarge- ment process is what we see in this exhibit F-160. You see the retaining wall. Here is the dark feature itself, and this is an enlargement of the dark feature sitting right at the area of the retaining wall.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to admit JFK F-160.

Chairman STOKES. Without objection, it may be entered.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you. [Whereupon, exhibit JFK F-160 was received.] [*PAGE 409 FOLLOWS*]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Dr. Hunt, in attempting to identify this image, what analytical work, if any, was done?

Dr. HUNT. We did two things. The first thing we did was to attempt to remove some of the evident blur in the image. If you look at the original and concentrate upon the freeway sign, you see a blur. We hoped to remove that blur. That attempt was carried out at the University of Southern California. It was not successful.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Are you able to say why it was not successful?

Dr. HUNT. Yes. The picture was just simply not that good. There is quite a bit of blurring when you look at this gross enlargement [*PAGE 410 FOLLOWS*] of the kind we have here. There was, in addition, when the picture was received by the panel, a grayish coating of some kind on it. This was probably another thing that was detrimental to the effort.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What analytical work was done to determine whether that image is a human object?

Dr. HUNT. When we look at this image upon a soft-copy display, we display it on a color CRT. This is where the soft copy is superior to the hard copy I have here on the exhibit. The perception is quite dramatic and distinct, that there are flesh tones within the region of what appears to be the head of this object at the wall, and that there are more flesh tones in what appears to be the hands of this object at the mall. What we tried to do was to make analytical and numerical measurements of those flesh tones and compare those with the flesh tones of another individual in the photograph. What we did for comparison purposes was measure flesh tones upon the legs and face of this woman standing next to Mr. Zapruder, his secretary.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What was the panel's conclusion?

Dr. HUNT. Based upon the flesh-tone measurements which we took off of the object at the wall, and comparing those to similar measurements on the flesh tones on Zapruder's secretary, we concluded this was a person standing at the wall.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Did the panel make any effort to determine whether that person was holding a rifle?

Dr. HUNT. Yes. We tried to examine the nature of this linear feature which you see right here. If you look at this object you perceive something like a head or face with flesh tones, shoulders and arms, with flesh tones in the region I am pointing to here, and then you perceive this linear object which runs out of the hands roughly at a 45-degree angle. We would have liked to deblur the image. Since we couldn't, the only thing we could do was to ask ourselves: what is the probability of this being a rifle? We could not make a conclusion on that because there is another evident blur at the 45-degree line throughout this image. This linear object we perceive runs at the same direction as the blur which is apparent in the image. It is equally likely, therefore, that this is either a real object of some kind, or simply a small dark object in the image which was stretched out by the motion blur of the camera during the period in which the picture was taken. (4 HSCA 408-410)

The photographic evidence panel examined photographs make by Phillip Willis of the area of the grassy knoll and concluded that a photograph taken by Willis did show a person standing behind the concrete wall on the knoll. The panel determined that photograph was taken at approximately frame 202 of the Zapruder film, which was after President Kennedy received the neck wound but before the fatal head shot. According to the results of the panel's photographic enhancement and analysis, the figure in the Willis photograph was consistent with that of an adult approximately 5 feet 6 inches to 6 feet in height and wearing dark clothing. The panel also noted that in another photograph by Willis, which was taken after the Presidential limousine had left Dealey Plaza, the figure standing behind the concrete wall had disappeared. The panel concluded that movement by the object was consistent with the presence of a human being.

The photographic evidence panel also noted that in the first Willis Photograph, which shows the person standing behind the concrete wall, there is visible, near the region of the hands of the person at the wall, "a very distinct straight-line feature," which extends from lower right to upper right. Nevertheless, because of the blur of the object in the photograph, the panel was not able to determine the actual length of the object and could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon. (12 HSCA 7) The committee interviewed Willis' daughter, Rose Mary Willis, on November 8, 1978, at her home in Dallas. Ms. Willis stated that she was present with her father and a sister in the area of the grass section of the plaza at the time of the Presidential motorcade on November 22, 1963. The other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall near the triple underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant." Ms. Willis further described the location of this person as the corner section of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up to the center of the grassy knoll. (12 HSCA 7)

------- Rearranging of Boxes Shortly After Fatal Shot -------

Mr. FITHIAN. I would like to ask the staff to put up JFK F-153. As I understand it, Doctor, this is a picture that was taken a few seconds after the shot; is that correct?

Dr. HUNT. I am not sure until I see the picture. Which one are you referring to?

Mr. FITHIAN. I believe that is the one of the---TSBD?

Dr. HUNT. Oh, yes, right. Yes; in answer to your question, that was taken a few seconds after the last shot was fired. AT least that is Dillard's testimony to the Warren Commission, I believe.

Mr. FITHIAN. Now, directing your attention to that particular exhibit, the photograph in the area of the sixth floor window, the open window, there seems to be a change in the configuration of the boxes. How did the photo panel account for this?

Dr. HUNT. The change in configuration of the boxes with respect to what, with respect to another window view?

Mr. FITHIAN. No, with respect to other photos that you analyzed.

Dr. HUNT. OK. Probably the one most pertinent to that would be exhibit which is showing next to it at the moment--I am not aware of the exhibit number for it--but that shows the same [*PAGE 423 FOLLOWS*] window, taken approximately one to two minutes after the first picture which we talked about, the one taken by Dillard on the right, the one by Powell on the left.

You are correct in perceiving that there is something which we could ascribe to a change in the configuration of the boxes.

For example, the picture on the right, we see only two boxes, one at the left of the windowsill and just a corner of the one peeping up at the right of the windowsill. Whereas, in the picture, the enlarged picture, for example, on the left, we see not just the two boxes; you can still see, for example, on the left there is the same small box at the left, there is the same corner peeping up at the right. But now we have two or three other boxes, apparently rising up in between them.

There are two possible explanations, I guess, for that, that the panel considered. One is that we are seeing boxes which are in the room, but because of our perspective, our line of sight, is different, we are seeing different boxes than were visible in the other picture.

The second explanation is that there has been physically a movement of the boxes in the room during the time which elapsed between the taking of those pictures.

Mr. FITHIAN. All right. Now there is no way that we can know which it is? Dr. HUNT. There are ways of eliminating or narrowing down the possibilities between those two choices. For example, given the geometry at which you are viewing, and given the apparent sunlight on the boxes, you could probably guess how far into the room those boxes do lie.

For example, if you look at the two boxes which appear to have been introduced in the picture on the left, they appear to be in full sunlight, which means they must not lie too far inside the room because this was high noon, in November; the sun angle is simply not that low in Dallas at high noon in November to shine sunlight very deep into the room. So they can certainly not be too far behind the plane of the window; and that would therefore tend to rule out the possibility that we are looking at the box which lies in one position in the room and is simply tended to be viewed in different perspective from two different viewing points.

Mr. FITHIAN. You say it rules that out?

Dr. HUNT. It tends to rule it out, yes. It does not rule it out completely, because we lack what is usually referred to as the analytical information, from the position of the two photographers to precisely plot the positions of those boxes by stereoanalysis techniques.

Mr. FITHIAN. Well, if it generally tends to rule that out, then it seems this committee would be left with only one conclusion, and that is, that a box was actually moved.

Dr. HUNT. That would be my only personal conclusion, that somebody or something moved boxes around in that room during the time of taking of those two pictures. (4 HSCA 422-423)

------- Figure of Rifle in Z-413 -------

Mr. FITHIAN, With regard to that one particular one that has been sensational, that is the seeing of the form in the bush and the rifle presumably, and there is tremendous argument back and forth as to what people are seeing when they look at that. As I understood your testimony this morning, you did a pretty tough analysis of it. But I did not hear anything that satisfied me--I don't mean any severe criticism--as to how you dispensed with the idea that the long, black, thin 45-degree object was not a rifle. (4 HSCA 426)

Dr. HUNT. Our conclusion is: All you are seeing in this region of so-called rifle stock is nothing but a chance hole in the bushes, and you are really looking at the limousine through the hole in the bushes. The color measurements bear that out.

A second thing we did was to simply look at the bush in the enhanced version. In this version since we have tended to deblur the image, you will see a lot of features running at 45 degrees, the same as for this feature purported to be a rifle barrel. It was the conclusion of the panel that all we are looking at in this case is just twigs of the bush, and what we are seeing is nothing more than a common growth pattern of a bush itself. If each of these is a rifle, you can count seven or eight rifles down there, which we considered to be an absurdity.

Mr. FITHIAN. What you are saying, the paint or the coloration of that alleged form that was the rifle matches precisely that of the side of the limousine?

Dr. HUNT, That is correct.

Mr. FITHIAN. And it is your conclusion then, what, that we are looking at is a little piece of the limousine through a bush?

Dr. HUNT. That is correct. It just happens to be a hole in the bushes at this point of a strange shape, sort of a rectangular 45 shade, which has the same color reflectance value as the back side of the limousine.

Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. (4 HSCA 427)

------- Shots in Rapid Succession -------

Mr. DEVINE. Getting back to the time and the place. I think in your original testimony in response to a question from counsel you said you heard a shot or something when you were sitting or standing there by the grassy knoll. Could you tell where this [*PAGE 445 FOLLOWS*] disturbance or this shot came from in relation to where you were standing?

Mr. [Louie Steven] WITT. No, sir, really couldn't. Of course, there were a number of shots and they all seemed to be just rapid--just very close spaced. As to the direction, I couldn't say. [Witt was standing on the retaining wall.]

Mr. DEVINE. You do not know, you cannot recall from what direction they may have come?

Mr. WITT. No, sir. I am sorry, I can't be of any help there.

Mr. DEVINE. We recognize it has been 15 years nearly. Can you tell this committee how many shots you thought you heard?

Mr. WITT. I really couldn't say. Just remembering--I would have to say THREE OR MORE. Mr. DEVINE. Three or more. Were they in rapid succession?

Mr. WITT. Very. As I recall, very rapid. (4 HSCA 444-445, emphasis added)

------- JFK and Connally Hit By Separate Bullets -------

Mrs. Connally: . . . the second shot was fired and hit him. He was in the process of turning, so it hit him through this shoulder, came out right about here. (1 HSCA 40)

Connally: I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well, be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. (1 HSCA 43)

Mrs. Connally: I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor. (1 HSCA 44)

Mr. DEVINE. The second shot that you heard is the one that you believe hit Governor Connally?

Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it hit Governor Connally. (1 HSCA 45)

------- Spray of Blood and Brain from JFK's Head -------

Mrs. Connally: Then, I heard a third shot and felt matter cover us and she [Jackie Kennedy] said, "They have killed my husband, I have his brains in my hand." (1 HSCA 41)

Connally: I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was. (1 HSCA 42)

------- The Shots -------

Connally: About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. (1 HSCA 42)

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

Mr. DEVINE. As you turned from looking over you right shoulder, you are about facing forward, in the process of turning to look over your left shoulder, when you were hit?

Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEVINE. But you heard no shot?

Mr. CONNALLY. No, sir, I did not.

Mr. DEVINE. That caused you to pitch forward?

Mr. CONNALLY. Yes, sir. (1 HSCA 46)

Mrs. CONNALLY. I looked back and I guess I just stayed looking back until I heard the second shot.

Mr. DODD. So, you are still looking at the President and it is your recollection that you then heard what sounded like a second shot?


Mr. DODD. Is that correct?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes. What was a second shot.

Mr. DODD. At that point your husband, Governor Connally, slumped over in your direction?

Mrs. CONNALLY. No, he lunged forward and then just kind of collapsed

Mr. DODD. And, then collapsed. (1 HSCA 52)

Mr. DODD. And did I understand your testimony correctly when you stated that you didn't actually hear a second shot but rather you felt the impact as if someone had punched you almost in the back, a sharp blow to your back?

Mr. CONNALLY. That is absolutely correct. (1 HSCA 53)

------- More Than One Person Seen in TSBD Sniper's Window -------

Three witnesses gave statements to law enforcement agencies after the assassination that they saw two men at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) from which they believed the assassin had fired. (12 HSCA 3)

In an FBI interview on December 5, 1963, Mrs. Ruby Henderson related that at the time of the motorcade, she was standing on the east side of Elm Street "just north of Houston Street." She said that right after an ambulance left the area with a man who had suffered an epileptic seizure, she looked up at the Texas School Book Depository; she saw two men in the window on one of the upper floors. She could not recall exactly which floor they were on, but stated that she did not recall seeing any other persons on any floors above the two men.

Mrs. Henderson described one man as being dark-complexioned, possibly either Mexican or Negro. That man had dark hair and a white shirt. The other man was taller and was wearing a dark shirt. According to the FBI report, she also said that "she could [*PAGE 4 FOLLOWS*] not definitely state that one of the men ... was not a Negro." Mrs. Henderson said she only saw the men from the waist up and therefore could not further describe their attire. They were standing back from the window, but looking out toward the motorcade.

Mrs. Henderson said she saw the two men in the window before the motorcade reached the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, but did not know how much before it reached the corner that she was the men.

Mrs. Henderson was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. (12 HSCA 3-4)

Mrs. Carolyn Walther was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963, and stated that at the time of the motorcade, she was standing on the east side of Houston Street, about 50 or 60 feet south of the south curb of Elm Street.(10) After the ambulance left with the epileptic, Mrs. Walther looked up at the windows of the Texas School Book Depository and saw a man in the southeast corner window of the fourth or fifth floor; according to the FBI report, Mrs. Walther was "positive" the window as being the "most easterly" on the south side of the building.

Mrs. Walther saw the man was holding a rifle in his hands; the barrel of the rifle was pointing downward and the man was looking toward Houston Street. Both his hands were extended across the window ledge. She described the man as having light brown or blond hair and wearing a white shirt. She described the rifle as having a short barrel and being possibly a machine gun. She noticed no other features of the rifle.

Mrs. Walther said also that she saw at the same time a second man standing in the same window to the left of the man with the rifle. This man was wearing a brown suit coat; she could only see his body from the waist to the shoulders and his head was hidden by part of the window.

Mrs. Walther told the FBI that almost immediately after she saw the second man in the window, the presidential motorcade approached on Houston Street.

Mrs. Walther was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. (12 HSCA 4)

Arnold Louis Rowland testified before the Warren Commission that he and his wife standing near the corner of Houston and Main Streets at the time of the motorcade. Rowland said that at about 12:15 p.m. he looked up at the Texas Book Depository and saw a man in a sixth floor window in the west corner of the building holding a rifle. The man was standing back from the window. Rowland described the rifle as a "fairly high-powered rifle" with scope. He thought it might have been a .30 size six rifle. Rowland said he noted also that two windows were open where he saw the man standing. According to Rowland, the man was holding the rifle in a "port arms" military position, with the barrel at a 45 degree angle downward across his body.

Rowland described the man as being "tall and slender in build in proportion with his width." He also said the man could have weighed 140 to 150 pounds. He appeared to be light-complexioned [*PAGE 5 FOLLOWS*] with dark hair, possibly "light Latin" or Caucasian, and his hair was closely cut. Rowland said the man was wearing a very light-colored shirt with an open collar and a T-shirt beneath, and he had on either dark slacks or jeans. The man appeared to be in his thirties. Rowland said that he mentioned to his wife that he had seen a man in the window, but the man was gone when they looked back. Rowland estimated the man was standing 3 to 5 feet back from the window.

Rowland testified also that before he saw the man with the rifle, he saw another man in another window of the sixth floor. He said that window was in the east corner of the building, "the one that they said the shots were fired from." Rowland said he believed it was a "colored" man and that the man was "hanging" out the window. Rowland said that at that time he noticed there were several people hanging out of windows; it was then that he looked again and saw the man with the rifle in the western window. He said he saw both men at about 12:15 p.m.

Rowland described the man in the window of the southeast corner of the sixth floor as an "elderly Negro," but could give no further details on the man's appearance. Rowland said the Negro man in the window remained there until the motorcade reached the corner of Main and Ervay Streets at about 12;30 p.m. Rowland said he last saw him about 5 minutes before the motorcade had reached the corner of Main and Ervay, the man was gone.

In an FBI interview on November 22, 1963, Rowland repeated that as he stood on Houston Street at the west entrance of the sheriff s office at approximately 12:15 or 12:20 p.m., he saw a man standing in the window of the second floor from the top"; there was no further information in that report about the location of that window. The man was standing 10 or 15 feet back from the window and was holding a rifle which appeared to have a scope. The FBI report described the man's position as "parade rest." According to that report, Rowland described the man as a white male of slender build with dark hair. He was wearing a light-colored shirt which was open at the neck.

Rowland told the FBI that he heard the first shot about 15 minutes after he had seen the man with the rifle at the window. He said he did not look at the window again after the shots began.

In an FBI interview on November 23, 1963, Rowland was quoted as saying that the window in which he saw the man with the rifle was in the southwest corner of the sixth floor, which is nearest the overpass on Elm Street. That report contains the description of the man as wearing a light-colored shirt and the rifle as being a .306 with a telescopic sight. Rowland said he was not close enough to identify the man and could not say if it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Rowland also gave a sworn statement to FBI agents on November 24, 1963. In that statement, Rowland again recounted that he saw a man with a rifle at about 12:15 p.m. on November 22, 1963. He described the location as the area of the two rectangular windows "at the extreme west end of the Texas School Book Depository on the next to the top floor. . . . ." He said again that the man was standing [*PAGE 6 FOLLOW*] 10 to 15 feet back from the window. The description he have at this time was consistent with his earlier reports: Slender in proportion to his height, wearing a white or light-colored shirt, which was either collarless or open at the neck. The man had dark hair. Rowland also described the rifle as having a scope and said that the man was holding it in a "port arms" position. He also said again that he would not be able to identify the person because of the distance.

There is no mention in any of the FBI reports that Rowland said he also saw another man in a window on the eastern corner of the building. Nevertheless, in his Warren Commission testimony, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig stated that soon after the assassination of the afternoon of November 22, 1963, Rowland gave him a description of two men in sixth floor windows of the depository before the assassination.

Creig testified that after the shots, he began talking to witnesses in the area of the depository. This is Craig's description of his conversation with Rowland:

I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two men on the-uh-sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it- but he thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it. This was about-uh-oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever arrived. Craig said he remembered the boy's name to be Arnold Rowland. He said the conversation with Rowland took place about 10 minutes after the shots were fired at the motorcade. Rowland told him that the man with the rifle was located on the west end of the depository in the second window from the corner. Rowland also told him that the two men were "walking back and forth" on the sixth floor. Rowland related that when he looked back a few minutes later, only the man with the rifle remained. He was holding it at his side and looking out the window in a southerly direction. Craig said Rowland's wife said she had not seen the men. Craig also said that at the time he talked to Rowland, there had not yet been a report that the shots had come from the depository. In fact, Craig testified that he had a first assisted officers searching in the area of the railroad tracks before he returned to the area of the depository building to talk to witnesses.

Rowland also gave a report to the sheriff's department on November 22, 1963. According to that report, Rowland said that at about 12:15 p.m. he was a man with a rifle in a window on the second floor from the top of the depository. The man was about 15 feet back from the window and was holding the rifle as high powered because it had a scope on it. He described the man as white, wearing a light-colored shirt which was open at the neck; he said the man appeared to be of slender build with dark hair. There is no mention in that report that Rowland described a second man on the sixth floor before the shots. (12 HSCA 4-6)

------- Shots from the Knoll -------

Ms. [Rose Mary] Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired.(87) She gave no information on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset when the policemen in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots came from; that is; they were running away from the grassy knoll. (12 HSCA 7)

Committee investigators also interviewed Ms. Willis' sister, Mr. Linda Pites, on November 7, 1978, in Dallas. Mrs. Pites explained [*PAGE 8 FOLLOWS*] that she was also present in the plaza at the time of the shots. The only information she provided relevant to the shots was that she had a distinct impression that the head wound to President Kennedy was the result of a front-to-rear shot. She also heard three shots and saw the President's head "blow up."

Mrs. Pites testified before the Warren commission of July 22, 1964. During her testimony, she said that she heard three shots and that she saw the President grab his throat after the first shot. She was not asked by the Commission about any other activity she may have seen in the plaza at the time of the shots. (12 HSCA 7-8)

------- Accounts of Persons Fleeing from the TSBD -------

(34) Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white, wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass; when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window of the depository.(104)

(35) Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106) Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan sport coat.(108) [*PAGE 9 FOLLOWS*] As the man ran, he was continually looking over his shoulder as though he was being followed.(109)

(36) During his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, Carr also reported seeing men in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination who were not mentioned in the report of his FBI interview in January 1964. Carr was asked during the Shaw trial if he noticed any movement after the shots which seemed "unusual."(110) Carr then said that he saw a Rambler station wagon with a rack on top parked on the wrong side of the street, heading north and facing in the direction of the railroad tracks, next to the depository.(111)

(37) Carr said that immediately after the shots he saw three men emerge from behind the depository and enter the station wagon.(112) He gave a description of one of them: he was "real dark-complected" and appeared to be Spanish or Cuban; he drove the car away, going north on Houston Street.(113)

(38) During the Shaw trial testimony, Carr said he had reported this information to law enforcement officers and that someone had told him not to repeat this information.(114) At that point, defense counsel objected to hearsay by carr, and no further details were elicited about the reported coercion of Carr, other than his statement that he did what the FBI told him to do, "I shut my mouth."(115)

(39) Committee investigators did not locate Richard Carr to discuss this information with him.

(40) James Richard Worrell also reported to the FBI on November 23, 1963, that he saw a man leave the depository building and run in the opposite direction; at the time, Worrell said that he was running from Elm to Pacific Street along Houston.(116) He described the man as white, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches in height, with dark hair and wearing some type jacket and dark clothing.(117) According to the FBI report, when Worrell later saw Lee Harvey Oswald on television that night Worrell believed Oswald was the person he had seen running from the depository.(118)

(41) In an affidavit for the Dallas Police Department on November 23, 1963, Worrell also related seeing the man run from the depository in the opposite direction from Worrell. At that time, he said the man was wearing a dark shirt or jacket which was open down the front and that he did not have anything in his hands.(119)

(42) When Worrell testified before the Warren Commission on March 10, 1964, he said he was running along Houston Street when he saw the man "come bustling out of the door" of the depository.(120) At that time, Worrell described the man as 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 10 inches in height, weighing 155 to 165 pounds, in his early thirties, with brunette hair.(121) He was wearing a dark sports jacket, which was open, and light pants.(122) Worrell said the man came out of the "back entrance" of the depository building.(123)

(43) Richard Worrell died on November 5, 1966, in Dallas from severe head injuries sustained when his motorcycle went out of control. (12 HSCA 8-9)

------- Accounts of Persons Fleeing Dealey Plaza -------

(44)After the assassination on November 22, 1963, Mrs. Jean Lollis Hill of Dallas gave a notarized statement to the sheriff's department regarding what she had seen in Dealey Plaza at the time the shots were fired at the motorcade. Mrs. Hill said that she was standing at the curb on the south side of Elm Street halfway to the triple underpass during the parade.(125) After the last shot was heard and the Presidential limousine sped away, Mrs. Hill looked up the hill of the grassy knoll and saw a man running toward the monument.(126) She said she began running toward the man; she was turned back by policemen who had arrived on the knoll when she got up to the railroad tracks.(127) In the sheriff's statement, there is no description or further details of the man seen by Mrs. Hill. (45)An interview report dated November 23, 1963, by the FBI gave only this account for its total report on Mrs. Hill:

--Jean Hill, 9402 Bluff Creek, telephone EV 1-7419, stated that she on November 22, 1963, was standing on Elm Street in the vicinity of Texas School Book Depository observingthe Presidential party composed of the President of the United States, his wife and Governor Connally of Texas,pass, and accompanying her was Mary Moorman, residing2832 Ripplewood, telephone DA 1-9390, who with a camera took pictures of the Presidential party passing down the street.

--Jean Hill advised she heard something like a rifle shot and observed President Kennedy crumple in his seat in the automobile. She was standing nearby, as the vehicle was passing the spot where she stood at the time.(128)

(46) The FBI reinterviewed Mrs. Hill on March 13, 1964. In that report, Mrs. Hill was quoted as saying that after the shots she noticed a white man in a brown raincoat and a hat running west away from the depository in the direction of the railroad tracks.(129) The report states that Mrs. Hill said she was stopped by a motorcycle policeman and lost sight of the man.(130) It also states that she did not get a good look at the man, but that she described him as being of average height and heavy build.(131)

(47) According to that report, Mrs. Hill said that men who were either FBI or Secret Service agents were present later that afternoon when she was being questioned in the sheriff's office.(132) Mrs. Hill related that one of the men referred to a bullet hitting the ground near her feet; she told him she did not recall such an incident.(133) When she told the men that she had heard four to six shots, one of them said: "There were three shots, three bullets, that's enough for now.(134) The report states that despite that remark, Mrs. Hill said no law enforcement officers attempted to force opinions or statements from her.(135)

(48) Mrs. Hill testified before the Warren commission 11 days after that FBI interview, on March 24, 1964. At that time, Mrs. Hill recounted again the events in dealey Plaza at the time of the shots. As she discussed the reaction of the crowd to the shots, she volunteered that she saw a man "running, getting away or walking away or something [PAGE 11 FOLLOWS*] I would say he was running."(136) She said the man was at the top of the slope near the west end of the depository building. She repeated that the man was wearing a brown raincoat.(137) She said her attention was drawn toward him because he was the only thing moving after the shots rang out.(138) Mrs. Hill also said that at the time she thought, "that's the man that did it" and began running toward him.(139) She did not recollect seeing his hands and did not see a weapon.(140)

(49) Mrs. Hill testified that she ran up the hill toward the railroad tracks after the man.(141) She said when she got in the area of the railroad tracks, she lost sight of him.(142) At that point she thought she heard someone say: "It looks like he go away," or words to that effect; she said that was consistent with the thought in her own mind that the man she saw running was involved in the assassination.(143)

(50) When Mrs. Hill was first asked during her Warren Commission testimony by Counsel Specter if she could give a description of the man she saw running, Mrs. Hill said she did not want to. She was concerned because she had earlier given statements that the man looked like Jack Ruby in build and thought this would be viewed as "using a figure and converting it to (her) story."(144) Later in her testimony, Mrs. Hill said she had been bothered and laughed at because of the information she provided, specifically because she had once said she saw a dog on the seat in the limousine between President and Mrs. President(145) Nevertheless, she continued to say that the man was about Jack Ruby's height and wasn't any bigger than Jack Ruby in weight.(146) She said also at that time that the man had been wearing a brown hat.(147) She estimated that he was middle-aged, approximately 40 years old, and Caucasian.(148) When asked by Counsel Specter is she thought the man was in fact jack Ruby, Mrs. Hill replied that she didn't know.(149)

(51) Mrs. Hill explained in her testimony that when she mentioned to the law enforcement officers at the sheriff's office that she had heard four to six shots, one of the men responded that he had also heard more than three shots, but that they had three wounds and three bullets, so they were not willing to say that more than three shots had been fired.(150) She repeated also at that time that a Secret Service man asked her about a bullet hitting the ground near her feet, but she had not seen a bullet hit the ground.(151) She said she was not coerced into any statements by the law enforcement officials.(152)

(52) Mrs. Hill said she had been contacted by Attorney Mark Lane a few weeks before her Warren Commission testimony.(153) Among the things she related to Lane was that she had been told by a man from the FBI or Secret Service not to mention the man she saw running in the area of the depository.(154) At that point in her testimony, Mrs. Hill also said that a reporter named Featherstone from the Dallas times Herald had told her she was wrong about seeing a man running up the hill from the depository, and not to mention it on the air.(155) It was not further clarified in her Warren Commission testimony whether it was in fact law enforcement officers or the reporter, or both, who advised her not to mention again seeing the man running. (53) Mrs. Hill said in her testimony that she had been reinterviewed by the FBI on about March 16 or 17, 1964 because of statement Mark [*PAGE 12 FOLLOWS*] Lane had made about her when he testified before the Commission.(156) Mrs. Hill said she had talked to Lane about 4 or 5 weeks before; she said he took down correctly what she said, but that it was reported out of context because his account did not reflect his questions.(157)

(54) Mark lane had testified before the Commission on March 7, 1964. Lane gave this account in his testimony of information he had been given by Mrs. Hill of the events in Dealey Plaza:

--She said further that after the last shot was fired, she saw aman run from behind the general area of a concrete facade on that grassy knoll, and that he ran on to the triple overpass.(158)

(55) Mrs. Hill was not located by the committee.

(56) In another voluntary statement to the sheriff's department dated November 22, 1963, Jesse C. Price of Dallas was quoted as saying he also saw a man fleeing from the plaza after the assassination. Price said in his notarized statement that at approximately 12:35 p.m. on November 22, 1963, he was on the roof of the Terminal Annex Building and saw the Presidential motorcade proceeding west on Elm Street until it was a short distance from the overpass.(159) After hearing the volley of shots, Price saw a man run toward the passenger cars at the railroad siding.(160) In the sheriff's statement, Price described the man as about 25 years of age with long, dark hair.(161) He was wearing a white dress shirt with no tie and khaki-colored trousers.(162) Price said the man was carrying something in his hand and that it may have been a "head piece"(163) (57) Price was interviewed by the FBI in Dallas on November 24, 1963. However, that report quotes Price only as saying he looked in the direction of the overpass at the time of the shots, but "saw nothing pertinent."(164)

(58) The committee learned that Jesse C. Price was deceased.

(59) Lee E. Bowers, Jr., reported to the FBI after the assassination on November 22, 1963, that he had observed three cars parked in the lot west of the depository building before the assassination. He said the first arrived at about 11:55 a.m.; it was a 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon, blue over white, with an out-of-State license plate consisting of six black numbers on a white background.(165) He noted that the car was extremely dirty.(166) There was one white male in it, who Bowers said could have been middle aged.(167) the second car arrived at about 12:15 p.m.(168) It was a 1957 Ford Tudor, black with a gold stripe on the sides, and had a Texas license plate.(169) Bowers said he thought the man in that second car was a police officer because he was talking into a radio telephone or radio transmitter in the car.(170) Bowers described him as white, about 30 years old.(171) The third car was a 1961 or 1962 white Chevrolet Impala four-door and it arrived at approximately 12:22 p.m.(172) Bowers said the license on the third car was like the out-of-State license on the first, with six black numbers on a white background.(173) That car, too, was very dirty.(174) The man in it was a white male about 30 years old, with long, dirty blond hair, wearing a plaid sports shirt.(175)

(60) Bowers told the FBI that after the shooting he did not see any of these cars in the parking lot.(176) [*PAGE 13 FOLLOWS*]

(61) Lee Bowers, Jr., testified before the Warren Commission of April 2, 1964, and gave the same account and descriptions of the three cars.(177) Nevertheless, in his warren Commission testimony, Bowers also stated that the first car first drove in front of the depository, circled the area of the tower in the railroad yard "as if he were searching for a way out, or was checking the area," and then left at the Elm Street outlet.(178) Bowers stated also that he noticed the car had a "Goldwater" sticker on its bumper.(179) About 15 minutes later, Bowers noted the second car; it drove in front of the depository, cruised around the area for 3 or 4 minutes, and then left.(180) The third car appeared about 8 minutes before the President's motorcade; it circled the area and probed in the area of the tower, and then slowly cruised back in front of the depository, at which point Bowers lost sight of it.(181)

(62) Bowers testified that at the time of the motorcade on November 22, he was located in the Union Terminal Tower in the railroad yard.(182) When asked what people he noticed standing between the tower and Elm Street at the underpass on the high ground, Bowers stated that he saw two man standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other.(183) One of them was middle aged, heavy set, and was wearing a white shirt and dark trousers.(184) The other man was in his mid-twenties, wearing either a plaid shirt or a plaid jacket.(185) Bowers said those two men were directly in his line of vision toward the mouth of the underpass and appeared to be watching the progress of the motorcade.(186) Bowers said he saw the man in the white shirt standing there at the time of the shots, but that he could not see the younger man in the plaid clothing because of the trees, which made him harder to distinguish.(187)

(63) Bowers said that at that point a motorcycle officer ran up the incline toward the trees in the general area of where the two men were standing; Bowers said there was some kind of commotion at that place, but that he did not know what had happened.(188)

(64) The committee was told on November 11, 1978, by Bower's parents that he died from injuries sustained in a car accident 3 years ago.(189) Mr. and Mrs. Bowers, Sr., were unable to provide any additional information about the events reported by their son; they mentioned that he was reticent by nature and told them practically nothing of what he had observed on November 22, 1963.(190)

(65) In a sheriff's department notarized statement dated November 23, 1963, Malcolm Summers of Dallas reported that he saw a car speeding from the area of the plaza immediately after the shots.(191) Summers stated that he was located on the terrace of the small park on Elm Street when the Presidential motorcade passed in front of him.(192) After the shots and the president's car had sped away, Summers went to the area of the railroad tracks because he "knew that they had somebody trapped up there."(193)

(66) After about 20 minutes, Summers returned to his truck, which was parked on Houston Street.(194) As he began to pull away from the curb, an automobile traveling in what Summers described as a "burst of speed" passed his truck on the right, which Summers thought was dangerous.(195) Summers said the car then slowed when it got in front of him, "as though realizing they would be conspicuous in speeding."(196) [*PAGE 14 FOLLOWS*]

(67) Summers said there were three men in the car; he described them as of slender build.(197) He said they appeared to be "excited" and were motioning to each other.(198) He described the car ad a 1961 or 1962 Chevrolet sedan, which was maroon in color.(199) The car went across the Houston Street viaduct, turned off on Marsalis Street, and continued in the direction of Zangs Boulevard.(200) Summers said he did not believe he could identify the men again, but that he would recognize the car.(201)

(68) Summers was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. No FBI files concerning this information have been located. Summers was contacted by the committee on October 30, 1978. At that time, he confirmed the substance of the information provided to the sheriff's department and signed a statement indicating that the information was accurate and complete.(202)

(69) The Dallas County Sheriff's Department had also received another report of a car speeding from the direction of Dealey Plaza on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. In a report dated November 22, Deputy Sheriff jack watson reported that he had received information through the sheriff's office radio about the car. Watson reported that the Carrollton, Tex., Police Department called in that they had received a citizen's report that a car had been parked near the Harry Hines Circle for several days before November 22.(203) According to the information from the Carrollton police, "very shortly after the shooting" that car was seen traveling north on Harry Hines Boulevard "at a very high rate of speed."(204) The Carrollton police described the car as red 1963 Chevrolet Impala with Georgia license plate 52J1033.(205) Watson's report stated that the information on that car was broadcast to all stations north.(206)

(70) the committee was unable to locate Jack Watson to get further details of the car report received by the Dallas County Sheriff's Department.

(71) According to an FBI report on the car with the Georgia license plate, the Dallas County Sheriff's Office had received the call on the radio between 1:54 and 2:11 p.m., and it reflected that the car had been spotted speeding along Harry Hines Boulevard Just Prior to that.(207) The FBI was advised on March 27, 1964 by its Atlanta office that the 1963 Georgia license 52J1033 was listed to J.C. Bradley to Twin City, Ga.(208) That license was issued for a four-door 1960 Chevrolet.(209)

(72) The owner of the car and license, James Cecil Bradley, was interviewed by special agents of the FBI on May 14, 1964. At that time Bradley informed the FBI that he owned a 1960 Belair Chevrolet.(210) The color of the car was not given, but Bradley stated that he has never owned a red 1963 Chevrolet Impala.(211) Bradley said that in August or September 1963 his 1963 license plate was stolen from his car as it was parked overnight with a flat tire on Highway 80 between Swainsboro and Twin City, Ga.(212) Bradley said that he reported the theft to law officers in Twin City and Swainsboro.(213)

(73) The FBI interviewed the friend who was with Bradley when Bradley returned to his car to repair the flat and noticed that the license plate was missing. That friend confirmed that the plate was in fact missing from the car and that he had advised Bradley to report it stolen.(214) [*PAGE 15 FOLLOWS*]

(74) Official records also confirmed the report by Bradley. Charles Oglesby, the chief of police in Twin City, Ga., stated to the FBI that he recalled Bradley reporting the stolen license tag some time in 1963.(215) According to records of the Georgia State Motor Vehicle Registration Bureau, ;the original 1963 license, 52J1033, was issued to Bradley on March 28, 1963, for a 1960 Chevrolet with the vehicle identification number 1619A154729.(216) A duplicate or replacement tag was issued to Bradley on September 10, 1963, for use on the same vehicle.(217)

(75) The committee has been unable to locate any further identification of the persons or car with whom that license was reported in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

(76) In an interview in Dallas with committee investigators on August 26, 1978, Tom Tilson reported that he saw a man running from the plaza immediately after the shots. Tilson stated that on November 22, 1963, he was off duty from his job as a Dallas Police Department patrolman.(218) At the time of the motorcade, he was driving east from Commerce Street and was approaching the triple underpass.(219) He had already heard the report on his police radio that there had been shooting at the motorcade and had seen the Presidential limousine travel at high speed from the underpass.(220) as he was in the are of the triple underpass, Tilson saw a man "slipping and sliding" down the embankment on the north side of Elm Street west of the underpass.(221) Tilson said the man appeared conspicuous because he was the only one running away from the plaza immediately after the shots.(222) Tilson said that because of his speed, the man rammed against the side of a "dark" car which was parked there.(223) Tilson said he then saw the man do something at the rear door portion of the car, like "throw something inside, then jump behind the wheel and take off very fast."(224)

(77) Tilson told the investigators that his 17 years of experiences as a policeman, combined with the radio broadcast of the shooting and this conspicuous man, caused him to "give chase" to the man speeding away from the direction of the plaza.(225) He then saw the same "dark car" going south on Industrial Boulevard, and he followed it.(226) As the car approached a toll road toward Ft. Worth, Tilson was within 100 feet and called out the license number, make, and model to his daughter, Dinah, who was riding with him. She wrote it down on a slip of paper.(227)

(78) Tilson described the man as white, 38 to 40 years old, 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 9 inches in height, with a round face.(228) Tilson said he had dark hair and was wearing dark clothing.(229) Tilson said he know Jack Ruby, and the man looked enough like Jack Ruby to be his "twin."(230) That impression was so strong in Tilson's mind that he noted that Ruby showed a lot of "resourcefulness" in arranging to be identified in a newspaper office at the time of the assassination with a lot of influential witnesses.(231)

(79) Tilson said he called the homicide office of the police department and reported the information on the car that afternoon.(232) He said he never heard any more from the Dallas police homicide squad about his report.(233) Tilson said he dept the slip of paper with the information his daughter had written.(234) Nevertheless, [*PAGE 16 FOLLOWS*] Tilson believes he threw it out about 3 1/2 years ago when he discarded many items in his home upon the death of his wife.(235) Tilson explained that he never followed up on the report with the homicide squad because of his perception that the homicide office was run as a kind of "elite," which resented any encroachment on its authority. (12 HSCA 10-16)

------- Accounts of Bullets Hitting in the Dealey Plaza Area -------

In view of the acoustics analysis that points to more than three shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade, the committee undertook to examine evidence that other bullets did in fact stride in the plaza at the time of the fatal shots. the most useful analysis of this evidence would have, of course, included a trajectory analysis to determine the path of those "bullets" and, most significantly, the point from which they were fired, in order to determine the presence of other assassins. Nevertheless, based on the reports of those witnesses made soon after the assassination, insufficient data remained to conduct such a trajectory analysis. The experts engaged by the committee to determine the path of missiles in Dealey Plaza have explained that the minimal data required would include the path of the missile, as well as its point of impact.(312) In none of the information collected on the presence of other missiles in Dealey Plaza was that information complete. The committee, therefore, attempted to set the information out as completely as possible, even though it was not possible to conclude on the basis of the scant information remaining what those reports meant in reference to the presence of other gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

(110) In an FBI interview on November 24, 1963, Mrs. Virgie Baker (nee Rackley) reported that at the time she heard the first shot, she looked in the direction of the triple underpass and saw what she presumed to be a bullet bouncing off the pavement.(313) Mrs. Baker was located immediately across the street from the depository when she heard the shots.(314) She thought they came from the direction the triple underpass.(315) In the FBI report, no further details or information were given by Mrs. baker about the location or direction of the object she believed to be a bullet.

(111) Mrs. Baker testified before the Warren Commission of July 112, 1964. At that time, she stated that the object she believed to be a bullet hit the pavement in the street at the point of the Stemmons Freeway sigh on Elm Street.(316) She said it hit in the middle of the lane on the other side of the street, which would have been the left-hand lane going in the direction of the triple underpass.(317) At first Mrs. Baker said the bullet hit behind the President's car. Then she said she could not remember whether it hit to either side or behind the President's car.(318) Mrs. Baker said she was sure she saw the object hit before she heard the second shot.(319)

(112) Committee investigators were unable to locate Mrs. Bader.

(113) In a sheriff's department notarized statement dated November 22, 19963, Royce Skelton stated that he also saw a bullet hit the [*PAGE 21 FOLLOWS*] pavement in the left or middle lane, to the rear of the President's car.(320) Skelton gave this account of the sequence of events:

--We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman said "Oh no" or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The pavement was knocked to the south away from the car.(321)

(114) In his Warren Commission testimony on April 8, 1964, Skelton said that he saw smoke rise from the pavement when the bullet hit.(322) Skelton said also that the sound of the gunfire came from the area of the President's car.(323) Skelton said he was located on the overpass directly over Elm Street at the time of the motorcade.(324) He said the sound of the shots definitely did not come from where he was.(325) Skelton also offered that the smoke he saw rising from the cement when the bullet hit "spread" in a direction away from the depository; he said the "spray" of flying cement went toward the west.(326) On the photograph designated Skelton exhibit No. 1, Skelton marked where on the street he saw the bullet and in which direction he saw the "spray."(327)

(115) Committee investigators were unable to locate Royce Skelton.

(116) In testimony before the Warren commission on July 22, 1964, James Thomas Tague of Dallas stated that at the time of the Presidential motorcade, he was located near his car at the bridge abutment of the triple underpass.(328) Tague said that during the shots he felt something sting him on the cheek; after the shots, a policeman noticed that Tague had blood on his cheek.(329)

(117) On Commission exhibit No. 354, commission Counsel Labeler placed a "6" on the photograph to indicate the place Tague was standing; it is described in Tague's testimony as approximately 3 to 4 feet from the concrete embankment of the bridge going over Main Street.(330) Tague said he and a police officer discovered a "fresh" bullet mark on the curb about 12 to 15 feet from the embankment.(331) Tague said the police officer attempted to go in the direction the mark on the curb seemed to indicate the he had come from; he talk Tague he had seen "something" there.(332) The letter "C" was placed on Commission exhibit No. 354 to indicate the spot the policeman had indicated as the "source" of the shot which hit the curb.(333) On the photograph, "C" is located in the area of the railroad tracks. Tague said he was not sure but that he thought he was hit on the cheek by the second or third bullet.(334)

(118) The piece of curb was examined by committee experts to determine if neutron activation analysis could determine the type of metal present at the scar, which might indicate what kind of bullet or missile hit the curb. Nevertheless the neutron activation analysis expert was unable to make any comparisons with the curb sample because it had previously been scraped by the FBI and the remaining metal was too small for testing purposes.(335) Also, it was felt that [*PAGE 22 FOLLOWS*] the metal still left on the curb portion would have been too contaminated by cement material to yield any meaningful results.(336) (119) During its acoustical reenactment of the assassination that took place in Dealey Plaza on August 20, 1078, the committee used the location of the mark on the curb described by James Tague as one of the "targets" at high ammunition was fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the grassy knoll to determine if the acoustical impulses on the Dallas Police Department radio tape, made contemporaneously with the shots. The curb target spot used during the reenactment was described as follows: . . . measurements used at the position were devised by measuring to the fifth curb stone slab on the south curb of Main Street. This is the slab known to have been removed by the FBI on August 5, 1964.(337)

That spot was designated target 4 during the reenactment.(338) Gunmen then fired at target 4 from the Texas School Book Depository and from the grassy knoll.(339) None of the acoustical impulses that resulted from the shots fired at target 4 during the reenactment matched the acoustical impulses on the original Dallas Police Department radio tape that contains the sound of actual gunfire at the time of the assassination.(340) That indicates that in all probability the mark on the curb was not made by a direct shot from either supposed assassin locations.

(120) When Richard Randolph Carr testified in the Kennedy assassination conspiracy trial of Colay Shaw in New Orleans on February 19, 1969, he stated that heard a shot and then three more shots in succession at the time of the assassination.(341) When asked if he could tell where the shots came from, Carr replied that "the last three" came from behind the picket fence located at the top of the grassy knoll, and that one of the shots "knocked a bunch of grass up"; he could tell by the way the grass was "knocked up" that the bullet came from that area.(342) Trying further to pin down the supposed location of the shots he heard, Carr stated that the sound came from the end of the cement arcade at the top of the knoll which was closest to the underpass.(343) When asked if he could determine from the direction in which the bullet hit the ground which direction it was traveling in, Carr said that if the bullet had continued, it would have gone from the area of the picket fence in the direction of the Criminal Courts Building.(344)

(121) On August 13, 1978, the committee received information that a person in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, had noticed a bullet fall to the ground near the motorcade at the time of the shots. Charles Rodgers of Lake Dallas, Tex. called the committee to report that he was present in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination with a friend, Mike Nally.(345) According to Rodgers, Nally's uncle was a motorcycle policeman riding in the motorcade.(346) The uncle had apparently related to his nephew that when the shots were fired, he heard a clanging noise off the fender of his motorcycle.(347) the policeman looked down and saw a .45 caliber slug roll of into the [*PAGE 23 FOLLOWS*] street.(348) The policeman then had to leave the area quickly as the motorcade was speeding from the plaza.(349)

(122) Rodgers said the next day Mike Nally came to him and said Nally's uncle had instructed him not to report the story and Nally passed that instruction on to Rodgers.(350)

(123) Based on the data provided by Rodgers, the committee was unable to locate Nally or to identify Nally's uncle.

(124) On August 5, 1978, the committee received information from former Dallas policeman Starvis Ellis that Ellis had also seen a missile hit the ground in the area of the motorcade at the time of the assassination. Ellis said he rode on a motorcycle alongside the first car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying President Kennedy.(351) Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb.(352) Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade.(353)

(125) Ellis said also that President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder.(354) The second shot then hit him, and the third shot "blew his head up." (12 HSCA 20-23)

------- Poor Scope on the Alleged Murder Weapon -------

Mr. LUTZ. This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle.

Mr. MCDONALD. Would you in your opinion classify it as an accurate scope?

Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (1 HSCA 449)

------- Rifle Smoke -------

Mr. EDGAR. When the assassination occurred, many people in Dealey said they saw puffs of smoke coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?

Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.

Mr. EDGAR. Does that particular rifle emit any smoke when it is fired?

Mr. LUTZ. During the test firings, I did not make observations concerning this particular rifle. I believe Mr. Bates may have some data on that that he could give you, sir.

Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. During the test firing, even though we were firing at the cotton box and the water recovery tank from a very short distance, it was possible to observe some smoke emitting from the muzzle of the weapon.

Mr. EDGAR. This is going to be difficult. Can you describe what the smoke looked like? I mean it is not billowy smoke and---

Mr. BATES. No; it appeared as a very thin haze of a light or whitish type of smoke. It was very difficult to evaluate the quantity of smoke emitted during our firing, especially when using the cotton bullet-recovery box. This was due to the muzzle of the rifle being held in close proximity to the front of the box. As the rifle was fired, the expansion of the propellent gasses forced cotton to blow out of the box, partially obscuring some of the smoke.

Mr. EDGAR. From the experience of the panel members, if a gun similar to this particular weapon were fired out of doors, would the smoke emanating from this type of a rifle exhibit more or less smoke than a lighted cigarette?

Mr. BATES. Possibly similar.

Mr. LUTZ. Possibly I could assist somewhat in that. I have fired a rifle of the same dimensions as the ones that was in the photographic display that I had. I observed, or I had another person fire it while I was observing, in bright sunlight. I found not a puff of smoke but the gray smoke in an outdoor condition being expelled from the front of the muzzle during firing of the same type of ammunition, and then I used some Italian surplus ammunition and some Swedish commercial ammunition, each of them given a considerable amount of smoke. It could be readily detected as a result of being fired from a similar rifle.

Mr. EDGAR. Thank you. (1 HSCA 485)

------- Tippit Slugs Not Tied to LHO's Revolver -------

Mr. EDGAR. Thank you.

Regarding CE-143, Oswald's revolver, do your test-fired bullets match, microscopically, with CE-602, 603, 604, and 605?

Mr. LUTZ. Are these the bullets that were recovered from Officer Tippit?

Mr. EDGAR. These were the bullets that were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit.

Mr. LUTZ. Our microscopic examination and comparison of these bullets failed to positively identify this revolver as the one that fired those bullets. We did find the class characteristics that were present, the number of lands and grooves, the width of those lands and grooves, to be the same. However, the individual characteristics were not present in sufficient quantities that we could say that that revolver and no other revolver fired them.

Mr. EDGAR. Can you describe whether this is a traditional problem and why?

Mr. LUTZ. It is not an uncommon problem. The problems being in this case we are dealing with a revolver that has been fired numerous times, by all reports that we have received, the condition of the revolver itself is not new, and there is all indications of considerable wear involving the rifling, the chambers of the cylinder have been bored out to accept the longer .38 special cartridge as opposed to the shorter but larger diameter .38 S&W cartridges. So that these in conjuction with the gas erosion, the firing of the lead bullets, not picking up and not retaining enough striations and as a result of going through or into a body and obliterating some of those markings that we could not identify them positively.

Mr. EDGAR. Didn't you say earlier that the firing pin impressions on your test-fired cartridge cases matched the ones recovered at the scene of the murder?

Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; we did. (1 HSCA 486)

------- Grassy Knoll A Good Firing Point -------

Mr. SAWYER. Not at that first shot. He turned to see where the shot came from and testified here and it is perfectly obvious in the picture that he recognized this rifle shot and spotted pretty much where it came from and he was hit by the next shot.

Well, anyway, aside from that, one other thing that impressed me when I was in Dallas and looking at this was the so-called grassy knoll location, that we were told no one had either checked out or even stationed as much as a Dallas policeman there.

If you are familiar with that situation, the fence runs along the top of the grassy knoll, a solid fence with trees overhanging, and [PAGE 355 FOLLOWS] there is nothing behind it at all but a big, unoccupied gravel parking lot and railroad tracks and a perfect escape situation.

Apparently, it was somewhat of a hangout for bums since there are wine bottles and everything else laying around back there.

I am just amazed that the Secret Service would not have been alert to that kind of a situation because you could have killed the President from there with a handgun.

Inspector KELLEY. Well, along that parade route, from the airport there were a number of those same hazardous situations on a parade route of that length. There were, of course, some police in the area. There was nobody on the grassy knoll. There were some police in the area of Dealey Plaza as it went into the underpass.

Mr. SAWYER. Today would the Secret Service check out places like that and insist that there be some policeman behind that fence or somebody to cover that kind of a situation?

Inspector KELLEY. Yes, we do a great deal more of that than we did before. (3:354-355)

------- Tippit Scene 2 or 3 Blocks from Ruby's Apt, Etc. -------

Mr. SAWYER. Did you make any effort either as a staff or, to your knowledge, as a Commission, to determine just where Oswald was going at the time he was intercepted by Officer Tippit?

Mr. RANKIN. We speculated on it but speculations aren't worth much.

Mr. SAWYER. Did you come to any reasonable hypothesis as to where he was going?

Mr. RANKIN. We all agreed that he was on his way to try to escape but where we didn't know, and everything from that point on was just one person's guess against another's.

Mr. SAWYER. Of course, I presume you were aware that the direction in which he was heading at the time that he was con- [PAGE 618 FOLLOWS] fronted by Tippit kind of led to nowhere with respect to either escape routes or anything, just out in the neighborhood?

Mr. RANKIN. We didn't think that was really the complete answer because at that point he was very hardpressed and we thought he was more in the posture of just running.

Mr. SAWYER. Well, did you find out that Jack Ruby's apartment was about two or three blocks up the street, also on the direct route he was going?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. SAWYER. Did you also find out that in the Dallas newspaper announcement of the President's visit, that on the same page was the identity of an informant who had substantially destroyed the Communist Party in Texas by informing to the FBI and he was identified as living just about two blocks up the street, also on the direct route he was going?

Mr. RANKIN. I don't recall that I was aware of that.

Mr. SAWYER. But other than just the fact that on this some 14 1/2 or 15 minute walk he had taken through a neighborhood after leaving his roominghouse, other than just running or escaping, you had formed no hypothesis on where he may have been going or what his intent may have been?

Mr. RANKIN. That is true, we did not. (3 HSCA 617-618)

------- Dr. Shaw on Connally's Back Wound -------

In response to Dr. Petty's questions, Dr. Shaw provided the following:

1) The bullet entering the back did not strike dead on, hitting instead on a decline.

2) The entrance wound was olvode (see Dr. Shaw's drawing attached).

3) The shape of the entrance wound was consistent with a missile striking in a slightly downward trajectory. It is Dr. Shaw's opinion that the wound was not caused by a tumbling bullet (an inference drawn, explicitly, from his belief that a tumbling bullet would not have had sufficient force to cause the remainder of the Governor's wounds).

4) Dr. Shaw believes that the bullet which hit the Governor had not struck any other objects because of his conclusion that the bullet was not tumbling.

[PAGE 327 FOLLOWS] He does note that the entrance wound was longer along the vertical axis. (7 HSCA 326-327)

Regarding press accounts that he felt the metal fragment was too heavy to have come from C.E.399, Dr. Shaw said he is not qualified to speculate as to the actual size or weight of the fragment in the thigh or those in the wrist (even though he admittedly did so before the Warren Commission 4 H 113). He did say he has never been satisfied that the bullet found on Governor Connally's stretcher had caused all of the Governor's wounds.

Shaw believes the "...bullet found on the limousine floor was more likely the one which went through Connally." He believes the bullet that went through the President's neck may have gotten caught in the Governor's clothing and another bullet struck the Governor causing his wounds. (7 HSCA 328)

The wound in the back was shaped as if the bullet had entered at a slight declination. Shaw probed through this wound with his finger and felt the Penrose drain that he had placed in the latissimus dorsi muscle.

In measuring the diagram made by Doctor Shaw at the time of this interview so the better to illustrate the size of the entrance and exit wounds, it is interesting that the entrance wound measurement taken from this diagram are 1.5 x 0.8 cm. with the long dimension in the longitudinal plane of the body (the long axis of the body) and that the exit wound is approximately 5 cm. in greatest dimension. (7 HSCA 331)

------- Connally in the Zapruder Film -------

Mr. GRODEN. From the left at frame 225, this is the first frame where we see the President reemerging from behind the road sign. His left hand is clutching his lapel, his right hand is starting up toward his neck, toward his throat. Governor Connally appears to show no signs of distress at this point.

The next is frame 230 in which Governor Connally is holding a Texas-style Stetson hat in his hand. That wrist again is the wrist that was shattered during the assassination sequence.

The President, at this time, has his arms up in this protective motion I described before toward his throat.

In the next one, frame 237, we see Governor Connally responding, or so it appears visually anyway, to the sound of the first shot. He does show some signs of distress. His shoulder, at this point, appears quite flat in relationship to the ground.

His cheeks are of a normal attitude, although his mouth is open, and his hair is still down and flat. One-eighteenth of a second later, or frame 238, his shoulder has buckled violently downward, his checks have now puffed out, his mouth is closed and his hair has become disheveled. This is the only such detectible rapid change in the Governor in this entire sequence of the film that I was able to detect, perhaps indicating that this may be the moment when he was struck. (1 HSCA 98)

------- JFK's Reaction to the Head Shot in the Zapruder Film -------

At the moment of the head shot, we see the President thrown violently backward to the rear and to his left which would seemingly indicate a shot from the right front, from the area of the grassy knoll. The grassy knoll is mentioned here because a great many witnesses felt that at least one of the shots came from that area.

The film shows the President going to the rear and the left on a direct axis from this point, therefore, many people have concluded that what we may be seeing is the result of a shot from the right front, striking the President in the head. (1 HSCA 99)

------- Smoke on Knoll Could Have Been from Gunfire -------

Based on the statements of these witnesses, if the smoke they reported was in fact the result of gunfire, it would have originated in the area of the top of the grassy knoll. There is no way of determining what type of ammunition was used in that "gunfire" so that is can be stated conclusively whether the smoke seen by the witnesses is consistent with smoke produced by the type of ammunition used in any gunfire from the knoll. Nevertheless, a firearms expert engaged by the committee explained that irrespective of the exact type of ammunition used, it would be possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun [PAGE 25 FOLLOWS] had been fired from that arena. According to the expert, both "smokeless" and smoke-producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to the eye in sunlight.(371) That is because even with smokeless ammunition, when the weapon was fired, nitrocellulose bases in the powder which are impregnated with nitroglycerin may give off smoke, albeit less smoke than black or smoke-producing ammunition.(372) In addition, residue remaining in the weapon from previous firings, as well as cleaning solution which might have been used on the weapon, could cause even more smoke to be discharged in subsequent firings of the weapon.(373)

Submitted by:

MS. SURELL BRADY, Staff Counsel. (12 HSCA 24-25)

------- Senator Ralph Yarborough on the Shots, the Motorcade, and the WC -------

[Page 698 follows]





512 478-2573

December 27, 1978

Congressman Richardson Preyer Chairman

291978 House Subcommittee on Assassination of John F. Kennedy

2344 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20515

Subject: Investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy

Dear Chairman Preyer:

At the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I was serving as United States Senator from Texas, and was riding in the car with then Vice President and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson in the Dallas Presidential Motorcade. Having used firearms since I was a small boy, and having qualified, while serving on the staff of the 97th Infantry Division in World War II, with rifle, carbine, pistol and bazooka, and having hunted since with rifles and shotguns, I have some familiarity with the noise made by the firing of such weapons.

In the Motorcade in Dallas, the first explosion was so distinct in its nature, that my mental processes immediately registered "rifle shot" - it was an immediate mental reaction without conscious thought process on my part. On many occasions since, I have stated that there were definitely three explosions, or shots (this while the F.B.I. was expounding its two shot theory), but during all of these years I have been troubled by the fact that the two subsequent explosions did not sound like that first clear sound of indisputable rifle fire, clear as a signal. I assumed that the difference might have been caused by the [PAGE 699 FOLLOWS] changed position of the car, or other movement.

The recent revelations of a possible fourth shot possibly clear up that doubt as to the reason for the difference in sound between thedifferent explosions. When I read of the scientific experiment through firing weapons at different positions in the parade route at Dallas, I attempted to telephone the Chairman of the Full Committee, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, the Chief Counsel or Deputy Chief Counsel of the Assassinations Committee and Sub-Committee, but could reach none of you, but was relegated to someone so far down the line that they did not seem to understand my recommendation at that time.

I have been on hunting trips a number of times when two hunters, neither knowing that the other hunter was firing, fire simultaneously at game, each thinking that they had killed it, each hearing only one explosion. With those experiences in mind, what I recommended to some one of Committee staff (whom I took from our telephone conversation to know nothing about gunfire) was that firing from the Texas Book Depository window and the grassy knoll be synchonized and be made simultaneously, with proper sensitive listening devices at all proper points, in an effort to see if science, so applied, would throw any light on the doubts which increase with the years, as to the accuracy of the Warren Commission Report. My recommendation may never have gotten past the person on your staff to whom it was given, as that person seemed not to understand it. After the first shot was fired, the Motorcade seemed to momentarily slow down; the resulting close proximity of the principal cars being shown on a photograph which I mailed to the Warren Commission (that Commission having declined to call me as a witness), taken from the Saturday Evening Post, a cropped version of which was printed in the Warren Commission report with my letter of transmittal to that Commission. The Warren Commission report stated that the Motorcade speeded up,and took off, but it did not say when. The [PAGE 700 FOLLOWS] Motorcade did not speed up and take off until all the three explosions had occurred.

In the interest of history, I request that this letter be printed with your report. If your sub-committee will put aside preconceived ideas, if any, from reading the Warren Commission Report (which I do not charge you have), but pursue truth wherever it leads, you will render a service to history, and build a higher confidence among your countrymen for the integrity of public institutions.

Respectfully yours,

Ralph W. Yarborough RWY/bc (5 HSCA 698-700)

------- Authenticity of Dictabelt Recording -------

Mr. FITHIAN. Thank you. I have one last question having to do with the authenticity of the tape itself that you worked with. I am sure that many will want to know whether or not there is internal evidence or otherwise that can attest to the fact that the tape which you were working with--that is, the original tape you were working with--was indeed a tape of the shootings in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. What information can you shed as to your best judgment as to which tape you were working with?

Dr. BARGER. In the first place, the tapes that we received from the committee staff were represented as being that. However, at a different time we received a Dictabelt, which is a plastic continuous blue colored belt that was marked as "Being recorded from Channel 1" in a white marking pencil.

Channel 1 of the Dallas police tape on November 22, 1963. We obtained a rebuilt Dictabelt recorder, newly rebuilt, and we played that Dictabelt and made our own magnetic recording of the Dictabelt. We then analyzed this middle segment around 12:30 of that recording that we had made from the Dictabelt on the same computer and in the same way that we had the first one and had it print out a record, a wave form record. We compared the two and found them to be identical in virtually every detail. (2 HSCA 89)

------- William Hartmann on a Shot at Just Before Z-190 -------

Mr. CORNWELL And would it be accurate to state that the second largest area of blur or jiggle, apart from the one which occurred shortly after the head shot, would be in the earlier portion of the film?

Dr. HARTMANN. That is correct.

Mr. CORNWELL. What frame is that associated with?

Dr. HARTMANN. About frames 190 to 200 there is a strong blur reaction initiated. So having concluded that this is in fact, that the blur sequence around 313 to 319 is in fact a response to the gunshots, I would think that the logical inference would be that the blur sequence, the blur episode, running typically from 190 to 200 is also a response to a possible gunshot. And we know that the President emerged from behind the sign somewhat later, some frames later, showing in fact a reaction to such a wound. So this could very well be the blur or startle reaction to the gunshot that caused the back wound to the President.

Mr. CORNWELL. And what, if any, corroboration is provided by this analysis to the Warren Commission's conclusion that the President and the Governor may have been shot in the vicinity of frame 210.

Dr. HARTMANN. Yes, they picked 210. I would say that to pick 210 in the face of this current evidence, to pick 210 as the time for that first shot, which is the Warren Commission's conclusion, would not be warranted from this evidence, because the blur before frame 210, from 190 to 200, is clearly much larger than any blur after frame 210. In fact, there is really very little evidence for a blur in the appropriate amount of time after frame 210.

Furthermore, there is some photo evidence that tends to support the thought of a shot in the time frame shortly before 190. For example, there is the Phillip Willis photograph which shows Mr. Zapruder in the background and the motorcade passing in between. Because the motorcade is in between, it is quite possible quite easy, to determine exactly which Zapruder frame that corresponds to, because you can tell which part of the motorcade is passing between Zapruder and Willis. And Willis said that he took that photograph as a reaction. He pressed the shutter as a reaction to what he perceived as the first shot, at least a shot.

Well, it turns out that, that frame is 202. So that means that Mr. Willis is telling us that he pressed the shutter as part of his reaction to a shot, and he was reacting at frame 202, while here we see that Mr. Zapruder is in the middle of his reaction at frame 202. So that is very nice consistent evidence that something happened, say, at 190 or shortly before 190. (2 HSCA 15)

------- Canning's Back-Wound Adjustments -------

Mr. CANNING. Because the President, when these wounds were identified and measured, was lying in the autopsy position, which was very unlike his normal posture.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. How did you actually proceed to make the adjustments?

Mr. CANNING. I worked with the people at the FAA in Oklahoma City, the anthropological group there, and we made measurements of typical skin mobility. We studied this in order to find out how the wounds moved when the President was manipulated from his position and posture at the time he was wounded to the position and posture during the autopsy.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. What actual adjustment did you eventually make with regard to these wounds?

Mr. CANNING. The major adjustment was that during the autopsy, the President's head was pointed straightforward and was tilted back, so that he was essentially "looking at the sky," as a way of thinking of it, by about 35'. And when we return him to a normal posture, by lowering his chin, that wound, the neck wound, moves down about a centimeter. When the wound was inflicted, it has been concluded that his head was turned sharply to his right and that resulted in a small movement of the neck wound to Mr. Kennedy's right at the time. Also he was observed to have his right shoulder elevated in order to place his elbow on the side of the car. This didn't affect the position of the neck wound but it did elevate the position of back wound slightly. (2 HSCA 171)

------- Canning's SBT Trajectory Ignored Back Wound's Location -------

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. Canning, at this time I would like to ask you to explain your analysis of the single bullet theory trajectory, in light of these two exhibits.

Mr. CANNING. The inset is simply a replica of the drawing which we had before with the two lines established as lines of sight from Mr. Betzner's camera, with the President in the position that that analysis determined, the Governor in the position that that analysis showed, and then we have indicated schematically where the Governor's wound would show, and where the President's neck wound would show, to establish a line relative--again in the frame of reference of the limousine now, which would extend to the gun. [PAGE 190 FOLLOWS]

We then take this drawing and reduce it in size and place it in the correct position and angular orientation in the plaza, and take this same line with the same angular orientation relative to the limousine, and extend it to show the direction of the single bullet theory trajectory.

The side view picture using in large measure the information from the Croft photograph illustrates again the position of the back and neck wounds. We do not use the information for the President's back wound, just the information from his neck wound, and for Governor Connally's back wound and the relative positions and relative heights are registered in this drawing.

We simply draw a straight line from Governor Connally's inshoot wound through the President's outshoot wound and extend the line toward the point from which the gun was thus deduced to have been fired.

The side view of the limousine is shown as if it were on level ground. Therefore when we show it in the main part of the exhibit we preserve the angular relationship between the trajectory slope line and the body of the car. When this line is extended in the main part of the exhibit, it intercepts the face of the Texas School Book Depository as shown in exhibit JFK F-145. (2 HSCA 189- 190)

------- Canning's JFK's Back-Wound and Connally's Back-Wound Trajectories Didn't Line Up -------

Mr. SAWYER. So then by taking into account then the wounds on Governor Connally forced some kind of a caused alteration in either the line of the bullet or the posture of the President?

Mr. CANNING. Well, I want to be sure that I am responding to your question. I am not saying that the bullet's travel itself was affected. What I am saying is that our interpretation of the data tells us that if we were to determine one trajectory based on the two pieces of information, one the Governor's wound, and the President's neck wound, that that will give us one line.

The other wound, the other wound pair in the President, will give us a second line. Those two lines do not coincide simply [PAGE 192 FOLLOWS] because of experimental error. We cannot expect to make all of the myriad of measurements such as wound location, body position and limousine position with absolute perfection. Therefore we expect slightly different answers. The two trajectories should be close enough so that they fall within a reasonable error of one another, which is what we found. (2 HSCA 191-192)

------- Canning's Model Didn't Match Z-312 -------

Mr. DODD. Yes, the calibration photograph, the calibration photograph as well.

Mr. Canning, could I ask you to go over there near both of these exhibits?

I looked down, while you were testifying, and took a closer look at them again. I realize I am looking at them from a layman's point of view. But when I look at the President's head in the enhanced photograph on the left and then at the calibrated photograph on the right, I get--and again I am prefacing my remarks by saying I am a layman--but I see a much more severe pitch to the President's head in the enhanced photograph than I see in the calibrated photograph and I wonder if you could explain. (2 HSCA 193)

------- Canning's Model Didn't Have Same Amount of Light on Ear as JFK -------

Mr. DODD. As I understood your testimony about light, you tried to recreate the sunlight on the President's head that day. That looks like an awfully large ear, in the enhanced photograph, but if that is not, obviously that is not the size of his ear. But it would appear to me that the reflection of light is giving what would appear to be a larger image than is actually the case, and yet in your other photograph over here, you don't seem to indicate the same degree of light on his ear as you do in the enhanced photograph.

Mr. CANNING. That is correct. We have a problem of in the first place spatial resolution, actually fixing the size of something. Mr. DODD. I am sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

Mr. CANNING. We have a problem of fixing the exact size of a small object in a blurry photograph. I might point out that frame [PAGE 194 FOLLOWS] 312 is one of the better ones, but it is still difficult to work with. I am getting a little bit outside of my area of expertise but I know enough about it for this purpose I think. The image of the President's ear is very brightly overexposed where the sunshine fell on it, and so it appears larger than it would appear if it were not overexposed; that is to say the size of this ear does not look right. On the other hand, if we were to have a print of this that was of diminished intensity, then the image of the ear would look somewhat smaller. It doesn't change its position, however. (2 HSCA 193-194)

------- Canning's Large Margin of Error -------

Mr. DODD. As I understood your testimony about light, you tried to recreate the sunlight on the President's head that day. That looks like an awfully large ear, in the enhanced photograph, but if that is not, obviously that is not the size of his ear. But it would appear to me that the reflection of light is giving what would appear to be a larger image than is actually the case, and yet in your other photograph over here, you don't seem to indicate the same degree of light on his ear as you do in the enhanced photograph.

Mr. CANNING. That is correct. We have a problem of in the first place spatial resolution, actually fixing the size of something. Mr. DODD. I am sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

Mr. CANNING. We have a problem of fixing the exact size of a small object in a blurry photograph. I might point out that frame [PAGE 194 FOLLOWS] 312 is one of the better ones, but it is still difficult to work with. I am getting a little bit outside of my area of expertise but I know enough about it for this purpose I think. The image of the President's ear is very brightly overexposed where the sunshine fell on it, and so it appears larger than it would appear if it were not overexposed; that is to say the size of this ear does not look right. On the other hand, if we were to have a print of this that was of diminished intensity, then the image of the ear would look somewhat smaller. It doesn't change its position, however. (2 HSCA 193-194)

Mr. DODD. I am tempted to ask you, just on your last statement, the fact that this is the one area that could change the conclusions that you have reached, to what degree? Did you at all try to calculate by moving around the President's head in the enhanced photograph, allowing for a degree of error in your calibrated photograph, and then make a calculation as to how far off you would be?

Mr. CANNING. Essentially what I did was I to take measurements of the various image features in the enhanced versions of frame 312 and compared them with those same measurements taken from the calibration photographs that were taken at adjacent angular positions. I then made an effort to find out to what degree I could have interpreted this picture wrongly. I concluded that I could be off by easily 2' and 2(')'translates into quite a large change in the overall trajectory error.

Mr. DODD. Let me jump ahead. Two degrees, 2' what does that do to the yellow line? That is the area I presume you are talking about?

Mr. CANNING. Yes, this yellow line--Mr. DoDD. Which exhibit number is that?

Mr. GOLDSMITH. That is No. F-122, Congressman. Mr. DODD. Thank you. What does that do to that yellow line?

Mr. CANNING. Well, it is a major part of the size of the largest error oval in the exhibit marked JFK-122. I do not try to recollect the precise number that I attributed to the interpretation of that photograph, but it was a substantial fraction of the total accuracy.

Mr. DODD. Is it possible that we would move away from the Texas School Book Depository into another building?

Mr. CANNING. All that would happen if we were to estimate a larger potential error is that this largest circle would get bigger. The position of the center doesn't tend to move, but it allows more possibilities; that is, only the size of the circle is affected. You see, it is conceivable that the bullet came down from an adjacent building, if one is to take a literal interpretation of the largest area; that is, this yellow pattern. It is conceivable that it was fired from anywhere in this circle.

Mr. DODD. Thank you. Thank you very much. (2 HSCA 193-194)

------- Another Unexplained Connally Fragment -------

Bobby M. Nolan, Texas highway patrolman, Tyler district, was interviewed relative to a bullet fragment removed from the left thigh of Governor Connally, which was turned over to him at Parkland Hospital in Dallas for delivery to the FBI.

Nolan stated his instructions were apparently not clear at the outset and that following contact with his superior officers while at the Dallas Police Department, he turned the bullet fragment over to Captain Will Fritz [Dallas Police Department.] at approximately 7:50 p.m. He stated he had no further information concerning the matter and that his only participation in this series of events was the acceptance of the fragment and delivery of same to Captain Fritz. (7 HSCA 156)