Reclaiming History

by Vincent Bugliosi

  † Itek Corporation, after its multimonth analysis of the film for CBS in 1976, disagreed. Stating that it “has been suggested that from around frame 189 to 195 [Kennedy’s] hand appears to move very little and could be construed to be frozen in position,” Itek’s report said its specialists found that “his hand continues the relatively even sweep across his face aand down until no longer measurable at frame 206” (HSCA Record 180-10001-10396, “John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis,” Itek Corporation, May 2, 1976, p. 35). Itek’s conclusion was that “no evidence could be found that would indicate that President Kennedy was struck before the Stemmons Freeway sign blocked Zapruder’s view. President Kennedy was first wounded most probably after frame 212 and before frame 223” (HSCA Record 180-10001-10398, May 2, 1976, p. 11).

  *But to remind the reader, the HSCA, unlike the Warren Commission, concluded that Kennedy first showed a reaction to being hit at frame 200, when the HSCA saw, as few others have, Kennedy’s right hand freeze in the midst of a waving motion.

  † Only at frame 205 can Kennedy’s head be seen to start moving to his left to face the front (CE 885, 18 H 18). But this could very well have been because he had just passed the last large group of people on his right—who appear to be women office workers—waving to him, as shown in photo number 3 by Dealey Plaza spectator Hugh Betzner, which corresponds to around Z frame 186 (Betzner photo and correlation to Z186: 6 HSCA 51; Telephone interview of Richard Trask by author on October 23, 2006).

  *There’s an old adage—be careful what you ask for: you might get it. The conspiracy theorists have made a desperate effort to refute the single-bullet theory on the rationale that if they do, Oswald wouldn’t have had time after hitting Kennedy to fire the shot that hit Connally; hence, there must have been a conspiracy. But they may be creating a scenario which, if accepted, could seriously damage or destroy their cherished conspiracy hypothesis. Let’s look at the theoretical possibilities, which I personally reject. We saw that the HSCA concluded that Kennedy was first struck by a bullet at around frame 190 (HSCA Report, p. 47). If Connally, per Thompson, was first struck around Z235 (the “barest of a fraction” before Z238) that leaves 45 frames, or, at 18.9 frames of the Zapruder film per second, about 2.4 seconds between both hits. Since, using the scope on the Carcano, Oswald could get off two shots in 2.3 seconds, the theory of the conspiracy theorists comes tumbling down. And if, as believed, Oswald used the iron sights, in which case he could fire two rounds in 1.6 seconds (see later text), Oswald would have had time to spare in getting off two rounds. Therefore, since all the evidence points to only Oswald having fired a weapon in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, Oswald is the sole assassin, with or without the single-bullet theory.

  † Baden said the panel was divided on whether the puncture was caused by the bullet entering the lung or the injury to Connally’s fifth rib. Connally’s Parkland Hospital operative record only said “the middle lobe [of the right lung] had a linear rent” (CE 392, 17 H 17).

  *Though we can know from the evidence the approximate time Oswald’s aforementioned three shots were fired, and hence, the spacing of the shots, earwitnesses, for the most part, didn’t agree. The space between Z160 and Z207–222 is shorter than that between Z207–222 and Z313, yet most Dealey Plaza witnesses thought there was more time between the first and second shots than between the second and third (WR, p. 115). (Examples of each: “Following the first shot, there was a slight pause, and then two more shots were discharged, the second and third shots sounding closer together” [Lillian Mooneyham: CE 2098, 24 H 531]; “It seemed to me that there was less time between the first and the second [shots] than between the second and third” [4 H 149, WCT Mrs. John B. Connally Jr.].) What explanation can there be for the considerable majority hearing the opposite of what the evidence shows? Apart from the fallibility of eye and ear testimony, though the earwitnesses heard the first shot, it could have been such a shock to their senses that only the sound (which many erroneously thought was that of a firecracker or car backfire) registered, not the sound in relation to the very next sound they heard. By the time of the second shot they may have regained their mental and auditory acuity, now knowing shots were being fired, but they were in no position to compare the space between the second and third shots with that of the first and second. At the London trial, when I asked Dallas deputy sheriff Eugene Boone, who as a member of law enforcement was very accustomed to the sound of shots from a weapon, what was the spacing of the shots he heard that day in Dealey Plaza, he said, “The first two shots and then the third shot was a little longer.” Question: “So the first and second shots were closer together, then there was an interval, and then the third shot?” “Yes, sir.” I then proceeded to have Boone demonstrate to the jury by the use of the word bang the three shots. There was a meaningful interval between the first and second, and second and third shots, but the latter interval was greater. (Testimony of Eugene Boone, Transcript of On Trial, July 23, 1986, pp. 125–126)

  Quite a few witnesses thought the shots were evenly spaced. “I distinctly remember three shots…and the three shots were evenly spaced” (7 H 475, WC affidavit Clifton C. Carter).

  *While it was clear that the House Select Committee preferred the neuromuscular-reaction explanation for the president’s head snap to the rear, it allowed, in its official conclusion, for another cause. It said that the head snap to the rear could also have been caused “by a propulsive effect resulting from the [brain] matter that exited through the large defect [on the right side of the president’s head] under great pressure, or a combination of both.” (7 HSCA 178) The president’s head can be seen on the Zapruder film as going not only backward but slightly leftward. This movement to the left can be explained by the explosive exiting of the brain matter on the right side of the president’s head creating a corresponding propulsive momentum (commonly called a “jet effect”) in the opposite direction, as a rocket recoils in a direction opposite to that in which its jet fuel is ejected. (See endnote for further discussion.)

  *The enhanced photograph was published as part of Itek Corporation’s report in 1976 on their analysis of the Zapruder film (HSCA Record 180-10001-10396, “John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis,” Itek Corporation, May 2, 1976, p. 57).

  † And indeed, from Governor Connally’s wife, we know that the shot to the president’s head caused “brain tissue” to land on “both of us” (she and her husband), each of whom was seated in front of the president (4 H 147). In fact, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, seated in the front passenger seat of the presidential limousine (even farther forward of the president than the Connallys), testified that the blood spray from the president’s head shot landed “all over my coat” (2 H 78).

  Not only were the blood, brain tissue, and skull fragments all blown to the front of the president’s body, but the five bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine were all to his front. The fragment of the base of a bullet (CE 569) was found on the floor beside the right side of the driver’s seat, and the fragment of the nose of a bullet (CE 567) was found on the driver’s seat right beside the driver (5 H 67, WCT Robert A. Frazier). And then there were the three small fragments found beneath the left jump seat (CE 840, 17 H 840; 5 H 66). Also, the three skull fragments found inside the limousine were all to the president’s front, one in the footwell in front of the backseat, another on the floor in the middle of the car, the other on the floor near the jump seat (HSCA Record 180-10075-10174, January 6, 1964; ARRB MD 259, Interview of Floyd Boring by ARRB investigators Joan Zimmerman and Doug Horne, September 19, 1996; HSCA Call Report of phone call to Douglas Horne by Floyd Boring on September 19, 1996).

  The main argument from conspiracy theorists that the “law of physics” requires that an object hit by a projectile has to be pushed in the direction the projectile is traveling, and therefore, the head snap to the rear compels the conclusion of a shot from the front, can easily be used against them. In addition to the fact that the president’s head
moved forward at the moment of impact, how do the conspiracists explain what would be the ridiculous anomaly of blood, brain tissue, three skull fragments, and five bullet fragments all flying to the front of the president’s body at the same precise time they claim Kennedy’s head was being propelled backward by a shot from the front? They don’t. And can’t.

  *In 1990, four years after the London trial, I asked Dr. Art Hoffman, a physicist out at UCLA, to give me his views on this matter. In a written report to me, Hoffman hypothesized the situation of a man lying on his back. “How far,” he asked, “will his head rise if struck by a bullet fired directly upward from below? Using the known mass (161 grains) and muzzle velocity (2,165 feet per second) of the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet and 15 pounds for the weight of the head, and assuming that the bullet is completely stopped within the head for maximum momentum transfer [here, the bullet wasn’t completely stopped by bone in the head, most of it exiting the head in fragments, which would even decrease the transference of momentum] and assuming that no other forces than gravity retard the motion of the head, we [Hoffman worked with a colleague, Dr. Robert Ditraglia] find that it would rise only two inches…The height that a head would be lifted against gravity is a reasonable estimate of how far it might [be propelled] when struck horizontally. The resisting forces of the neck muscles and connecting tissue are comparable to gravity since these muscles normally function to stabilize the head against gravity. Indeed, they are capable of exerting forces several times that of gravity…These considerations lead us to conclude that the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet would not impart a particularly large [movement] to the head.” From measurements based on his analysis of the Zapruder film, Hoffman found a “2 inch forward movement” of Kennedy’s head “owing to the entrance of the Mannlicher-Carcano bullet” from behind. He concluded that Kennedy’s head snap to the rear was “8½ inches,” obviously far too much for the impact of any bullet to have caused. (Letter from Dr. Art Hoffman to author dated March 20, 1990, pp. 1–3)

  *The Warren Commission has no firm opinion as to when the first shot was fired in Dealy Plaza (saying it could have been as late as Z210), or whether it hit either Kennedy or Connally. But it did note that at 18.3 frames per second on the Zapruder film, the time between Z210–225 (when the Commission believes both Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet) and Z313 (the head shot to the president) was “4.8 to 5.6 seconds.” With the 2.3 seconds required between two shots, and only 4.8 to 5.6 seconds to fire them in, the Commission said, “The gunman would have been shooting at very near the minimum allowable time” to fire them, adding, “Although it was entirely possible for him to have done so.” (WR, pp. 111–112, 115)

  *To help explain why he felt Oswald could have fired more accurately in rapid rather than slow fire at a short range (as opposed to great distances, where the advantage of the telescopic sight for accuracy trumps other considerations), Lutz testified at the London trial that “the ability to fire the rifle with the telescopic sight requires that you readjust your head, raise it from the stock. With the open sight…the face can be placed on the stock of the rifle and be fired a lot more quickly as result of being able to recover to the same spot.” (Testimony of Monty Lutz, Transcript of On Trial, July 24, 1985, p. 453)

  A firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department elaborated on this point for me: “With the old type optical sight that they had on rifles in those days,” he said, “there was a narrow field of view. Just for example, at 100 yards it could have a view of only twenty feet across or wide. Upon discharging the weapon, you normally did lose sight of the target and had to reacquire the sight on the target. With the open iron sight, however, you’re only limited by what your eye can see, and if you’re really experienced with a firearm, you won’t lose your target at all after firing the weapon, but even if you do, it won’t take you as long to reacquire your sight on the target as it would with a telescopic sight” (Telephone interview of LAPD firearms expert by author on March 17, 2006).

  *Oswald’s particular Carcano, serial number C2766 (stamped on the left side of the barrel), was manufactured at the Italian government’s arsenal at Terni, Italy (fifty miles north of Rome), sometime during the year 1940, a version of an older design. Its first name came from the designer of the weapon’s predecessor in 1880, the Austrian, Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher; the second name, from one of two men who modified the original into its 1940 form, M. Carcano. Soon after the assassination, many Italian people referred to the rifle as il fucile maledetto—that “cursed gun.” How the weapon was used from the time of its origin in 1940 to the time it made its way into history is not known, but because the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was the rifle of the Italian army, it is believed it was used during the Second World War before Italy’s surrender in September 1943, after which it returned to the military warehouse at Terni. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier described Oswald’s Carcano thusly: “The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is not…in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion…It is a surplus type of weapon.” (3 H 394, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Wheeler, “Cursed Gun,” pp. 62–65)

  *At the London trial, I elicited from Oswald’s Marine squad mate in Santa Ana, Nelson Delgado, that the score on the range one gets during basic training (when Oswald fired as a sharpshooter) is extremely important because “that score is going to follow you throughout your military career. Your promotion is going to be based, in part, upon that.” But when you’re about to leave the military (as Oswald was when he only qualified as a marksman), there is no incentive to do well. I asked Delgado if he “got the impression that Oswald wasn’t even trying” when he shot for the record just before leaving the corps. Answer: “Yes.” Delgado said that during that period Oswald wasn’t even taking care of his rifle. I asked Delgado if he felt Oswald could have done better if he had tried during this last firing for the record and Delgado said he felt Oswald could have. (Testimony of Nelson Delgado, Transcript of On Trial, July 24, 1968, pp. 596–599; see also 11 H 304, WCT Maj. Eugene D. Anderson)

  The Marine rifle ratings are marksman, 190–209; sharpshooter, 210–219; and expert, 220–250.

  *Indeed, one rifleman got off three shots at the target in 4.1 seconds, less than 1.4 seconds per round, though he only had one hit. And on March 21, 1979, an HSCA marksman, firing at distances of 143, 165, and 266 feet, hit three of the three targets (though he missed the head portion of the target at 266 feet) in “less than 5 seconds for all three shots” (8 HSCA 184).

  † Relevant to this issue, I asked Lutz at the London trial, “How does the recoil of the Carcano compare with the recoil of other military rifles?” Answer: “It is considerably less.” “Would that tend to improve the shooter’s marksmanship under rapid-fire conditions?” “Yes, it would.” (Testimony of Monty Lutz, Transcript of On Trial, July 24, 1986, p. 454)

  ‡ As indicated earlier, the reasonable assumption is that Oswald used the iron sights on his Carcano. But if he had, indeed, used his four-power scope, the first shot at approximately sixty yards would have appeared to him to be only fifteen yards away, and the second shot at eighty-eight yards, only twenty-two yards away.

  *Owing to the differences in the automobiles, the reenactors were sitting ten inches higher than the president and governor were on the day of the assassination. This variance was accounted for by investigators in their calculations. (5 H 148, WCT Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt)

  *For those who feel that any projection backward shows a presumption toward Oswald’s guilt, note that the trajectory could not be projected forward. Since we know from the entrance wounds to the backs of Kennedy and Connally that the bullet was traveling on a straight line downward, any such projection forward to a possible source would have the assassin lying on the pavement of Elm Street flat on his back in front of the limousine. Even were th
at the alleged case, the body of the presidential limousine would be in the way of any of his bullets.

  † The pathology panel concluded from the X-ray evidence that although the bullet struck bone, it was undeflected and “proceeded in an essentially straight and forward path” to its point of exit (7 HSCA 176, 125–126).

  *Remarkably, as late as 2004, Posner wrote that “it would take nearly 30 years [by Failure Analysis, as reported by Posner in his book in 1993] for science to establish the [single-bullet] theory as fact” (Los Angeles Times, August 29, 2004, p. R5). But the Warren Commission clearly established the single-bullet theory by the testimony of scientists back in 1964, and the HSCA did likewise with scientists in 1978. Actually, science was never required, as Posner suggests. Only common sense. A bullet passing through soft issue in Kennedy’s body and then exiting the body had nowhere else to go but to Governor Connally’s body, which was in perfect alignment with Kennedy’s body to be hit by the exiting bullet. No more than ten seconds of reflection is necessary to know this.

  *The author devotes only one clause in one sentence to the reconstruction. And this clause actually suggests the opposite of a single-bullet conclusion. Also, buried as part of a caption for three photos in the photographic section, the author makes reference to the fact that there was a 1964 reconstruction (Posner, Case Closed, p. 327, photo section between pp. 320 and 321).