The original interview with Jean Hill

[Allan Fritzke]

Given that, this was her very first interview (recorded), it might be worth noting what she had said:
Specifically,
Jean Hill:  1)  the shots came directly across the street from us. 
               2) And just as the President's car became directly even with us, we we took one look at him and he was sitting there him and Jackie were looking at a dog in the middle of the seat,

If you look at Z298 to Z300, this is a time in which from the Moorman and Hill vantage point, he appears to be directly even with them.  It is also at this point that it appears that the President does lift his head up slightly or in a "to look up" motion as she states.

Could she have  been correct then with her next statement?  Remember this initial interview was done while the President has still not being announced as being dead at Parkland Hospital.  It was conducted by James Darnell.   Is he one of the reporters in Car 2?
             
"...and at that time two shots rang out just as he looked up.   Just as the President looked up and these  two shots rang out and he grabbed his chest and looked like he was in pain and he fell over in his seat and Jackie fell over on him and said My God he has been shot!  Then after that more shots rang out and the car sped away.

Could Jean Hill have been referring to 2 shots that came in "just as he looked up" at that instant?   Something to think about!  Also 2 shots at that time means it can't be the carcano as a LNer.  From her vantage point at that time, she may have inferred a movement that he grabbed his chest.   She may not have been referring to
Z229 as that was a long ways away from where she was standing.

A second observation w.r.t. lambchop, dog puppet, flowers etc.  What exactly do we see tucked under the President's left hand on the Zapruder Film at Z225, observed for a number of slides?   A  shiny light aberration?  Shiny Chrome?  A shirt cuff? Something else physically present but different?

https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z200-z249/z225.jpg



https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg

[Ray Mitcham]

Allan, the white is probably the reflection of sunlight on the leather upholstery in the car. You can see Jackie's shape in the shadow on the seat. Just a suggestion.

[Steve Howsley]

Jeanocchio

 

Very concise. She was a liar of the highest order.

[Allan Fritzke]

No disputing that her testimony changed.  The question becomes was IF it was there right from the beginning?   Was she being paid to muddy the waters and inject false witness statements?  Or did she like the limelight and eventually sought more fame?   What was Nellie Connally's excuse other than to protect her husband's career?

We could do the same sort of test with Nellie Connally.  Did she never see her husband's wounds in the many years that she lived with the man?   She was in the car right next to him!   He ended up with a "baseball sized" gaping wound to the chest and due to her quick thinking, she covered the hole in his chest so he could breathe as he had a collapsed lung, otherwise he would have died.   Looking at her and his (Connally's)  movements in the car, her testimony is absolutely false.  Her head can be seen ducking down by the President's feet and his head can be seen in the corner behind driver Greer.  Totally in contradiction to what she said took place and him ending up "face up" in her lap!  It even looks like he may have even looked back at the President to see his condition!

We know from initial televised radio report that he was conscious in the room at Parkland Hospital shortly after the assassination (see original post) and issued 2 statements from that room at the same time that the President was dead.  That too me is a bigger issue when someone within the vehicle, mere feet away can stretch the truth so far that it becomes unbelievable and negates reality.   

Furthermore, if they got to see the Zapruder film in order to form their opinions, they had a distinct advantage over Jean Hill who didn't have that luxury - unless of course you want to make a claim that she was an insider and paid to feed false tesimony - or simply feared for her life.   The more confusion she can create with false statements, the less reliance you have on what anyone says at the scene as being true, dis-spelling all conspiracy theories and total reliance on the WC LN report.

[Royell Storing]

No disputing that her testimony changed.  The question becomes was IF it was there right from the beginning?   Was she being paid to muddy the waters and inject false witness statements?  Or did she like the limelight and eventually sought more fame?   What was Nellie Connally's excuse other than to protect her husband's career?

We could do the same sort of test with Nellie Connally.  Did she never see her husband's wounds in the many years that she lived with the man?   She was in the car right next to him!   He ended up with a "baseball sized" gaping wound to the chest and due to her quick thinking, she covered the hole in his chest so he could breathe as he had a collapsed lung, otherwise he would have died.   Looking at her and his (Connally's)  movements in the car, her testimony is absolutely false.  Her head can be seen ducking down by the President's feet and his head can be seen in the corner behind driver Greer.  Totally in contradiction to what she said took place and him ending up "face up" in her lap!  It even looks like he may have even looked back at the President to see his condition!

We know from initial televised radio report that he was conscious in the room at Parkland Hospital shortly after the assassination (see original post) and issued 2 statements from that room at the same time that the President was dead.  That too me is a bigger issue when someone within the vehicle, mere feet away can stretch the truth so far that it becomes unbelievable and negates reality.   

Furthermore, if they got to see the Zapruder film in order to form their opinions, they had a distinct advantage over Jean Hill who didn't have that luxury - unless of course you want to make a claim that she was an insider and paid to feed false tesimony - or simply feared for her life.   The more confusion she can create with false statements, the less reliance you have on what anyone says at the scene as being true, dis-spelling all conspiracy theories and total reliance on the WC LN report.

    Regardless of the what the memory of an assassination eyewitness may have Initially remembered, their having seen assassination films and photos after-the-fact DID shape those same recollections. This is true with the main players inside Dealey Plaza, as well as the Parkland Professionals that treated JFK. The SS and other Strong Arms knew this and quickly went to work on those eyewitnesses that challenged the Official Narrative being continually fed to the masses by the Fake News Media. 

[Allan Fritzke]

Royell, I couldn't have said it better myself.   The longer the delay, the better the outcome for those concerned.   Memories become foggier and testimony changes over time.  Jean Hill and Nellie Connally are both good examples of this process of some of the closest witnesses.   

Certainly never having called upon Jacqueline Kennedy also to give her account was extremely important.  She watched the whole thing unfold and was the best witness - never interviewed for good reason.   She did say publicly, they killed him and that it's not Jack!  Those were her only real statements made soon after.  I believe she could tell you when and how many shots actually occurred on that day.   Something she wouldn't be asked or answer.