The First Shot

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks. I was having trouble locating the spot where she mentioned the scarf. Fair enough, but she didn’t say that was the sole basis for her identification. And it is the only visible blue scarf in the line of people, so she must remember wearing a blue scarf. We don’t know the color of Simmons’ scarf. Dan is calling Westbrook’s recollection “faulty” merely because he believes it’s someone else.

[Andrew Mason]

Thanks. I was having trouble locating the spot where she mentioned the scarf. Fair enough, but she didn’t say that was the sole basis for her identification. And it is the only visible blue scarf in the line of people, so she must remember wearing a blue scarf. We don’t know the color of Simmons’ scarf. Dan is calling Westbrook’s recollection “faulty” merely because he believes it’s someone else.

The fact is that there are several women in the zfilm wearing headscarves. If she is identifying herself by the headscarf alone there would have to be something distinctive about it. But there doesn't appear to be.

It should be noted that the family of Gloria Calvery identified her as the 9th person east of the Stemmons sign in the zfilm. Based on Karen Westbrook's height, she would be the third person east (left) of Gloria Calvery (12th person from the Stemmons sign). Coincidentally that person is wearing a light scarf and a black coat....

[John Iacoletti]

The fact is that there are several women in the zfilm wearing headscarves. If she is identifying herself by the headscarf alone there would have to be something distinctive about it. But there doesn't appear to be.

It’s the only blue one I see.

It should be noted that the family of Gloria Calvery identified her as the 9th person east of the Stemmons sign in the zfilm.

You mean her son Chris, who was born in 1977.

Based on Karen Westbrook's height, she would be the third person east (left) of Gloria Calvery (12th person from the Stemmons sign). Coincidentally that person is wearing a light scarf and a black coat....

Only if you assume that “was with” necessarily means side by side. If that is even Calvery. Also, if Westbrook remembers standing next to Calvery, then that doesn’t work.

[Andrew Mason]

It’s the only blue one I see.

It is not apparent that she remembered the colour. Maybe she wished she had the scarf to see whether it was light blue like that seen in the zfilm. In fact, since the colour is the only distinguishing feature of the scarf, that is probably what she meant.

You mean her son Chris, who was born in 1977.

He knew what she looked like and I expect had seen many pictures of her from around that time.

Only if you assume that “was with” necessarily means side by side. If that is even Calvery. Also, if Westbrook remembers standing next to Calvery, then that doesn’t work.

I don't recall her saying that she remembered who stood beside her independently of seeing the zfilm. She thought she recognized the person beside her (ie. the person who she thought was herself) as "Gloria Calvert" (sic) in the zfilm.

[Jack Nessan]

Greer said he heard three shots and felt a concussion at the time he heard the second shot.  Nellie Connally heard and observed the effects of each of three shots striking in the car. Gov. Connally heard the first and third shots.  He did not hear the second shot but he felt its impact.
She said she couldn't tell if she heard the third shot because the visual effect of it dominated her perception of the event.  She never said a third shot did not occur. See 13:37 of the interview:

The explanation offered by the Connallys is certainly possible. But I suppose you think they were spouting drivel as well.

G Newman: Went from “A third shot rang out.” to “I can’t tell you I even heard that third shot.” A very definitive description of the sound of a third shot followed by Gayle never really heard one at all. It “rang” out. That is about hearing a shot instead of not seeing one.

 At 23:30 Gayle describes 1 shot and blood in the 11/22/63 interview, not the two shots described in the 50th anniversary interview.

During the interview, Bill repeatedly told Jay Watson he did not know about a third shot despite being pressed by Watson to include a third shot. Bill described JBC reacting to the first shot. After the first shot “he did not know which man was hit first”


At 21:00 Bill Newman describes, within minutes of the assassination, exactly what took place. JFK and JBC were wounded at the same time by the first shot and that there were only two shots.

Gayle is talking about one initial shot in 11/22/63, not two like the 50th anniversary interview.

 

Greer, despite adding a third shot to his WC testimony, he still claimed he accelerated after the second shot, exactly the same as Kellerman’s testimony. After Greer’s testimony to the WC, Arlan Specter wrote a memo to Rankin in which he stated “Mr Greer told me on March 3rd he recollected two shots, but testified he heard three shots.” 


It has been explained to you ad nauseum, JBC’s words after he was wounded and Nellie’s and Jackie subsequently identifying after which shot it occurred. The Connally’s explanation is possible? Really that is your analysis?

Nelly told the press immediately after the assassination she did not know about a third shot.

Drivel is the idea of this bizarre explanation for JBC's wounds.

Can you really not understand these witnesses also spoke to the press as well as the FBI, Sheriff’s Dept, police and others?

[John Iacoletti]

It is not apparent that she remembered the colour. Maybe she wished she had the scarf to see whether it was light blue like that seen in the zfilm. In fact, since the colour is the only distinguishing feature of the scarf, that is probably what she meant.

If that’s the case, then the scarf couldn’t have been her only basis for identifying herself, as there are several scarf-wearing figures in Zapruder.

He knew what she looked like and I expect had seen many pictures of her from around that time.

Pictures of the oh-so-distinctive back of her body?

[Andrew Mason]

If that’s the case, then the scarf couldn’t have been her only basis for identifying herself, as there are several scarf-wearing figures in Zapruder.

The colour would help identify her as there is only one of that light blue colour.  If she wanted to see the scarf to help identify her in the Zapruder film, she must have been unsure of the colour.

I did notice in high resolution zfilm frames that the colour of the dress or coat worn by the 12th person east of the Stemmons sign (three east of the woman identified by Calvery's son as his mother Gloria Calvery) is a rather distinctive pattern that appears to be dark blue and dark green:



Since that would appear likely to be Karen Westbrook if the person indicated by the arrow is Gloria Calvery, perhaps someone could ask her if she recognized that garment.  I hadn't been able to see that pattern in other frames of the zfilm that I have, which make it look black.

Pictures of the oh-so-distinctive back of her body?

She had a distinctive large build and there is no one else that fits that build.  He also identified her in the Betzner photo which shows her face. He may have had a higher resolution frame than this:



in which case he may have been able to see if she was wearing glasses.

[Dan O'meara]

"thus herself" does not actually follow.

And the way you know about Gloria Calvery's height and hair is from a photo identified by . . . Karen Westbrook.  So your "common sense" tells you that Westbrook is correct except when she isn't.

The woman in the Z film still (which isn't necessarily correctly color-balanced) does have reddish hair, and the "flaming red hair" as you call it was in a photo taken a month later and isn't necessarily natural.  Westbrook knew Calvery and worked with her every day.  Your "expertise" is based on a single photo that wasn't taken at the time.

So, your "certainty" is your own illusion.

There's nothing "clearly faulty" about her scarf.  That's a circular argument.

What I actually said was that she is more of an authority on where she stood than some Internet blowhards (including you and me -- but especially Tommy Graves).

I don't hold anybody to an impossible standard of proof.  That's just what people who make handwaving speculative arguments like to use to try to divert from the weaknesses of their arguments.

This is laughably disingenuous.  How do you know those figures in the Z film are a "trio"?  "Same general location"?  You mean Dealey Plaza?  Or near the pergola?  That applies to everybody on Elm street.  "Same relative shades"?  You're equating a color image with a black and white image.  On what basis are you comparing "shades"?  "Same hairstyles"?  There's nothing particularly distinctive about their hairstyles and you're comparing opposite sides of their heads.  This is the epitome of handwaving, even for you.  You don't see "any differences", therefore they are necessarily the same people.  There is not nearly enough information for your remarkable claim that they are "identical in every way".

The notion that any of the figures in Cabluck are distinctive enough to match to specific names is even more laughable.

Lots of TSBD employees were standing near the intersection of Elm and Houston.  Nobody mentioned everybody they were standing with.  You're cherry-picking away anything that doesn't match what you want to believe.  Including the fact that both Holt and Jacob said they were standing on the south side of Elm street.

Do you really think they independently used the exact same word-for-word descriptions?

Except the people in question aren't even close to the halfway point between the TSBD building and the underpass.

The women in Darnell are recognizable.  The figures in Zapruder are not -- your handwaving and completely unsubstantiated "identical in every measurable detail" claim notwithstanding.

Incidentally, neither Jacob, Holt, or Simmons said in CE 1381 that the three were standing side-by-side.  And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know which figures in a long line of people are "together".

Highly dishonest.  She didn't say her identification of herself was based on the figure wearing a headscarf.

To have you label my research "disingenuous" and "dishonest" is a sick joke.
I have always honestly striven to provide my best interpretation of the evidence, what I feel is the most reasonable and common sense interpretation. And I have always provided as much evidence as I can muster about whatever aspect of the case is under discussion.
I don't duck or avoid anything.
You, on the other hand, just snipe from the sidelines in a most cowardly fashion.

The sole factor in Westbrook's identification of herself in the Z-film is a headscarf she once owned. That's it. There is nothing else.
That you are unaware of this is just sloppy and lazy research.
That you are satisfied this is enough evidence to provide any kind of identification shows how piss-poor your own standards are.

The woman in the Z film still (which isn't necessarily correctly color-balanced) does have reddish hair

Utter dishonesty on your behalf. She doesn't have reddish hair or red-like hair or a hint of red - she has blonde/fair hair.



A completely different colour to Gloria Calvery's flame-red hair

screen shot in windows

On the subject of dishonesty as a researcher, I notice you fail to address the argument that Gloria Calvery is far taller and far more heavily built than Carol Ann Reed.
Westbrook's identification of the two women to her left is clearly mistaken. I have provided evidence to demonstrate this. All you have is that Westbrook recognises her long lost scarf [which she never refers to as being blue, by the way].

As Westbrook's identification of her colleagues is wrong and as she locates these colleagues in relation to her own location, then it follows, logically, that the identification of herself in the Z-film is wrong.

You don't see "any differences", therefore they are necessarily the same people.  There is not nearly enough information for your remarkable claim that they are "identical in every way".


More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I stated that, just because I don't see any differences, these are necessarily the same people. What a really underhanded misrepresentation of what I actually said, which was:

"Any physical comparison that can be made between the three women in each image reveals they are identical in every way. There are no differences."



If I've been so disingenuous then maybe you can point out a single physical difference between the two images.
One wearing a headscarf, two not.
One with dark, bushy hair, one with shoulder length fair hair.
Two wearing dark coloured coats, one wearing a lighter coloured dress.

The point being that this analysis only supports the identification of the three women in the Z-film as Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
But if there is a physical difference between the women in these two images, NAME IT.

Incidentally, neither Jacob, Holt, or Simmons said in CE 1381 that the three were standing side-by-side.  And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you know which figures in a long line of people are "together".

More dishonesty.
Nowhere have I said that I "know" which figures in a long line are together.
A pathetic Strawman if there ever was one.
Jacob, Holt and Simmons went to watch the motorcade together. It is a completely reasonable assumption that people going to watch something together will stand together.
Simmons specifically states she was stood with Holt and Jacobs at the time of the assassination.

Lots of TSBD employees were standing near the intersection of Elm and Houston.  Nobody mentioned everybody they were standing with.  You're cherry-picking away anything that doesn't match what you want to believe.  Including the fact that both Holt and Jacob said they were standing on the south side of Elm street.

Really unbelievable.
Out of all the available CE 1381's you cherry-picked Judy Johnson's to make some kind of point.
I then provided an analysis of ALL the CE 1381's relevant to this point - Johnson, Richey, Dragoo, Arnold, Simmons, Holt and Jacob.
And you accuse me of cherry-picking!
Utter hypocrisy.
The only reasonable interpretation of ALL the CE 1381's is that Holt and Jacob left the TSBD building with Johnson but then took up a position way down Elm Street, far from the intersection of Elm Street and Houston Street.

Except the people in question aren't even close to the halfway point between the TSBD building and the underpass.

You're absolutely correct John.
And you are correct that Holt and Jacob mention the south side of Elm Street.
A dishonest researcher will leave it at that, the women in question are not halfway between the TSBD building and the underpass, and they are not stood on the south side of Elm. End of story.
A more honest researcher would look at all the information given in the CE 1381's and then come to a conclusion.
So let's do some honest research, it might be something you could get into.

Firstly, a really rough approximation of where Simmons says all three were stood - halfway between the TSBD building and the triple underpass. Using Roberdeau's map:
I have run a straight line from the main TSBD building to Elm Street.
Then a line down to the triple underpass.
Measured half way and extended that to Em Street.
The circle represents a rough approximation of where Simmons estimates they were stood.
It is, more or less, at the bottom of the steps that lead up to the picket fence area.
It is a basic measurement so there's no need to lose your mind over it.



The Orville Nix film below shows that there is no-one stood on Elm Street anywhere near this point. The last person we see stood on the north side of Elm Street is Bill Newman.

So Simmons was clearly in error with her estimation.
But what further information can we glean from her CE 1381:

"At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street about midway between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the underpass on Elm Street.
I was with Jeannie Holt...and Stella Jacob...at the time the President was shot."

Apart from her incorrect estimation we find that:
1) She was stood on the sidewalk
2) She was stood with Holt and Jacob
3) Their position was between the TSBD building and the triple underpass.

The estimation of fifty yards down Elm Street, attributed to Holt and Jacob also puts them between the TSBD building and the triple underpass. Both say they were stood on the curb when they took up their positions. Simmons states they were stood on the sidewalk.
If they were stood on the south side of Elm Street they would be stood on the grassy area opposite where Zapruder was filming.
We never see them in the Z-film so we can assume the "south" part of their statement was some kind of misunderstanding on someone's part.
We do not see them near the steps in Nix, or on the south side in Zapruder.
So, where are they?



In the Bronson pic above (ignore the red arrow) we see Bill Newman at the far left stood on the north side of Elm Street [the last person stood on the north side of Elm in the Nix film].
Between him and the woman in the blue headscarf there are no candidates for the three women we are looking for.
There can be no doubt that the women must, by process of elimination and the factors revealed in the CE 1381's, there is zero doubt that the women must appear in this picture:



Let's assume that when Simmons says she was stood with Holt and Jacob, she was doing exactly that - stood with Holt and Jacob
This would have us looking for the three of them stood together, on the sidewalk of Elm Street, between the TSBD building and the underpass.
What could we possibly use to pinpoint their exact location?
As luck would have it, there is a photograph with the confirmed identity of all three women on the day of the assassination.



What would an honest researcher conclude in this situation John?