RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Jim Hawthorn]

There are so many accounts of witnesses that are not consistent with each other. Anyone who has a theory can typically find at least one account that seems to support their theory, no matter how outlandish it may be. Follow the evidence and give the accounts that tend to agree with the evidence more weight than accounts that have no evidence to support them. Example: the clothing that JFK was wearing supports an exit wound in the throat.

I agree and it would seem to prove that the throat exit it was exit of that upper back entry shot. So explaining the bullet lying there next to his head is a real conundrum.

[Jon Banks]

Frankly, the fact that he was one of the Secret Service agents assigned to Jackie Kennedy instantly makes him and his outlandish story newsworthy. They’re in the business of selling newspapers. That doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with his morphed account.

That wasn't my point. The point is that they are at least treating him as credible. Which they don't typically do with books that go into JFK assassination conspiracy territory.  Do you think the Times didn't do their due diligence and ask people if Landis is senile or has a history of lying or exaggerating before running that article? This isn't anything like Tucker Carlson saying a friend told him the CIA killed JFK.

But IMHO, the Vanity Fair article on Landis is better written and has more details than Pete Baker's NY Times article. That's why I cited the VF article in the original post.

[Charles Collins]

I agree and it would seem to prove that the throat exit it was exit of that upper back entry shot. So explaining the bullet lying there next to his head is a real conundrum.

Not really, she’s apparently the only one who thinks she saw it. None of the other people who were there have said anything about seeing it. There’s nothing to support her account. She apparently misremembered it.

[Charles Collins]

That wasn't my point. The point is that they are at least treating him as credible. Which they don't typically do with books that go into JFK assassination conspiracy territory.  Do you think the Times didn't do their due diligence and ask people if Landis is senile or has a history of lying or exaggerating before running that article? This isn't anything like Tucker Carlson saying a friend told him the CIA killed JFK.

But IMHO, the Vanity Fair article on Landis is better written and has more details than Pete Baker's NY Times article. That's why I cited the VF article in the original post.

LOL, they asked Clint Hill who said (very nicely) that Landis’ outlandish story wouldn’t hold water. But they published it anyway. And only because it is newsworthy and will help them sell their paper. That’s all there is to it.

[Jon Banks]

LOL, they asked Clint Hill who said (very nicely) that Landis’ outlandish story wouldn’t hold water. But they published it anyway. And only because it is newsworthy and will help them sell their paper. That’s all there is to it.

No. Clint Hill said what Landis is saying now conflicts with what he said in his official statements in 1963. Which is worth keeping in mind but doesn't prove that he's not telling the truth now the same way that Malcolm Perry and other witnesses changing their statements about the assassination doesn't prove that they lied before or after their statements changed.

FWIW, Hill and Landis are friends as Landis' email exchange with Hill from 2014 proves.

Might want to wait til the book is released before jumping to any further conclusions...

[Charles Collins]

No. Clint Hill said what Landis is saying now conflicts with what he said in his official statements in 1963. Which is worth keeping in mind but doesn't prove that he's not telling the truth now the same way that Malcolm Perry and other witnesses changing their statements about the assassination doesn't prove that they lied before or after their statements changed.

FWIW, Hill and Landis are friends as Landis' email exchange with Hill from 2014 proves.

Might want to wait til the book is released before jumping to any further conclusions...

Having read Clint Hill’s three books, I know Hill and Landis are friends. I haven’t seen the email from 2014 that you have cited a couple of times. But I do know that Clint Hill is very much a gentleman who wouldn’t be unduly critical of his friends. I was a little surprised to see him be as critical of Landis’ outlandish story as he was in The NY Times article. It is what Hill said (without really saying it) that tells us the story is full of holes. I have pointed out a few of the holes. There are others.

[Andrew Mason]

I don’t remember that anyone has ever said that Landis was ever actually inside Trauma Room 1. But I could be forgetting something. The account you posted appears to indicate that he stayed outside the room in the corridor when Jackie went into the room. I know that the room was relatively small and that would have been a deterrent to anyone who wasn’t needed in there.

The fact that he thought he remembered "Mrs . Kennedy following the people in but coming out almost immediately"  suggests she came into the room where he was ie. he did not go in.

If Landis actually did pick up a bullet from the limo, the bullet he describes is consistent with CE399.  It is highly unlikely in any conceivable shooting scenario that there would be two such whole bullets with a small indentation on the butt end.  At best, Landis' account would explains how CE399 got from the car to a stretcher.  But not JFK's stretcher.

[Richard Smith]

There's something not right here. Do y'all really think it's credible that a Secret Service agent would put such an immensely valuable piece of evidence on a hospital stretcher?  - where it could have easily gone unnoticed momentarily and dropped off, rolled under a cupboard, been fingered, stolen as a souvenir?
Following professional protocol, he would immediately have pocketed the bullet, then submitted it to be bagged as crucial evidence.

So, the discovery of the bullet on the stretcher points more to an "amateur" plant.

The first part is correct.  There is no conceivable reason that a SS agent would leave the bullet that he believes was used to assassinate the president on a stretcher.  That is absurd.  Then never say a word about doing that for six decades?  No one can believe that narrative.  These people have been hounded by CTers for decades.  Telemarketers and scam artists target the elderly for a reason.  Clint Hill is trying to be polite to an aging colleague.