I think this thread is slightly misleading in that it implies Wecht is somehow supporting the idea of a flechette, which he most certainly isn't. He states quite clearly that there is not a shred of evidence to support this notion.
The whole idea of an umbrella firing flechettes at JFK as he passes by is one of the many reasons I find it embarrassing to be lumped in with CTers. Someone is firing, what appears to be, frangible rifle rounds at JFK causing his head to explode - what, exactly, is a flechette bringing to the party? It's like someone giving you a wedgie while being beaten to a pulp by Mike Tyson in his prime.
Even more surprisingly, I agree with Royell's point about Witt. There is something very, very wrong with his testimony. He has either got a tragically bad memory or he's lying.
Below are some excerpts from his HSCA testimony:
"Well, as I recall, the motorcade had already made the turn and was coming down Elm Street going west on Elm before I became aware it was there, and it would have been from a straight-line position off to my left about like this [indicating] when I saw it...I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street...As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots...I continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air. I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall...As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me. The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like
this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things." In his account, even though the lead car and lead motorcycles have already passed by, Witt seems almost caught out by the arrival of the motorcade, as if he didn't hear the commotion in the crowd as it entered Dealey Plaza. After initially seeing the motorcade, he begins to move forward trying to open his umbrella. As the shots are fired he sees nothing because he has his umbrella in front of him blocking his view. By the time he has his umbrella up, the first thing he sees is the moment Clint Hill runs between the two cars, yet he doesn't recall seeing the head shot. In fact, he doesn't mention seeing JFK at any stage even though the whole point of him being there was to heckle JFK:
Mr. GENZMAN. Did President Kennedy see your umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I have no way of knowing. I really don't.The photographic record reveals that none of this is true.
Around z230, Bronson takes this image (cropped). The umbrella is high in the air and UM appears to be looking in the direction of the limo.
Around z202, Willis takes this pic showing the umbrella fully open and raised but not as high as it is in the Bronson pic:
The way the UM is holding the umbrella is way higher in the Bronson pic than the Willis pic. In the Z-film, from Z206 onwards, the umbrella can be seen as it is raised into this higher position. The important point is that the UM has the umbrella up and is watching JFK before the first shot has even been fired. The UM is clearly watching the limo and reacting to it's approach by raising the umbrella higher into the air as the limo gets near. It is a fact that Witt is not telling the truth in his HSCA testimony.
Why?
