Oswald took 10.2 seconds to fire all three shots.

[Andrew Mason]

Andrew I’ll bunch these replies to all your comments (like shots).

-Thanks for the graph, its a good layout. I think that data is similar to what I have seen on pie charts created by Josiah Thompson, and separately by BBN data for the HSCA.

-The primary forensic evidence here is the Zapruder film and the Dorman film. If these are not considered forensic evidence then never mind.

The adjective “forensic” by itself means that it pertains to courts of law.  But the term “forensic evidence” has come to refer specifically to the application of scientific methods to evidence for the purpose of establishing facts in a court of law. For evidence to qualify as “forensic evidence” the science must be accepted by a court as being reliable and generally accepted by scientists in the particular field.  Not all scientific methods applied to evidence are accepted.  So the films themselves are simply photographic evidence.

Then forensic techniques are applied to the evidence. One is a forensic technique based the science of human reactions. This is supported by what is seen when synchronizing the continuous real time evidence of the Dorman film with the Zapruder film. If “anchored testimony”, which is separate from generic testimony, is evidence then that says the exact same thing as the first two.

 One may be able to demonstrate, for example, that X number of people turned their heads (or some other movement) in a certain direction within a certain time period. If X was large enough and if they all moved within a short enough period of time, the opinion of a qualified person might be accepted to assess the likelihood that they are reacting to some sort of common stimulus.  But if the evidence disclosed more than one possible stimulus, an opinion on what the head turning signified would not be admissible forensic evidence.

 
In the case of
- I suspect the equal spacing testimonies will not all agree on what they recall is the exact duration, to within hundreds of milliseconds of the spacing, which is what some researches demand. I think most of them seem to have a little shorter estimate than the estimated 5 or 5.2 seconds that I have, but maybe that effect is to be expected. Likewise unequal spacing commenters likely didn't all agree on the spacing to within hundreds of millisecond accuracy either. As such me commenting on your last three comments would have to get into interpretation of the generic witness statements, and what some researches think vs what other researchers think, about what the people making their statements really meant. I will let other testimony gurus argue about that.

I don’t see any obvious nearly simultaneous reactions that would allow one to identify the time of the first or second shots. JFK and JBC turn their heads from looking left to looking right within about half a second and Jackie follows after about a second. But that is also when Mary Woodward and her group shouted to get their attention. The reaction is consistent with that being the common stimulus. And it is not the reaction that many witnesses observed JFK to make to the first shot.

Another restriction on expert evidence is that it has to be needed to interpret evidence.  If ordinary people can understand and interpret the evidence, the opinion of an expert would not carry any more weight than that of an ordinary person.

Example: In the case of JFK showing signs of reaction when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign and JBC showing signs of a reaction a few frames later, there are several problems in using science to relate the two reactions.

First of all, one can conclude that JFK is reacting to his throat wound there but we can’t tell when the reaction began from the film.

The second problem is that the film doesn’t tell us which of the first two shots JFK is reacting to.  If it was the first shot (as many witnesses reported that JFK reacted that way to the first shot) there is evidence from the Connallys that JBC was not reacting to being hit in the back but was reacting to hearing it and fearing an assassination of JFK was occurring.

My paragraphs all have equal spacing. Well, I admit that does not guarantee that I am right.

You also had more than three paragraphs.

[Tom Mahon]

  So let me get this straight. A Carcano bullet striking an Asphalt Street will inflict No Damage to the street. A Carcano bullet striking a Skull will Explode the skull. Really?

Why do you perversely insist on misinterpreting almost everything?

Whoever said a Carcano bullet like Oswald's would cause no damage to an asphalt street?

[Royell Storing]

I didn’t see anything in the Cold Case JFK documentary about bullets hitting asphalt.  But there is a nice video on YouTube showing the damage that a .306 rifle bullet does to asphalt and it looked like this:


See:

No damage of any kind was found on any asphalt in DEALEY Plaza.

  MAHON - Guess you skipped over this.

[Andrew Mason]

  MAHON - Guess you skipped over this.

Yes. I missed the part where they found a divot in the asphalt in Dealey Plaza of any kind, let alone one shown to have been made by a bullet.  Perhaps you can enlighten us and dispel my ignorance.

[Jack Nessan]

I don’t have Thompson’s latest book, but if I’m not mistaken Thompson believes there were 4 shots, now having the last one fired from the Depository striking around z327.

I had to look back at my notes, but what I was referring to was related to the graph of Thompson’s data sourced from his first book, Six Seconds in Dallas, p.25, where he tabulated the number of shots. Awhile back I had used that data along with related data provided by BBN to the HSCA (report 4043), to look at what were the number of shots summarized for/by the folks who claimed there were at least 4 shots taken with one from the grassy knoll.

What bothered me at the time was that the HSCA had a report on the number of shots, but really didn’t seem to mention it, and rather chose to made the big splash with the statement from data on the acoustic static, where you could hear no shots, but claimed there was about a 95 probability that there were 4 shots. Both the HSCA and Thompson agree on 4 shots.

However both of their shot data summaries indicate, when tabulated to compare < 4 shots to > 4 shots, that nearly 95% of their reported witness data who reported audibly hearing shots, reported less than 4 shots. What it appears the HSCA concluded to do was to promote the diametric opposite of what the shot count data they had in hand indicated.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aHTdtI3rELdqrwSJZSPqZooEQ5Ctz8HC/view?usp=sharing

The HSCA dictabelt 4 shot saga was a knee jerk reaction to what was presented late in the hearings by Gary Mack and friends. Since has been proven to be totally false. 

WC Conclusion: "The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired"

HSCA Conclusion: "The committee believed that the witnesses memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have
been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22 1963"   HSCA Final Report- pg 87

The HSCA Sound Analysis report lists the exact same conclusion but still no real explanation other than they were surprised. This leaves the question why does being “surprised” cause someone to report more shots and not less?

HSCA Sound Analysis Conclusion: The buildings around the Plaza caused strong reverberations, or echoes, that followed the initial sound by from 0 .5 to 1 .5 sec . While these reflections caused no confusion to our listeners, who were prepared and expected to hear them, they may well have inflated the number of shots reported by the suprised witnesses during the assassination . HSCA Earwitness Analysis Report, pgs 135-137


Six Seconds in Dallas is the source of Josiah’s belief only two shots were fired from the Depository. The belief was the result of his observation of marks on the shell casings while filming for Life magazine. The big question is what did the FBI know as Josiah’s observations had also been previously noted and corroborated in the FBI’s analysis of the shell casings, but not to the extent of what Josiah had observed. It is entirely likely this is why the WC and HSCA felt the media influenced the witnesses into inflating the number of shots. Something that is never really explained.

[Jack Nessan]

   The "party line" has consistently been 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest. The foundation for this party line being the 3 Hulls laying on the floor of the sniper's nest. It would seem that Thompson is Now willing to challenge the bona fides of a 3rd hull. Looks like he is bucking to replace Cyril Wecht.

Josiah had questioned the physical evidence back in 1966 long before Cyril Wecht. Josiah’s analysis is based on physical evidence and the corroborating analysis of the FBI. The book Phantom shot proves what Josiah wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas. The book Six Seconds in Dallas proves the two shot witness analysis in Phantom Shot.

[Royell Storing]

Josiah had questioned the physical evidence back in 1966 long before Cyril Wecht. Josiah’s analysis is based on physical evidence and the corroborating analysis of the FBI. The book Phantom shot proves what Josiah wrote in Six Seconds in Dallas. The book Six Seconds in Dallas proves the two shot witness analysis in Phantom Shot.

   Generally I like Thompson. But you gotta question how a guy goes from: (1) Frogman, (2) Professor, (3) Best Selling Author, (4) Private Investigator (for decades), (5) Best Selling Author (again). Very strange trail. Also, when Thompson wrote his "Six Seconds In Dallas" blockbuster, he did several interviews for that book. Sitzman, Bill Newman, Skinny Holland, etc. Snippets from those interviews are used in his "Six Seconds........" book. I have read the text of the full interview of Sitzman. It's obvious that the Sitzman interview and most likely every other interview Thompson did for that book was tape recorded. Why have we Not heard these tape recorded interviews? Actually hearing eyewitnesses tell their story is very important in appraising the credibility of the eyewitness. This is especially important with the Sitzman interview. She detailed: (1) running up-n-down the Knoll after getting down from the Zapruder Perch, and, (2) seeing a Black Couple get up/off the bench they were sitting on and running up The Steps as the JFK Limo went under the Triple Underpass. None of this is on a single 11/22/63 image

[Brian Roselle]

The adjective “forensic” by itself means that it pertains to courts of law.  But the term “forensic evidence” has come to refer specifically to the application of scientific methods to evidence for the purpose of establishing facts in a court of law. For evidence to qualify as “forensic evidence” the science must be accepted by a court as being reliable and generally accepted by scientists in the particular field.  Not all scientific methods applied to evidence are accepted.  So the films themselves are simply photographic evidence.

 One may be able to demonstrate, for example, that X number of people turned their heads (or some other movement) in a certain direction within a certain time period. If X was large enough and if they all moved within a short enough period of time, the opinion of a qualified person might be accepted to assess the likelihood that they are reacting to some sort of common stimulus.  But if the evidence disclosed more than one possible stimulus, an opinion on what the head turning signified would not be admissible forensic evidence.
I don’t see any obvious nearly simultaneous reactions that would allow one to identify the time of the first or second shots. JFK and JBC turn their heads from looking left to looking right within about half a second and Jackie follows after about a second. But that is also when Mary Woodward and her group shouted to get their attention. The reaction is consistent with that being the common stimulus. And it is not the reaction that many witnesses observed JFK to make to the first shot.

Another restriction on expert evidence is that it has to be needed to interpret evidence.  If ordinary people can understand and interpret the evidence, the opinion of an expert would not carry any more weight than that of an ordinary person.

Example: In the case of JFK showing signs of reaction when he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign and JBC showing signs of a reaction a few frames later, there are several problems in using science to relate the two reactions.

First of all, one can conclude that JFK is reacting to his throat wound there but we can’t tell when the reaction began from the film.

The second problem is that the film doesn’t tell us which of the first two shots JFK is reacting to.  If it was the first shot (as many witnesses reported that JFK reacted that way to the first shot) there is evidence from the Connallys that JBC was not reacting to being hit in the back but was reacting to hearing it and fearing an assassination of JFK was occurring.

You also had more than three paragraphs.

Thanks for the legal references, and as you show, English composition was never a strong point for me, it was in fact a weak point. I guess with respect to some evidence and its interpretation, a jury would need to assess the technical competence of the presenter and the related legal and scientific art being presented.

It sounds like you have some legal training. You personally appear to disagree with the science of reactions presented here and the interpretation wrt being surprise voluntary reactions to gunshot. Others that I have mentioned before seem to believe its credible.

One person in particular who believed in the reaction interpretations, and who I know was very picky on having material that could be presented in court, was Ken Scearce. As an attorney Ken spent a good part of his career in trial litigations, and I’ll tell you from personal experience he would not take anything at face value without some fundamental basis he thought could be presented to a jury. He agreed with the technique we used enough to be a co-author on the study. Its too bad he recently passed away, It would have been great to hear/see the interaction between Ken and you (on this study he co-authored) with respect to the law and what could convince a jury.

Also, to be clear, I don’t have any intent to change your opinion on the first shot that missed, only to make more people aware of what Ken and I believed was a strong technique, with additional independent supporting evidence, for a better estimate on the timing of the first shot that missed. I personally believe there is probably more that can be uncovered photographic, or forensic wise in the case. One advantage to using new techniques to gain insight is that it could fuel more interest in the subject at hand which might fuel even more new investigative techniques uncovering even more.