WC Member's Views Confirmed By HSCA

[Jack Nessan]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

 It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6%  attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.

[Andrew Mason]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there.

Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard  -  and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:

To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.

[Rob Caprio]

Brother Rob, stay focused. You have already figured out with this two shooter theory that only two shots were fired from the SN but three shells were found there. To date you have been unable to prove there was even three shots fired. To date you cannot explain th wounds to JBCV unless the bullet first passes through JFK. If you don't believe all seven wounds were from one bullet, how many wounds did the jacketed bullet cause before it ran out of energy?

 It is all about a five second interval and what really happened. In that period you stated there was two shooters. Three shells were discovered in one location. The WC, which Sen Russell was a member, believed there was only two maybe three shots. Unless the shooters were shoulder to shoulder there is a big flaw in this two shooter theory. Does there really need to be a second shooter to explain what happened?
----------------------------------------
Sen Russell had a reserved front row seat to history and a chance to make a difference in the investigation. He chose to leave that seat vacant and instead critque and criticize the effort that was made to resolve the question as to what happened that day. Maybe the level of respect for his opinion should be comparable to his level of participation, which was virtually non existant. 6%  attendance, why bother attending at all. Why care what he thinks. When it was time to matter Sen Russell went missing.

Still no evidence showing that the SBT occurred. Pure distraction.

[Jack Nessan]

Harold Norman not only stated that he heard three shots fired but he heard  -  and demonstrated - that he heard the bolt action operate three times, once after each shot, and heard a shell hit the floor each time. See this clip beginning at about 3:45:

One cannot hope to prove to YOU that there were three shots. But that does not mean that it cannot be proven to a rational trier of fact, such as the WC, that there were, in fact, three shots fired. There is certainly abundant evidence that three shots were fired.

There is no evidence that there was three shots having been fired. Giving up on the Z250+ shot theory? If it ever was a theory.

"One"--- whose "One?"  Are you "One?" Just prove there was three shots "One" and stop claiming evidence that does not exist. Obviously the WC wasn't convinced. The WC stated the only reason they concluded there was three shots was the discovery of three shells in the SN. That is it. They definitely felt it was likely there was only two shots. Probably because that is all the evidence shows there was ever fired. Evidence of two bullets and numerous eyewitness accounts. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean the WC members didn't.

Maybe evaluating witness statements isn't really your strong suit. You obviously should not be quoting Norman when there was two others  beside him that give a more detailed explanation immediately following the assassination not four days later. Nor would you be quoting him if you really had read his testimony.

-----------------------------------

Norman? Giving up on Hickey and Hudson? BRW stated there was two shots and Jarman stated the headshot was the second shot. Norman makes no statement until four days later. You apparently do not know anymore about the statements of Norman than you did the other witnesses you have quoted. What to Hudson and the second shot being a headshot, or what happened to Hickey and the hair waving? Seems that is where you disappeared earlier.

Hickey's statement: A passing cartoon like bullet making JFK's hair wave, followed up with the idea that the  bullet would then have had to nosedive to inflict a wound near JBC's armpit instead of hitting JBC in the head.

Hudson: Second shot the head shot.

[Jack Nessan]

Still no evidence showing that the SBT occurred. Pure distraction.

You are claiming two shooters and no SBT because of your interpreation of Sen Russell's statements.

Still no evidence there was three shots. Still no explanation of the two shooters. Pure avoidance.

Almost surreal is the fact LNer's are trying to help you with the belief in three shots. Everyone needs there to be three shots for whatever theory. Except no one can prove there was three shots.

[Rob Caprio]

You are claiming two shooters and no SBT because of your interpreation of Sen Russell's statements.

Still no evidence there was three shots. Still no explanation of the two shooters. Pure avoidance.

Almost surreal is the fact LNer's are trying to help you with the belief in three shots. Everyone needs there to be three shots for whatever theory. Except no one can prove there was three shots.

Quote me claiming one thing that *you* have attributed to me. Go ahead.

I have done nothing but tell you what the WC claimed. Why do you misrepresent what others have said?

Pure snow job.

[Jack Nessan]

Quote me claiming one thing that *you* have attributed to me. Go ahead.

I have done nothing but tell you what the WC claimed. Why do you misrepresent what others have said?

Pure snow job.

How could this misconception have occurred? Two shooters with one leaving three shells. Caprio: "The SBT is false"..... OP: "if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved."


Brother Rob OP: Unfortunately for us, Senator Russell never seemed to grasp the significance of his statements regarding the SBT.  In his September 18, 1964, telephone conversation with LBJ, Russell said that his rejection of the SBT "don't [sic] make much difference" and was "just a little thing." He didn't seem (or want to see) grasp the fact that if the SBT was false there had to be more than one assassin involved.

Brother Rob: "The SBT is false. Without it I don't see how you can say that there was only one shooter."

Brother Rob: "My OP shows that Senator Russell had grave doubts about the SBT, as did several other members, and without the SBT there had to be a second shooter.
"
Brother Rob: "What it means is that you lie about what other people say AND that you cannot support the WC's ridiculous SBT claim that you endorse."

Bother Rob: "Another LNer that can't support their belief with evidence. The evidence shows that LHO fired NO shots, but we are discussing the fictitious SBT. "

[Andrew Mason]

There is no evidence that there was three shots having been fired. Giving up on the Z250+ shot theory? If it ever was a theory.

It is apparent that you do not understand what the term "evidence" means. There are witnesses who recalled three shots. Harold Norman said he heard three shots being fired and heard the bolt action 3 times.  That is all evidence. So when you say there is "no evidence" of three  shots having been fired, you are not speaking the same language that the rest of us are speaking. 

"One"--- whose "One?"  Are you "One?" Just prove there was three shots "One" and stop claiming evidence that does not exist. Obviously the WC wasn't convinced. The WC stated the only reason they concluded there was three shots was the discovery of three shells in the SN. That is it. They definitely felt it was likely there was only two shots. Probably because that is all the evidence shows there was ever fired. Evidence of two bullets and numerous eyewitness accounts. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean the WC members didn't.

Perhaps you missed the part on page 111 of the WC Report where the WC concluded:

"Nevertheless, the preponderance of the evidence, in particular the three spent cartridges, led the Commission to conclude that there were three shots fired".

How does that mean that the WC definitely felt it was likely that there were only two shots?

Maybe evaluating witness statements isn't really your strong suit. You obviously should not be quoting Norman when there was two others  beside him that give a more detailed explanation immediately following the assassination not four days later. Nor would you be quoting him if you really had read his testimony.

Why is that?  He not only recalled three shots, he heard three operations of the bolt action and heard three shells drop.

-----------------------------------

Norman? Giving up on Hickey and Hudson? BRW stated there was two shots and Jarman stated the headshot was the second shot. Norman makes no statement until four days later. You apparently do not know anymore about the statements of Norman than you did the other witnesses you have quoted. What to Hudson and the second shot being a headshot, or what happened to Hickey and the hair waving? Seems that is where you disappeared earlier.

Hudson's first statement is very different from his testimony in July/64 to the WC. Why do you prefer his later statement?  As far as Hickey is concerned, he said the second shot appeared to miss JFK because all he saw was his hair flew forward at the time of the second shot and there was no impact.  He saw the impact of the third shot.

Hickey's statement: A passing cartoon like bullet making JFK's hair wave, followed up with the idea that the  bullet would then have had to nosedive to inflict a wound near JBC's armpit instead of hitting JBC in the head.

That just shows you have not analyzed the trajectory.  The trajectory at z271 was downward from the SN at an angle of 15 degrees.  So over the 24 inches between JFK and JBC the bullet would have dropped 6.3 inches.  So if the bullet had passed  just over JFK's right shoulder and dropped 6 inches by the time it reached JBC, where do you think it would have struck him?

Hudson: Second shot the head shot.

Read his first statement.