The First Shot

[Pat Speer]

I see. In your mind, I'm the one off-topic.

Nixon resigned not knowing he would be pardoned. The pardon came a month after Nixon resigned, and after it was explained to Nixon that acceptance would mean "an admission of guilt".

    "At a 2014 panel discussion, Ford’s lawyer during that period,
     Benton Becker, explained an additional element that influenced
     Ford’s decision to issue a presidential pardon: a 1915 Supreme
     Court decision. In Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that
     a pardon carried an "imputation of guilt" and accepting a pardon
     was "an admission of guilt.” Thus, this decision implied that
     Nixon accepted his guilt in the Watergate controversy by also
     accepting Ford’s pardon.

     Prior to Ford’s issuance of the pardon, Becker was tasked with the
     difficult job of mediating the negotiations between Ford and Nixon.
     Becker said he took copies of the Burdick decision to California
     when he met with former President Nixon, and under Ford’s
     instructions, walked through the decision with Nixon.

     Becker said the discussion with Nixon was very difficult, and the
     former President kept trying to change the subject way from Burdick.
     Finally, Nixon acknowledged Becker’s argument about what the
     Supreme Court decision meant.

     After he left the White House, Ford carried part of the Burdick decision
     with him in his wallet in case someone brought up the pardon. In a
     later interview with Woodward for Caroline Kennedy’s book,
     “Profiles in Courage for Our Time,” Ford pulled out the dog-eared
     decision and read the key parts of it to [Bob] Woodward."

          -- The Nixon Pardon in Constitutional Retrospect
              National Constitution Center, September 8, 2020 ( Link )

                 

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

[John Tonkovich]

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

Accepting a pardon is an acknowledgment of guilt?

[Andrew Mason]

Although I suspect there was a quid pro quo, it's long been apparent that Ford thought this quid pro quo was justified, seeing as in accepting a pardon Nixon was admitting his guilt.
The next few months shall prove quite interesting, moreover, seeing as Trump will almost certainly "pardon" a number of those around him, and will try to pretend this doesn't mean they've committed crimes.

I hope Fox News' legal analysts, if no one else, makes this clear to him...that, in pardoning his sycophants, he is admitting his own criminality.

Trump was the "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the offences that Michael Cohen got 3 years for - basically following Trump's instructions to do the illegal acts on his behalf contrary to Federal Election laws. Trump can't pardon himself and be assured that the pardon will be effective.  So the only way he can avoid prosecution would be for another president to pardon him.  Perhaps he will turn the Presidency over to VP Pence at the last minute.  Then Pence can pardon him and perform all the official functions in the transition and Biden's inauguration.

But a federal pardon will not help Trump in dealing with offences against state law and he appears to be the subject of investigations in New York.

[Andrew Mason]

In this interview of James Tague around 1:17-1:45 describes the shots.  The first shot was a loud firecracker sound.  He wondered why anyone would set off a firecracker and then he heard two rapid shots about a second apart, he estimates:

He does not explain why he thinks he was hit by a separate shot and not a fragment from a shot that first struck in the car and fragmented.

In this interview of Bob Jackson who was riding in the press car, he describes (1:35-1:45) hearing a loud shot and then two shots closer together:

Jerry Organ thinks these witnesses heard it all wrong, including about another 40+ who heard the same thing: the last two shots close together.  I don't know how all that evidence can be disregarded, but it must be disregarded in order for the first shot to have missed.  No matter how you look at it: a second shot at z223 and the third shot 5 seconds later at z313 does not begin to fit the last two shots being in rapid succession and closer together than 1-2.

And with all the witnesses who described JFK reacting to the first shot it gets even more difficult to understand how the first shot could have missed.

The first shot DID NOT MISS.

[Andrew Mason]

Dirty lawyer up to his tricks.

Ad hominems, Jerry?  Really?

Well I think the witnesses most certainly got RIGHT their personal subjective recreation of the shot span spacing. Others spoke of even spacing and still others spoke of the first two shots being closer together. You obviously cling to the first group because they support your wacky pet theory.

No. My "wacky pet theory" is that these witnesses heard what they all said they heard: A shot, a pause and two shots in rapid succession.  So many recall hearing the same pattern that it is difficult to understand how they could have such similar recollections and be so wrong (ie. thinking 5 seconds was rapid).  But it is not just the shot spacing.  It is the dozens of witnesses who said JFK reacted to the first shot and the consistent witness recollections as to the timing of the first shot and location of JFK when it sounded. It all fits together: 3 shots: First hits JFK. Second hits JBC as Clint Hill leaps from the running board. Third at z313.  It also provides a better explanation of Governor Connally's wounds. And it is perfectly consistent with Oswald firing all three shots.

To me it's not science, and I think for most the "shot spacing" concentration (if any concentration; why would they for Pete's sake?) didn't kick in until after they heard the second shot; the first shot being thought of as a backfire or firecracker. BTW, if so many said Kennedy was struck on the first shot, why do so many speak of a backfire and firecracker?

Several people, including Clint Hill and Gov. Connally recognized it as a rifle shot. Others did not maybe because they had not heard a rifle but had heard cherry bomb fire crackers and backfires.  Cherry bombs were a big thing in the early sixties and they were deafening.

We have to match a witness group's purely-subjective recreation?

I'd like you to tell Bob Jackson to his face that he did not hear what he has always maintained that he distinctly recalled hearing and that it was just his purely subjective recreation.

It's like the stuff the Trump people are taking to the judges to get a recount.

No. It is a conclusion based on evidence.  By maintaining that speculation should be preferred over evidence, you are the one behaving that way.

Remember Nickerson and I looked into your first-shot-struck witnesses? Turned out many of them described Kennedy reacting to a slumping shot (Z220s), BUT the next shot they recalled was the head shot. You take honest God-fearing two-shot witnesses and make them into three-shot witnesses, by pretending they missed your Z271 second shot. That way the "slumping" shot becomes your Theory's "first shot".

There are too many "three shot, last two close together" witnesses to believe that they could have mistaken a 5 second pause between the last two shots for two rapid shots.  But, as I say, it is not just that evidence. 

You're turning into Trump, thinking he'll never concede. You' may not be far removed from the Donahue-Hickey Theory people who think the Bronson Film is too blurry and doesn't prove anything.

Again, Jerry, you should not use ad hominem arguments.  It makes it look like you can't deal with the evidence.

[Charles Collins]

There is almost always going to be conflicting witness accounts to most any event that has multiple witnesses. And when we have as many witnesses as we do in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, there are going to be a lot of conflicting accounts. Cherry-picking the witness accounts appears to be a popular way to argue various points. However, confirmation bias is difficult to avoid when choosing the witness accounts one wishes to use.

The timing of the two shots that hit JFK can be pretty closely determined by a viewing of the Zapruder film. The timing of remaining shot has always been elusive. I have tried to find visual evidence for this shot and believe it to be around the beginning of the Zapruder film segment that includes the shooting (Z133). For some details of the visual evidence see the thread "Why the First Shot Missed": https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2090.msg56228/topicseen.html#msg56228. And the thread "Victoria Adams' view from the fourth floor window: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2647.0.html.

Once some physical (visual) evidence supporting a theory is found, then one can attempt to prove or disprove this theory. Physical evidence should outweigh witness accounts due to the inherent unreliability of witness accounts. And some witness accounts are less ambiguous than others. Some examples are Victoria Adams' description which includes two stationary objects we can line up with the position of JFK at the time of when Victoria said she heard the first shot. Other examples are Howard Brennan's description in his 11/22/63 affidavit, and Bob Jackson's description.

I found another one while reading Bob Baskin's notes dated July 23, 1964. These were published in the book "The Reporters' Notes" by The Dallas Morning News. Here is an excerpt:

"As we turned off Main Street onto Houston for the last leg of the motorcade route to the Trade Mart at almost 12:30 p.m. We saw the President's car make the turn after that in front of the Texas School Book Depository building, gaining a bit of speed. The press car was halfway down the block before the left turn when the first shot rang out."

Here is a diagram of the position of the vehicles at Z133:



Bob Baskin and the other National Press representatives were in the vehicle marked "7" in this diagram. It is halfway down the block.

[Charles Collins]

Thank you for sharing something in an obscure book I'll probably never come across or my library would have. It's good to have a fresh piece of the puzzle. However, for example, the people in Car No.4 (Vice-Presidential car) suggest the first shot occurred later:

• Jacks (driver): "My car had just straightened up from making the left turn..."
• Youngblood (SS agent): "As we were beginning to go down this incline ..."
• LBJ" "After we had proceeded a short way down Elm Street..."
• Lady Bird: "We were rounding a curve, going down a hill..."

Not sure where that gets us, but the Z150s-160s would place Baskin about halfway along the Dallas County Records Bldg. Not mathematically-halfway relative to the whole block, but sort of consistent with his recollection of that day. I think the Z200s would be getting the press car too close to the end of the block.

Others in the press car:

Malcolm Kilduff (WH Assistant Press Secretary): "There was a longer
     pause between the first and the second than there was between
     the second and the third." (Andrew won't like that)

     Kilduff said he was near enough to read the sign over the doorway
     of the TSBD building and ask: "Would you mind telling me what in
     the name of heaven the Texas School Book Repository is? I never
     heard of a school book 'repository.'"

Bob Clark: "Right as we turned in front of the Texas School Book
     Depository I heard three extremely loud and clear shots."
     (He's taking about where they were during all the shots.)

Jack Bell: "There was a loud bang as though a giant firecracker
     had exploded in the cavern between the tall buildings we were
     just leaving behind us." (If Bell meant the gap between the
     Records and Criminal Courts Bldgs then Car No. 7 would
     have to be further along than Z133)

It is pointless to try to formulate an exact time of the shot in question based solely on all of the witness accounts because they are all different and conflicting and most are vague in one or more aspects (Bob Baskin’s account included). They can’t all be correct, and even if only one is chosen to be correct, it can often be interpreted differently in an attempt to support two different theories.

The visual evidence that points to an early missed shot is less disputable and helps to support the witness accounts that agree with it.

I think that Jack Bell was referring to the Main Street corridor surrounded by the tall buildings. They had just left it.

[John Tonkovich]

It is pointless to try to formulate an exact time of the shot in question based solely on all of the witness accounts because they are all different and conflicting and most are vague in one or more aspects (Bob Baskin’s account included). They can’t all be correct, and even if only one is chosen to be correct, it can often be interpreted differently in an attempt to support two different theories.

The visual evidence that points to an early missed shot is less disputable and helps to support the witness accounts that agree with it.

I think that Jack Bell was referring to the Main Street corridor surrounded by the tall buildings. They had just left it.

What is this "visual evidence" of a missed shot?
A missed first shot, no less?