JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[gillianren]

And certainly the bullets will tend to go in a straight line until something happens to prevent it--like hitting someone or something, for example.

[Jason Thompson]

Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.

[gillianren]

Oh, sure.  I don't think the mystery of exactly which shot, first or third, he was struck by a fragment of will ever be resolved.  I'm just saying that any changes in trajectory for a TSBD shot involve known physics.  Changes in trajectory required for a Grassy Knoll shot do not.

[ka9q]

Where did you get the evidence that the mark was collinear with the TSBD

I used Google Earth; you can too.

I used Tague's WC testimony to locate him. During the shooting he was standing between Commerce St and Main St just east of the bridge abutment of the triple underpass, about 3-4 feet in front of the embankment. He marked this location as "6" on Warren Commission exhibit CE354, an aerial photo of Dealy Plaza.

After the shooting a deputy sheriff noticed blood on Tague's cheek. They walked back to Tague's location during the shooting and found a fresh mark on the south curb of Main St about 12-15 feet east of where Tague had been standing. Tague was not sure when he was hit; it was either the second or third shot.

Although at the time Tague thought the shots came somewhere from "area C" (the grassy knoll) he was specifically asked if he thought the shots could actually have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. He said yes. Note that from Tague's position the shooter's true location (6th floor TSBD) was only about 10 degrees right of the grassy knoll area. Not much.

Using Google Earth I drew a line from Oswald's window on the 6th floor of the TSBD through the "X" in the street where JFK was struck in the head from behind at Z313. This was the flight path of Oswald's third bullet. It has an azimuth of 210.4 degrees clockwise from true north.

I continued that line southwest to represent the flight path of a fragment leaving JFK's head without any horizontal deflection. It intersects the south curb of Main St about 50 feet east of the bullet mark.

I then drew a second line from the "X" on the street to the bullet mark on the curb. Its azimuth is 218 degrees. In other words, a mere 8 degrees of deflection would cause a fragment leaving JFK's head to hit the mark on the curb.

We know that Oswald's third bullet produced many fragments. Only two large ones were found, on the floor of the limo, and their combined weight was much less than a complete bullet. If Tague and the curb were hit by separate fragments, then the one that hit Tague directly would have had an azimuth of 218.8 degrees. That's still only 8.4 degrees of deflection.

Where are the official FBI or Dallas Police photos of this evidence?

A picture of the bullet mark on the curb is Tague Exhibit 1 in the Warren Commission collection.

Where is the official FBI or Dallas Police reports concerning this evidence?
Did they search for the bullet fragment that caused this mark, did they locate it?

At this point I think you can search for that information yourself.

[profmunkin]

Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.

Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?

[ka9q]

Oh, sure.  I don't think the mystery of exactly which shot, first or third, he was struck by a fragment of will ever be resolved.

The Warren Commission concluded that a fragment from the third (head) shot most likely hit Tague. Sturdivan, in The JFK Myths (which I recommend), agrees. Tague himself thought it was either the second or third shot, and we know for certain it couldn't have been the second. But most importantly, Tague, JFK and Oswald were closest to collinear (forming a straight line) at the time of the third shot, and we know that this bullet fragmented quite extensively when it hit JFK's skull. So I agree with both the WC and Sturdivan.

It's now pretty much agreed that Oswald's first shot completely missed the limousine. But it still could not possibly have hit Tague or the curb near him. The curb mark was pure lead, meaning it had to have been made by the core of a bullet after separation from its jacket. Whatever hit the curb also lacked the energy to even damage the concrete, only leaving a smear of lead.

Problem is, we still don't know exactly when the first shot was fired because the only indicators in the Z film are the startled reactions of the bystanders. That makes it hard to tell exactly what did happen to the first bullet.  Sturdivan says that Oswald's first shot could have been as early as Z152. His view was not yet obstructed by the oak tree, but he would have had to fire more sharply downward from a different and less ideal shooting position than his later two shots. Even though the car was very close, its rapid angular motion past Oswald could have caused him to miss. Or he might have fired accidentally, or he might simply have been nervous.  The one man who could tell us is long dead, so who knows?

A witness, Virgie Rachley, saw the first shot hit the street but she was inconsistent about whether it was behind or in front of the limousine. Sturdivan says that even if the first bullet hit the street intact, i.e., without deflection by the oak tree, it hit at such a steep angle that it would necessarily have fragmented and buried itself. It could not possibly have been deflected downrange toward Tague.

[ka9q]

Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path[...]This is plausible, don't you think?

Ordinarily I would assume that no one could say this without their tongue firmly planted in cheek, but with you I am unwilling to make such an assumption.

[profmunkin]

I think you can search for that information yourself.

Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.

Just pull up Commission Exhibit No. 354 it has all the locations, area (c) and number (7) already marked on the map, exhibit 354.
It indicates the exact spot Tague was indicating as the location for the shots and the direction of the mark, coincidentally or not, both are at the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

Where is this key piece of evidence, the mark on the concrete?

Ya you betcha, I could spend my life searching for information that 1 is not there or 2 it is classified because it indicates the grassy knoll as the direction of the shot.

[profmunkin]

"Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. "

Ya, lets.just.disregard.this, Mr Liebler now ask Tague again if the shots could have come from the TSBD, after he just told you multiple times he thought the shots came from the picket fence.

Not only leading the witness, Liebler is asking for an opinion, if it would be feasible based on
Tague just having been told the shots came from the TSBD, this is why they required a judge and a active defence lawyer.

But wait he holds out
"Mr. TAGUE. To recall everything is almost impossible. Just an impression is all I recall, is the fact that my first impression was that up by the, whatever you call the monument, or whatever it was---- "

Leading the witness is the exact offence they claimed Mark Lane was doing with witnesses, Marks rebuttal was that is exactly what a lawyer for the defence does, not the prosecution.

Wait Liebler is not giving up so easily. Not again, damn it!
"Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes."
 
Just remember this, he did not say he thought the shots came from the TSBD, he said they came from picket fence.
Twist it however you will, because you will.

Interesting there was 1 or 2 other police officers with Tague, where are their testimonies?

[ka9q]

Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.

You're making even less sense than usual.

I would be wasting my time looking for all this information if were I doing it just for you. You already know what you want to believe, and you damn well aren't about to let mere facts and logic get in your way.

I'm looking to satisfy my own curiosity, and also to help ensure that your nonsense doesn't go unrefuted.

Just pull up Commission Exhibit No. 354 it has all the locations, area (c) and number (7) already marked on the map, exhibit 354.

Didn't I just cite that exact exhibit for you?

It indicates the exact spot Tague was indicating as the location for the shots and the direction of the mark, coincidentally or not, both are at the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

What?! You haven't even looked at CE354, have you?

If you'd actually looked at CE354 and actually read what Tague said, you'd know that (7) is merely where Tague saw a policeman park his motorcycle and talk to some witnesses. Tague approached this policeman to tell him what he'd seen. (Tague said one of the witnesses saw the President's head explode. This was almost certainly Abraham Zapruder; his filming spot was close to point (7), and he gave very similar statements several times that day, including in his live TV interview.)

If you'd actually looked at CE354, you'd know that it does not show the lead mark on the curb at all, much less its direction. Tague only located the mark in his verbal testimony. He said nothing about its direction.

And finally, if you'd actually read and understood Tague's testimony you'd know that he described his subjective impression of the source of the shots as "Behind the concrete monument here between Nos. 5 and 7, toward the general area of "C". And then he agreed that the shots could easily have come from the TSBD, their actual location.

Where is this key piece of evidence, the mark on the concrete?

I told you it was photographed in Tague Exhibit 1. Why is it 'key'?

Ya you betcha, I could spend my life searching for information that 1 is not there or 2 it is classified because it indicates the grassy knoll as the direction of the shot.

Yeah, you probably could spend your life searching for information indicating the grassy knoll as the source of the shot. That's because such information does not exist and never did exist.

It really isn't that hard to learn where the shots actually came from. You just have to set aside your fervent wish that they came from the grassy knoll and look at the actual evidence, and that seems to be completely impossible for you.

[Chew]

What Liebeler did was the exact opposite of leading the witness. Did you miss the part where he said to ignore the TSBD?

Your constant lying is getting old. Tague said he thought the shots came from the monument, not the picket fence.

[Chew]

One important detail to know about Tague is that he was hit on the right cheek. In another odd coincidence in a case where very little appears to be what it is Tague cut his left cheek a week before the assassination and the photo of him taken the day after has lead many to believe he was hit on the left cheek.

[ka9q]

Leading the witness is the exact offence they claimed Mark Lane was doing with witnesses, Marks rebuttal was that is exactly what a lawyer for the defence does, not the prosecution.

Since Lane is a lawyer, albeit a dishonest one, I'll presume that he actually knows the rules regarding leading questions and so you're simply misquoting him -- just as you misquote so many others.

The allowability of leading questions has nothing to do with being a defense or prosecuting attorney. Leading questions are disallowed in direct examination, that is, questioning a witness you called for your own side, because it can seem too much like "coaching" the witness to give you the answers you want.

But leading questions are perfectly acceptable during cross examination, i.e., when you're examining a witness already called and questioned by the other side. He is presumed to be hostile or antagonistic to your case and therefore unlikely to allow himself to be "coached" to the answers you want.

Both the prosecution and the defense can call witnesses, forcing them to appear (having the judge issue subpoenas) if necessary. Both sides are entitled to cross examine the other side's witnesses, using leading questions if they wish.

Most witnesses are willing to help the side that calls them, but not always. For example, a prosecutor might call a friend or relative of the defendant who, for obvious reasons, would prefer not to testify against the defendant.  But unless the witness qualifies for one of several specific privileges (spousal, attorney/client, doctor/patient, priest/penitent, etc) or invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, he must testify. The court can even toss him in jail temporarily for contempt until he does. (Even if he invokes the Fifth, he can still be compelled to testify if he is granted immunity from prosecution for his compelled testimony.)

Since few witnesses are willing to go to jail to avoid testifying, it's more likely that they'll simply drag their feet on the witness stand. If the attorney who called them is unhappy about it, he can ask the judge to declare the witness "hostile", meaning that he can conduct his direct examination of the witness as though it were a cross examination -- including the use of leading questions.

10 years ago, a San Diego man named David Westerfield was accused of kidnapping and murdering a 7 year old girl. One of the major prosecution witnesses was Westerfield's son, who was obviously quite unhappy with the idea of testifying against his own father. But there is no parent/child privilege, so he had no choice but to help convict his dad who was in fact sentenced to death. I don't remember if the prosecution actually asked to have the son declared a hostile witness, but it seems likely.

Note that leading questions are not loaded questions.  A leading question is one that merely suggests the answer: "On November 22, 1963 at 11AM you were in the Texas School Book Depository Building, were you not?" A loaded question is one based on an invalid or improper premise. The all-time classic example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Leading questions are okay in examining a hostile witness; loaded questions are never OK in any type of examination.

[ka9q]

One important detail to know about Tague is that he was hit on the right cheek.

Thank you, I was wondering about that, as I didn't see him asked that question. It makes perfect sense if he was struck by the same fragment that first hit the Main St curb to his right as he faced the motorcade.

[ka9q]

Speaking of compelled testimony and privilege, several authors have made the very good point that we probably know much more, not less, about Oswald's role in the JFK assassination because he was murdered before he could stand trial.

So much of what we know, including the critical fact that he shot at General Walker in April 1963, comes from Marina, his widow. No one else was at all close to him or knew as many of his secrets. Because of the spousal privilege, Marina could not have been compelled to testify against Lee Oswald, and it's quite likely we wouldn't have learned nearly as much as we did.

What I don't know is whether the law in Texas in 1963 would have allowed Oswald to keep his wife from testifying even if she had wanted to. Times were different, and wives didn't always have the same rights as their husbands. Today, of course, the spousal privilege can be waived and many wives and husbands do testify against their spouses with devastating effect. Anybody know more about this?

It should go without saying that if Oswald had lived, he could not have been compelled to testify against himself at his trial. Since most Americans are aware of our absolute Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, it's even more puzzling to me that so many people see Oswald's death as a barrier to discovering the truth. Perhaps people think he would have confessed eventually. Maybe he would have, but that was not the opinion of Capt. Fritz and everyone else who interrogated him that weekend. They all agreed that he would never confess.

Now Oswald certainly helped implicate himself by telling many provable lies during interrogation. We know Oswald thought a great deal of himself. He may well have deluded himself into thinking he really could outsmart an entire army of trained and experienced criminal investigators working on the biggest case of their careers. Certainly many other people suspected of much lesser crimes foolishly give up their right to remain silent and speak to the police, only to regret it.