JFK Lancer - President John F. Kennedy Assassination Latest News and Research

As other JFK researchers have pointed out, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Witnesses can be confused, lie, misremember events, or can be susceptible to suggestion. The damage to the limousine tells a story of its own, an accurate and truthful account of the events in Dealey Plaza.

Cecil Stoughton, the official White House photographer, was stuck that day riding several cars back in one of the camera cars. In fact, Stoughton was not even scheduled to go on the Texas trip, but had to fill in for Robert Knudsen, who had some slivers in his eye which needed to be removed. Supposedly, Stoughton took only a couple of photos near Dealey Plaza, one just before the motorcade reached the plaza, and one of the grassy knoll about 30 seconds after the shooting. But he did take photos of the limousine the day before when the President visited Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio. We can see in this photo that he did occupy the normal position in the Secret Service follow-up car (Figure 3). In the next photo we see that the chrome topping was undented (Figure 4). The HSCA was seemingly unaware of, or ignored, the Stoughton photos, and did not address the issue of the dent of the chrome topping. However, HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden did state at a conference at Emerson College a few years ago that he and a HSCA staff member had examined the chrome topping at the National Archives and that the nose of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet like CE 399 fit perfectly into the indentation in the chrome topping

The best-known and most disputed point of damage to the limousine was the crack of the windshield. In the Altgens 1-6 photo, which is approximate to Zapruder frame 255, that the windshield is undamaged, yet in his next photo the windshield is cracked. Frazier's CE 350 shows the condition of the windshield taken about 14 hours after the assassination (Figure 9). No hole in the windshield, only a crack. As we can see in this blow-up of CE 350, it is a crack (Figure 10). I believe CE 350 depicts the same windshield which was on the limousine during the assassination: the location and pattern of the crack and presence of blood spatters looks consistent from Dealey Plaza to CE 350.Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman testified (2H89) that when he first felt the windshield a few days after the assassination, the inside felt rough and that when he examined it on the day of his testimony, it felt smooth. I believe that the reason for the difference in roughness is that when the windshield was first examined on November 23, 1963, the roughness on the inside was due to the presence of minute bullet fragments (CE 841) which were completely removed for testing, so that any later examination of the glass would result in a feel of smooth glass.Some might also argue that the theory of how glass fractures on the opposite side of the point of impact would seem to indicate that the shot came from the front and caused a fracture on the inside. Then, supposedly, the coverup conspirators realized this mistake and switched windshields so that the corrected windshield would exhibit fractures on the outside to indicate that it was hit from the inside. But there are a couple of problems with this theory.The windshield was composed of laminated automobile glass, which consists of two layers of glass with a layer of plastic between them. Thus it is quite common that to have damage to the inside layer of the glass which does not extend to the outside layer of the glass and vice versa. That is its design purpose. I also doubt that anyone had the opportunity and capability to switch the windshield before it was examined and photographed by Frazier, and certainly trying to resolve conflicting testimony by switching windshields would require several switches.

Is there any other damage which would indicate from which direction the windshield was struck? For the first time the answer is yes. If you look carefully at CE 350, you will see that the back of the rearview mirror is dented (Figure 11). This could only have been caused by a bullet ricocheting off the inside of the windshield. The glass was therefore struck on the inside by a shot from behind the limousine. No holes in the glass. If a bullet had gone through the windshield, nothing would have to ricocheted, striking the back of the rearview mirror. What could a shot from behind have first struck to produce a bullet fragment which would hit the inside of the windshield and then ricochet to the right to hit the back of the rearview mirror? I think the bullet which caused the damage to the windshield, and most likely also the chrome topping (figure 12), was the last shot from the TSBD. It's highly unlikely that this shot struck JFK after Z-313. He had already been struck by a shot in the back from the TSBD at about Z-210. Connally had already been struck in the back by a shot at about Z-230, when Connally thought he was hit. But he did not remember being struck in the wrist. Not only was the alignment of the two men incorrect for a Single-Bullet Theory trajectory at either Z-190 or Z-210, Connally's wrist was also too high to have been struck by a bullet exiting his chest just below his right nipple.I think the most likely scenario is that the last shot from the TSBD hit Connally's wrist after Z-313, either directly or indirectly, then broke up into many fragments which caused all the damage to the limousine, Tague's cut, and the fragments in Connally's thigh. I would suggest that a much more detailed examination of the photographic record might pinpoint the time at which the windshield, chrome topping and rearview mirror were struck.We can determine a possible time for that last shot from the TSBD from the acoustical evidence. The HSCA acoustical studies give us the approximate spacing between shots. We then need to match up the timing with the Zapruder frames.The last two shots were separated by about. 744 of a second, or about 13.6 Zapruder frames. So, if the last shot from the TSBD was after Z-313, we would expect to see no damage before Z-327 and see damage within a few frames after that. I would suggest that those who claim to have excellent copies of the photographic evidence concentrate their focus on frames Z-326 to Z-330 in looking for changes in the condition of the limousine.During the 1994 COPA conference, I visited the National Archives and in particular reviewed the newly-released photos of the limousine. In the same folder were what appeared to be photocopies of the original worksheets by the agents who examined the limousine on November 23, 1963. I'm not sure who wrote the sheets and exactly when they were written (the three agent names appear to be Frazier, Killiam, and Cunningham), but the sheets record the observations of the examination team that night. They mark the exact locations of the fragments recovered. Incidentally, these worksheets clear up one of the major controversies about the limousine. Some people have speculated that the white object seen in the photos was a white cloth hand puppet (which they have affectionately dubbed Lambchop), which was given to Jackie at Love Field. The worksheets note that the white object was actually a bunch of chrysanthemums.Both major bullet fragments were found on the right side of the limousine in the front compartment. It appears logical to me that a ricocheting fragment landing on the right side of the front seat must have come from the left side of the limousine. JFK was never to the left of the midline, nor was Connally's trunk when he was hit in the back. But Connally had slumped into his wife's lap after he was shot and his wrist was to the left of the midline after Z-313. Thus, I believe that the damage to the limousine suggests that Connally's wrist was struck by a different bullet than the one which went through his chest. And I believe that the photographic evidence will show that the limousine was not damaged by a shot from the TSBD at Z-313, which would prove by inference that the headshot at Z-313 must have been the grassy knoll shot. In conclusion, I would urge all serious researchers to continue to look for new evidence and strive to better understand the evidence we already have.