Stavis Ellis
(A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma)
Sections:
(A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma)
Sections:
-----
Introduction
DPD motorcycle officer Stavis "Steve" Ellis, who was related to the Newman family, was one of the five lead motorcycle riders who rode his bike in front of the Lead Car, which was then followed by the Presidential limousine. His accounts are rather difficult to figure out, in part because they interject his conclusions with what he witnessed on that day, and there is at least one inconsistency across them. Nevertheless, Ellis saw two things that are of interest in trying to align all the various witness statements:
He also saw a Secret Service. agent destroy the film of a boy who was taking pictures outside of Parkland Hospital, but that story is beyond the scope of this particular article.
In trying to analyze exactly what Ellis saw, it is helpful to compare his accounts with those given by other witnesses to look for commonalities--witnesses like Ruby Henderson, Jack Franzen, and others. There are also some images (e.g., the Altgens 6 photograph) that might help in trying to align Ellis's accounts with what actually happened.
Writer/researcher Doug Max Stone and I have had an ongoing civil debate about exactly what Stavis Ellis saw (along with the number of shots fired and some other aspects about the assassination). Stone maintains that Ellis's first-shot "curb strike" scenario was correct, while I maintain that while Ellis saw something, it wasn't necessarily a first-shot "curb strike." This article explains why.
DPD motorcycle officer Stavis "Steve" Ellis, who was related to the Newman family, was one of the five lead motorcycle riders who rode his bike in front of the Lead Car, which was then followed by the Presidential limousine. His accounts are rather difficult to figure out, in part because they interject his conclusions with what he witnessed on that day, and there is at least one inconsistency across them. Nevertheless, Ellis saw two things that are of interest in trying to align all the various witness statements:
- He saw a hole (not a "crack," as he adamantly maintained through all his interviews when discussing the windshield) in the limousine's windshield while it was outside of Parkland Hospital.
- He saw what he believed to be a bullet strike on the Elm Street curb while he was in Dealey Plaza.
He also saw a Secret Service. agent destroy the film of a boy who was taking pictures outside of Parkland Hospital, but that story is beyond the scope of this particular article.
In trying to analyze exactly what Ellis saw, it is helpful to compare his accounts with those given by other witnesses to look for commonalities--witnesses like Ruby Henderson, Jack Franzen, and others. There are also some images (e.g., the Altgens 6 photograph) that might help in trying to align Ellis's accounts with what actually happened.
Writer/researcher Doug Max Stone and I have had an ongoing civil debate about exactly what Stavis Ellis saw (along with the number of shots fired and some other aspects about the assassination). Stone maintains that Ellis's first-shot "curb strike" scenario was correct, while I maintain that while Ellis saw something, it wasn't necessarily a first-shot "curb strike." This article explains why.
-----
The Windshield Hole
One of the things that Stavis Ellis was consistent about across his interviews was the hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. Ellis believed that the hole was from a back-to-front trajectory, but he never described any observations about the nature of the hole (i.e., no mention of beveling or fragmentation) that would indicate the direction of the missile. There are other witnesses to the hole who said that the "through-and-through" bullet hole was "from the front to the back" (Dr. Evangelea Glanges, who was a second-year resident at Parkland in 1963) or that the "fragmentation" (i.e., beveling) was on the inside of the windshield (Ford employee George Whitaker), indicating that the bullet came from the front. Glanges didn't mention how she knew the hole was from a front to back missile, whether she saw beveling and understood the implications, or was just assuming that the windshield hole and the throat wound were related. However, Whitaker's description of the "fragmentation" on the inside of the glass gives good support to the front-to-back trajectory of the missile. Meanwhile, Stavis Ellis never said anything in his interviews about beveling or fragmentation, so it seems reasonable to assume that he knew nothing about the principles of beveling as an indication of direction, and therefore didn't bother to check which side of the windshield might have had beveling around the hole. So it seems certain that there actually was a "hole," and not a "crack" in the windshield, but Ellis's assumption in some of his interviews that it came from back-to-front was erroneous.
Here is a YouTube clip (which I believe was taken from the documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy) in which various witnesses describe the hole in the windshield:
One of the things that Stavis Ellis was consistent about across his interviews was the hole in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. Ellis believed that the hole was from a back-to-front trajectory, but he never described any observations about the nature of the hole (i.e., no mention of beveling or fragmentation) that would indicate the direction of the missile. There are other witnesses to the hole who said that the "through-and-through" bullet hole was "from the front to the back" (Dr. Evangelea Glanges, who was a second-year resident at Parkland in 1963) or that the "fragmentation" (i.e., beveling) was on the inside of the windshield (Ford employee George Whitaker), indicating that the bullet came from the front. Glanges didn't mention how she knew the hole was from a front to back missile, whether she saw beveling and understood the implications, or was just assuming that the windshield hole and the throat wound were related. However, Whitaker's description of the "fragmentation" on the inside of the glass gives good support to the front-to-back trajectory of the missile. Meanwhile, Stavis Ellis never said anything in his interviews about beveling or fragmentation, so it seems reasonable to assume that he knew nothing about the principles of beveling as an indication of direction, and therefore didn't bother to check which side of the windshield might have had beveling around the hole. So it seems certain that there actually was a "hole," and not a "crack" in the windshield, but Ellis's assumption in some of his interviews that it came from back-to-front was erroneous.
Here is a YouTube clip (which I believe was taken from the documentary series The Men Who Killed Kennedy) in which various witnesses describe the hole in the windshield:
There were even a number of newspapers that reported the "hole" (not "crack") in the windshield:
Image from Part 8 of my documentary series
Attorney and JFK assassination researcher Doug Weldon made a study of the limousine's chain-of-custody and found glaring indications that the vehicle was indeed taken to Detroit, Michigan, within about a week of the assassination. Given the destruction of the damaged windshield that Whitaker described, the windshield in the Archives, with its crack, is a substitution for the one that had a hole, and that the hole's existence was covered up.
This video below (found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OACTLn75I30&t=570s) of Doug Weldon's 1999 conference presentation is rather long, about 2 1/2 hours long, but is worth the view. While watching take note of the evidence of cover-up, but realize that the conclusions (e.g., "conspiracy to murder") can be wrong. The motive for the cover-up can be explained with more "benign" motives. But while watching, note that despite Ellis telling Weldon that the hole was "lower" than the anomaly by the rear-view mirror in Altgens 6, which Weldon shows various versions of, Weldon says it "can't be" lower, because a lower location would disprove Weldon's hypothesis of where the shooter was. Weldon provides a good example of how well-intentioned researchers uncover evidence of cover-up, and then jump to the conclusion of a "Deep State conspiracy to murder the President." (My work presents an alternative explanation for the cover-up.)
This video below (found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OACTLn75I30&t=570s) of Doug Weldon's 1999 conference presentation is rather long, about 2 1/2 hours long, but is worth the view. While watching take note of the evidence of cover-up, but realize that the conclusions (e.g., "conspiracy to murder") can be wrong. The motive for the cover-up can be explained with more "benign" motives. But while watching, note that despite Ellis telling Weldon that the hole was "lower" than the anomaly by the rear-view mirror in Altgens 6, which Weldon shows various versions of, Weldon says it "can't be" lower, because a lower location would disprove Weldon's hypothesis of where the shooter was. Weldon provides a good example of how well-intentioned researchers uncover evidence of cover-up, and then jump to the conclusion of a "Deep State conspiracy to murder the President." (My work presents an alternative explanation for the cover-up.)
It seems reasonable to conclude that Ellis was mistaken in his belief that the missile causing the hole was from back-to-front, but that he was correct that the windshield defect was, indeed, a "hole," and not a crack, and that the windshield in "evidence" (with its crack) was a substitution for the actual one that was destroyed in Detroit, Michigan, as George Whitaker described.
But the windshield hole is only part of what Ellis said that is of interest. He didn't see it occur, but he saw it outside of Parkland Hospital. He was mistaken about his assumption of the direction of the missile that caused the hole, but not about the hole's existence.
Stavis Ellis knew about the windshield hole. And like Weldon, he jumped to a conclusion about how that hole connected with something else that he saw, that is of interest.
The other thing of interest is a "curb strike" that Ellis believed he saw.
-----
Location, Location, Location (of the "Curb Strike")
Attorney and JFK assassination researcher Doug Weldon made a study of the Presidential limousine. While his analysis of the limousine hole is flawed, for reasons that will be discussed shortly. Weldon interviewed Stavis Ellis, apparently several times, and found him to be honest and sincere.
I have no doubts about Stavis Ellis's honesty or sincerity, and believe that he was not trying to be deceitful. However, there are aspects of what he has said across various interviews that just do not hold together properly.
Weldon showed this image as a projected slide, while saying “Stavis Ellis says that this first shot, he sees debris flying up happens right here.”
Attorney and JFK assassination researcher Doug Weldon made a study of the Presidential limousine. While his analysis of the limousine hole is flawed, for reasons that will be discussed shortly. Weldon interviewed Stavis Ellis, apparently several times, and found him to be honest and sincere.
I have no doubts about Stavis Ellis's honesty or sincerity, and believe that he was not trying to be deceitful. However, there are aspects of what he has said across various interviews that just do not hold together properly.
Weldon showed this image as a projected slide, while saying “Stavis Ellis says that this first shot, he sees debris flying up happens right here.”
Projected slide image from Doug Weldon's presentation at a 1999 JFK assassination conference, found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxeqAXCOzKg, near the end, about 2:17:29
Well, this doesn't show much of Elm Street, and there's no "right here" mark in the photo and no place where Weldon points in the picture, but this picture shows the area of the turn, and son of a gun if this general position doesn't align perfectly with the limousine's position in my first shot scenario! But note that if the limousine was fired on from the TSBD window when it was in this general area, the shot would either be a frontal shot (as I believe), or a right-to-left trajectory from the perspective of the limousine passengers. Bear that in mind as we look at Ellis's various accounts of the thing that he saw from his motorcycle at the head of the motorcade.
-----
Position and Perspective
To begin with, it would be helpful to have an idea of the perspective Stavis Ellis had when he saw whatever it was that he saw .
DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis rode in front of the lead car on the far-left side of the five-bike formation (#5 in the diagram below:
To begin with, it would be helpful to have an idea of the perspective Stavis Ellis had when he saw whatever it was that he saw .
DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis rode in front of the lead car on the far-left side of the five-bike formation (#5 in the diagram below:
Stavis Ellis was the far left motorcycle officer riding in front of the lead car. Image from http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Motorcade%20Route/Item%2015.pdf
Ellis said that he had passed the Newman family and was turning around to give a signal to the motorcade regarding the motorcade's approach of the Stemmon's Freeway on-ramp, when he saw something of interest. His perspective of the Presidential limousine, as he turned around and looked behind him, would have been something like this:
This image was sent to me by Doug Max Stone to help illustrate his first shot scenario. It's not what I think, and the white "lead car" is just a 3D rendering of the Presidential limo colored white (not the closed top white Ford Mercury that the lead car actually was)--a possible limitation of the 3D rendering software-- but it is useful to help visualize what Stavis Ellis' perspective was like.
This is a somewhat flawed rendering, since it does not include all the spectators who were present along both sides of the road (including the Newman family, who were related to Ellis). (Stone says it's a work in progress, and he's working on adding the spectators.) Those invisible spectators provided visual (as well as audio) distractions to Ellis's attention during the actual assassination. If one looks closely, it also depicts Doug Max Stone's theorized scenario, which I disagree with. Nevertheless, it does provide a helpful visual for the perspective Stavis Ellis would have had when he saw something of interest.
But even without the distracting bystanders in the image, I ask the reader, if you are seeing this image for the first time, I ask you if you noticed the small white "debris cloud" to the left of the Presidential limousine, in your first glance at this image? If not, don't feel too bad. I didn't either, until I took a second look.
This is Doug Max Stone's rendering for what he believes Ellis saw. Bystanders notwithstanding, I don't agree with what it depicts, but it is still useful for getting a general idea of Stavis Ellis's perspective when attempting to interpret his statements.
For reference purposes, note that Elm Street is a curvy street that runs diagonally from Houston towards the Triple Underpass, in a south-westerly direction. Thus the Texas School Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll (to the left, in this perspective, but to the right from the perspective of someone driving down Elm Street) is on the north (or west) side of Elm Street, and Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, and Jean Hill were standing on the south (or east) side of Elm Street. Since perspective of right or left changes depending on which way one is facing, "north" and "south" sides of the street are the terms I will use for this discussion.
Stavis Ellis was never called to give sworn testimony to the Warren Commission, and no document by him is included among the reports submitted to the Commission by various DPD officers. One wonders at the oversight.
But as a result of this omission, the only information we have about what Ellis witnessed during the assassination and afterwards comes from interviews he gave to various researchers over the years, rather than from sworn testimonies. Let's examine what Ellis described as a "curb strike" in those interviews, and how his knowledge of the bullet hole in the limousine's windshield, which he saw for himself, and other things that he heard from others might have colored his recollections.
But even without the distracting bystanders in the image, I ask the reader, if you are seeing this image for the first time, I ask you if you noticed the small white "debris cloud" to the left of the Presidential limousine, in your first glance at this image? If not, don't feel too bad. I didn't either, until I took a second look.
This is Doug Max Stone's rendering for what he believes Ellis saw. Bystanders notwithstanding, I don't agree with what it depicts, but it is still useful for getting a general idea of Stavis Ellis's perspective when attempting to interpret his statements.
For reference purposes, note that Elm Street is a curvy street that runs diagonally from Houston towards the Triple Underpass, in a south-westerly direction. Thus the Texas School Book Depository and the Grassy Knoll (to the left, in this perspective, but to the right from the perspective of someone driving down Elm Street) is on the north (or west) side of Elm Street, and Charles Brehm, Mary Moorman, and Jean Hill were standing on the south (or east) side of Elm Street. Since perspective of right or left changes depending on which way one is facing, "north" and "south" sides of the street are the terms I will use for this discussion.
Stavis Ellis was never called to give sworn testimony to the Warren Commission, and no document by him is included among the reports submitted to the Commission by various DPD officers. One wonders at the oversight.
But as a result of this omission, the only information we have about what Ellis witnessed during the assassination and afterwards comes from interviews he gave to various researchers over the years, rather than from sworn testimonies. Let's examine what Ellis described as a "curb strike" in those interviews, and how his knowledge of the bullet hole in the limousine's windshield, which he saw for himself, and other things that he heard from others might have colored his recollections.
-----
The Weisberg Document
From the Harold Weisberg collection of documents, we get that he saw something he thought was "curb dust" in the air that occurred with what he thought was the first shot:
From the Harold Weisberg collection of documents, we get that he saw something he thought was "curb dust" in the air that occurred with what he thought was the first shot:
from http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/E%20Disk/Ellis%20Starvis%20Major/Item%2001.pdf
Interestingly, he describes the motorcade, and especially the President's car, was traveling so slowly that it caused his bike to wobble, and he. had to use his legs to remain upright (which incidentally giving Ellis one more thing to think about he turned to his right to look back at the motorcade--inattention blindness, anyone?).
Note that there are a number of things in this account that contradict other accounts. For example, the officer who went into the TSBD (Marion Baker) was "directly under" the building when the shots were fired. Actually, Baker was halfway down Houston when the shots were fired, in front of the building. Here, Baker "blocked the main entrance" and apparently waited for the supervisor to arrive, rather than going directly inside. The officer (Baker) encountered Oswald "drinking water from the water cooler," rather than a Coke. These are things that Ellis was not witness to himself, but heard from others. I think of the game of "Telephone" where a message gets relayed from one person to another down a line, When the last person relays the message, it usually has very little resemblance to the original message. Second-hand testimony is "hearsay," and is usually not admitted in a court. Ellis heard various rumors after the assassination, and I believe that those rumors colored his recollections for what he did see.
He also described, according to this document, that dust was kicked up to his "left front," which would be the north side of Elm Street. However, in all the other accounts, he specifically says "south"--as in "south side of the curb" (which, as Stone points out, would be the curb on the north side of the street with a south-facing edge) or "south side of the street," which Ellis might have meant by "curb on the south side," as he says in some interviews.
Most importantly, note this section: "The MAJOR stated he believed this was the first bullet and even now he was more convinced. This is because a portion of the curb where he saw the dust fly has been...removed. This occurred only a few days after the assassination."
So what "convinced" Ellis of his "curb" strike was that "a portion of the curb where he saw the dust fly has been removed."
However, the section of curb that was removed from Dealey Plaza was from the Main Street curb, up near the Triple Underpass, near where bystander James Tague had been standing. The removed section was not from the Elm Street curb. There is no record or account (other than from Stavis Ellis) of any section of the Elm Street curb being removed.
So this mistaken belief that a piece of Elm Street curb had been removed "convinced" Stavis Ellis of his curb strike, which he might otherwise have questioned in his mind. Without that curb removal to convince him, Ellis might have been more hesitant to claim that what he saw was from a bullet's "curb strike." But the curb that was removed was not from where he had seen the strike.
He may not have seen a "curb strike" after all. He may have seen something else.
-----
Stavis Ellis in No More Silence
Also important to note is that, despite being a police officer, Stavis Ellis was not gifted with super-human powers. Without any evidence to the contrary, we can assume that his powers of observation and recall were no greater than that of any other normal human being. And, memory being a constructed concept, he was subject to the same sorts of bias and mistakes as any other human. I believe that he jumped to some erroneous conclusions, which colored his belief in exactly what happened. He saw something, but it wasn't necessarily what he thought it was. Finally, he was subject to the same sort of "inattention blindness" phenomenon that caused people like Mary Moorman to miss registering any shots that occurred before she took her photo. In this case, Ellis was thinking about the motorcade procedures, stretching the motorcade out before entering the highway. He wasn't thinking that an assassination was about to take place. He was thinking about the Newman's, about Chaney, about the motorcade procedures, and about driving his bike. He was not thinking that an assassination was about to take place. Like any other human being, he might well have missed any "moonwalking bears."
With these thoughts in mind, one should regard any contradictions or problems with Stavis Ellis's statements with a bit of compassion and understanding. I believe that Ellis was trying to be honest, but there were some inconsistencies and mistakes in his accounts, due to all the reasons just listed than to any efforts of dishonesty.
Now let's consider what Ellis told Larry Sneed, as published in the book No More Silence, about the "curb strike" or whatever it was, that occurred with his "first shot," which "came down into the south side of the curb," where it "looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash" and "a bunch of junk flew up":
Also important to note is that, despite being a police officer, Stavis Ellis was not gifted with super-human powers. Without any evidence to the contrary, we can assume that his powers of observation and recall were no greater than that of any other normal human being. And, memory being a constructed concept, he was subject to the same sorts of bias and mistakes as any other human. I believe that he jumped to some erroneous conclusions, which colored his belief in exactly what happened. He saw something, but it wasn't necessarily what he thought it was. Finally, he was subject to the same sort of "inattention blindness" phenomenon that caused people like Mary Moorman to miss registering any shots that occurred before she took her photo. In this case, Ellis was thinking about the motorcade procedures, stretching the motorcade out before entering the highway. He wasn't thinking that an assassination was about to take place. He was thinking about the Newman's, about Chaney, about the motorcade procedures, and about driving his bike. He was not thinking that an assassination was about to take place. Like any other human being, he might well have missed any "moonwalking bears."
With these thoughts in mind, one should regard any contradictions or problems with Stavis Ellis's statements with a bit of compassion and understanding. I believe that Ellis was trying to be honest, but there were some inconsistencies and mistakes in his accounts, due to all the reasons just listed than to any efforts of dishonesty.
Now let's consider what Ellis told Larry Sneed, as published in the book No More Silence, about the "curb strike" or whatever it was, that occurred with his "first shot," which "came down into the south side of the curb," where it "looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash" and "a bunch of junk flew up":
Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that I thought, “Oh, my God!” I thought there had been some people hit back there as people started falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade had hit all those people. In any case, they went down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in anticipation of another shot. As soon as I saw that, I turned around and rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!..BANG!, two more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds were all clear and loud and sounded about the same. From where I was, they sounded like they were coming from around where the tall tree was in front of that building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that the others came from the same place. But all the time I was moving up, I still didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside me and said, “Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man, his head’s blown off!” “All right, we’re going to Parkland,” I said. This had been the prearranged plan in the event that someone was shot or injured; it was normal procedure. Chaney and I then rode on up to Curry’s car. Curry was driving with the Chief of the Secret Service, Forrest Sorells, in the front seat with him. “Chief,” I said, “That was a shot! The President was hit and he’s in bad, bad shape! We’re going to Parkland!” He said, “All right, let’s go!”
A couple of things to note here. Importantly, whatever happened, whatever Stavis Ellis saw while in Dealey Plaza, happened "in a split second." In fact, the entire assassination sequence occurred in a span of sesconds, about 8 seconds. Less than a minute. Less than half a minute. Less than a quarter of a minute.
Ellis says that he was the one who told Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. However, Chaney and Curry himself said that it was Curry, with Curry adding, "I believe it was Chaney." It also doesn't make sense to me that Ellis would meet Curry first and then go to Curry. Chaney was behind Curry, and Ellis was in front of Curry. See the problem? Furthermore, Chaney was the one who had the best view of Kennedy. He can be seen peering at Kennedy in Altgens 6. Ellis was farther away, and all he saw was something weird happening around Kennedy's car. So either Sneed was mis-hearing and mis-reporting what Ellis said, or Ellis was mis-remembering, or Ellis was somewhat inflating his part in the story. (An audio recording of the interview posted online would be nice!)
Ellis says that he was the one who told Chief Curry that JFK had been shot. However, Chaney and Curry himself said that it was Curry, with Curry adding, "I believe it was Chaney." It also doesn't make sense to me that Ellis would meet Curry first and then go to Curry. Chaney was behind Curry, and Ellis was in front of Curry. See the problem? Furthermore, Chaney was the one who had the best view of Kennedy. He can be seen peering at Kennedy in Altgens 6. Ellis was farther away, and all he saw was something weird happening around Kennedy's car. So either Sneed was mis-hearing and mis-reporting what Ellis said, or Ellis was mis-remembering, or Ellis was somewhat inflating his part in the story. (An audio recording of the interview posted online would be nice!)
-----
The Morisette Interview
Denis Morissette posted an audio interview of Stavis Ellis on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZNR4rDYYY (about 8:38). In this interview, Ellis says the following:
Ellis: One of the shots, I think missed him completely. Coming down (from) up and to the rear of him, one of the shots missed, I’d say, but the other people say, no, I’m wrong. But anyway, it either missed him altogether, or it went through him, and then went into the windshield and the street.
(Q: Was it the first bullet, or the last bullet?)
Ellis: Let’s see. It would have been—would have been the first bullet. (Unintelligible) Yeah, the one that hit the curb would have been the first bullet. And there was one more that went through the President’s back, and down into Governor Connally’s leg. The third one hit him in the head. We know where it went. It didn’t go anyplace. It went right into his head. Right rear of his head there. The only one could have hit—that could have gone into the street (must have been) that first one, that missed him altogether or maybe just barely hit his neck or something, and it went through the windshield and into that concrete over there. And I still stand by that, because that’s the way I saw it.
Denis Morissette posted an audio interview of Stavis Ellis on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZZNR4rDYYY (about 8:38). In this interview, Ellis says the following:
Ellis: One of the shots, I think missed him completely. Coming down (from) up and to the rear of him, one of the shots missed, I’d say, but the other people say, no, I’m wrong. But anyway, it either missed him altogether, or it went through him, and then went into the windshield and the street.
(Q: Was it the first bullet, or the last bullet?)
Ellis: Let’s see. It would have been—would have been the first bullet. (Unintelligible) Yeah, the one that hit the curb would have been the first bullet. And there was one more that went through the President’s back, and down into Governor Connally’s leg. The third one hit him in the head. We know where it went. It didn’t go anyplace. It went right into his head. Right rear of his head there. The only one could have hit—that could have gone into the street (must have been) that first one, that missed him altogether or maybe just barely hit his neck or something, and it went through the windshield and into that concrete over there. And I still stand by that, because that’s the way I saw it.
Notice that when Ellis previously told other people that he thought one of the shots, the first one, had missed, the other people told him that he was wrong. Unfortunately, we don't know who these "other people" were, or what special knowledge they may have had that Ellis didn't. But in this case, I think that the "other people" were right, and Ellis was wrong about the first shot missing.
Let's see what other things Ellis might (or might not) have been wrong about.
Let's see what other things Ellis might (or might not) have been wrong about.
-----
North vs. South
When the "curb strike" occurred, Ellis was at least halfway down Elm Street, having passed the Newman family, whom he knew, and with the lead car (Curry's) between him and the President's limousine. He was looking for fellow motorcycle officer James Chaney, but his view of Chaney was blocked by Curry (in the lead car). That's where his mind was focused when he "turned to (his) right" to find Chaney and give a signal for the next part of the motorcade.
The Weisberg document describes the dust or debris flying up "to his left front near the curb." That would indicate the curb on the north side of the street, the same side as the TSBD.
In No More Silence, he says that he "could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete." The "south side of the curb" seems like a weird thing to say to me. Oswald could not have hit the south face of the north curb, except by ricochet. The most he could have done by direct strike to the curb on his side of the street would be to catch the corner where the top meets the south face of the curb. Perhaps he meant the curb on the south side of the street? Which would contradict the Weisberg document, in that the curb on the south side of the street would have been to his right (the side of the street across from the TSBD) as he turned to look behind him. And, of course, the south side of the street would have been a greater degree of turning on Ellis's part to see, or put that part of the street more in his periphery than his central vision.
The Weldon image doesn't show the curb on the TSBD side of the street at all. In fact, it doesn't show any "curb" at all. But it shows the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. (or the curb on the opposite side, for that matter) but does show the walkway on the opposite side of the street, close to the curb on the opposite side. There was no pointing to indicate exactly where Ellis saw his "curb strike," only Weldon's assertion that it occurred "right here"--i.e., somewhere around the intersection from Houston onto Elm.
The Weldon image, however, contradicts the Morissette interview, in which Ellis says that the first shot either missed JFK altogether, "or it went through him, and then went into the windshield and the street." Which would give Oswald a back-to-front trajectory, whereas the Weldon image would give Oswald a front-to-back trajectory, or at most a right-to-left (north to south) trajectory.
See the problem?
So let's look at both the north and the south sides of the street, and see if we can find any corroboration from any other witness for something hitting on either side, as well as any witness who might have seen something resembling a "debris cloud." And it turns out we have a witness (albeit not a direct witness to the assassination, but a witness to the "other" Zapruder film, Willem Reymond) who saw something on the north side of the street, a direct witness or two (Virginia Baker and Charles Brehm) who saw something hit the street on the south side, and a number of other witnesses who saw something that might resemble Ellis's "debris cloud," but placed it in the limousine rather than at the curb.
When the "curb strike" occurred, Ellis was at least halfway down Elm Street, having passed the Newman family, whom he knew, and with the lead car (Curry's) between him and the President's limousine. He was looking for fellow motorcycle officer James Chaney, but his view of Chaney was blocked by Curry (in the lead car). That's where his mind was focused when he "turned to (his) right" to find Chaney and give a signal for the next part of the motorcade.
The Weisberg document describes the dust or debris flying up "to his left front near the curb." That would indicate the curb on the north side of the street, the same side as the TSBD.
In No More Silence, he says that he "could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete." The "south side of the curb" seems like a weird thing to say to me. Oswald could not have hit the south face of the north curb, except by ricochet. The most he could have done by direct strike to the curb on his side of the street would be to catch the corner where the top meets the south face of the curb. Perhaps he meant the curb on the south side of the street? Which would contradict the Weisberg document, in that the curb on the south side of the street would have been to his right (the side of the street across from the TSBD) as he turned to look behind him. And, of course, the south side of the street would have been a greater degree of turning on Ellis's part to see, or put that part of the street more in his periphery than his central vision.
The Weldon image doesn't show the curb on the TSBD side of the street at all. In fact, it doesn't show any "curb" at all. But it shows the sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. (or the curb on the opposite side, for that matter) but does show the walkway on the opposite side of the street, close to the curb on the opposite side. There was no pointing to indicate exactly where Ellis saw his "curb strike," only Weldon's assertion that it occurred "right here"--i.e., somewhere around the intersection from Houston onto Elm.
The Weldon image, however, contradicts the Morissette interview, in which Ellis says that the first shot either missed JFK altogether, "or it went through him, and then went into the windshield and the street." Which would give Oswald a back-to-front trajectory, whereas the Weldon image would give Oswald a front-to-back trajectory, or at most a right-to-left (north to south) trajectory.
See the problem?
So let's look at both the north and the south sides of the street, and see if we can find any corroboration from any other witness for something hitting on either side, as well as any witness who might have seen something resembling a "debris cloud." And it turns out we have a witness (albeit not a direct witness to the assassination, but a witness to the "other" Zapruder film, Willem Reymond) who saw something on the north side of the street, a direct witness or two (Virginia Baker and Charles Brehm) who saw something hit the street on the south side, and a number of other witnesses who saw something that might resemble Ellis's "debris cloud," but placed it in the limousine rather than at the curb.
-----
William Reymond's "Poof!" off the Stemmons Sign
Frenchman Willem Reymond told Jim Marrs that he had seen a "Poof!" off the Stemmons sign in the "other" Zapruder film he had seen. My original YouTube video source is no longer available, but I did download the pertinent clip before it disappeared and include it in my documentary:
Frenchman Willem Reymond told Jim Marrs that he had seen a "Poof!" off the Stemmons sign in the "other" Zapruder film he had seen. My original YouTube video source is no longer available, but I did download the pertinent clip before it disappeared and include it in my documentary:
I did manage to find something resembling Reymond's "Poof!" in a YouTube video posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKT3CFXdh0k (about 0:24)
Here's the still image from that video:
But a strike off the Stemmons sign seems a bit too far down Elm Street to match with Ellis's accounts. So let's look t the other side of the street, the south side.
-----
Virginia Rackley (or Rachley) Baker
There is actually a witness or two to something hitting the pavement near the curb on the south side of the street (across the street from the TSBD). One of these was Virginia Rackley (or "Rachley," as her name is spelled in the Warren Commission documents) Baker (who was Virginia Rackley or Rachley at the time of the assassination, but became Mrs. Donald Baker before her Warren Commission testimony). At first glance, she seems to confirm Stavis Ellis's "bullet curb strike," albeit on the other side of the street. But when her statements are taken in conjunction with other accounts, raises the possibility that she saw something else altogether.
Virginia Rackley/Rachley Baker was standing in front of the TSBD and saw something hit the pavement. At first, she described "signs" as the point where the thing hit (the signs were posted on the north side of the street), but that was later clarified to be the far side of the street, the south side.
Her FBI report states:
She observed President Kennedy's car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions spaced at intervals which she at first thought were firecrackers. It sounded as though these sounds were coming from the direction of the triple underpass, and looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement. . . . Rackley stated that she did not look up at the Texas School Book Depository building since she did not think that the sounds were coming from that building.
There is actually a witness or two to something hitting the pavement near the curb on the south side of the street (across the street from the TSBD). One of these was Virginia Rackley (or "Rachley," as her name is spelled in the Warren Commission documents) Baker (who was Virginia Rackley or Rachley at the time of the assassination, but became Mrs. Donald Baker before her Warren Commission testimony). At first glance, she seems to confirm Stavis Ellis's "bullet curb strike," albeit on the other side of the street. But when her statements are taken in conjunction with other accounts, raises the possibility that she saw something else altogether.
Virginia Rackley/Rachley Baker was standing in front of the TSBD and saw something hit the pavement. At first, she described "signs" as the point where the thing hit (the signs were posted on the north side of the street), but that was later clarified to be the far side of the street, the south side.
Her FBI report states:
She observed President Kennedy's car pass her point of observation and almost immediately thereafter heard three explosions spaced at intervals which she at first thought were firecrackers. It sounded as though these sounds were coming from the direction of the triple underpass, and looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement. . . . Rackley stated that she did not look up at the Texas School Book Depository building since she did not think that the sounds were coming from that building.
Found on https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
So this report, only 2 days after the assassination, describes her as seeing the thing bounce on the pavement "after the first shot." I think she missed the actual first shot (inattention blindness or someone blocking her view), but she heard "three explosions," and the thing bouncing on the roadway coming after the "first" explosion, it occurred early in the assassination sequence.
Here is an excerpt from her Warren Commission testimony:
Mrs. BAKER. Well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you heard that immediately after the first noise; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell or did you have any idea where the noise came from when you first heard it?
Mrs. BAKER. No; I thought there were some boys standing down there where he was--where the President's car was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Down farther on the street, you mean?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes; close to the underpass.
Mr. LIEBELER. Had the President's car already passed you at the time you heard the first noise?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell me approximately how far down the street it had gone when you heard the first shot?
Mrs. BAKER. I don't know exactly--I could still see the back of the car--I can't judge distance so I really couldn't tell you.
Mr. LIEBELER. It hadn't gone out of sight in your opinion?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you still see the President?
Mrs. BAKER. Not too well.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a gradual curve on Elm Street and the car had already started slightly into the curve by the time it had gone by you?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You say you saw something hit the street after you heard the first shot; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you see it hit the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Have you got that---can you see the signs on that picture there?
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you can't see the signs too well on that picture, which is Commission Exhibit No. 354, but I will show you some other pictures here on which the signs do appear. First of all, let me show you Hudson Exhibit No. 1 on which appears a sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway, Keep Right."
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you see that sign?
Mrs. BAKER. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Stemmons Freeway sign from where you were standing?
Mrs. BAKER. No; I couldn't see the sign because I was angled--we were stepping out in the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign--I don't know which one it is, but I saw the bullet hit on down this way, I guess, right at the sign, angling out.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think the bullet hit the street, only it was farther out in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you couldn't see the sign, you could see this thing hit the street near the sign?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It appears to me from looking at Commission Exhibit No. 354, that you can in fact make out where the signs are located along the side of the road and let's see if these do look like the signs. Now, as you come down Elm Street past the place you were standing going toward the triple underpass, there is a tree here on this little grassy triangular spot that is on the side of Elm Street toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, right on Dealey Plaza here by this concrete structure. Then, after the tree, going on down toward the triple underpass, it appears in the aerial photograph--a spot that looks like a sign or a shadow--it looks like a sign to me.
Mrs. BAKER. There is a sign there.
Mr. LIEBELER. And then there's another sign farther on down there.
Mrs. BAKER. This was a big sign here and there was a small one here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?
Mrs. BAKER. As I can remember, it was.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would they have been as far down as the underpass or somewhere near the sign to have thrown a firecracker in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. It was near the signs.
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?
Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there. I could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.
Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?
Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Had the car already gone by when you saw this thing hit in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether it hit toward the left-hand side or the right-hand side of the President's car, or was it just immediately it? If you can't remember it that closely, all right.
Mrs. BAKER. I can't remember it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you actually see the President get hit by any bullets?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?
Mrs. BAKER. Three.
Mr. LIEBELER When did you first become aware that they were shots?
Mrs. BAKER. With the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea where they were coming from?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, the way it sounded--it sounded like it was coming from-- there was a railroad track that runs behind the building--there directly behind the building and around, so I guess it would be by the underpass, the triple underpass, and there is a railroad track that runs back out there and there was a train that looked like a circus train as well as I can remember now, back there, and we all ran to the plaza--the little thing there I guess you call it a plaza--back behind there this other girl and I almost ran back over there and looked and we didn't see anything.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you heard that immediately after the first noise; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you tell or did you have any idea where the noise came from when you first heard it?
Mrs. BAKER. No; I thought there were some boys standing down there where he was--where the President's car was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Down farther on the street, you mean?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes; close to the underpass.
Mr. LIEBELER. Had the President's car already passed you at the time you heard the first noise?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Can you tell me approximately how far down the street it had gone when you heard the first shot?
Mrs. BAKER. I don't know exactly--I could still see the back of the car--I can't judge distance so I really couldn't tell you.
Mr. LIEBELER. It hadn't gone out of sight in your opinion?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you still see the President?
Mrs. BAKER. Not too well.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is a gradual curve on Elm Street and the car had already started slightly into the curve by the time it had gone by you?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You say you saw something hit the street after you heard the first shot; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you see it hit the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Have you got that---can you see the signs on that picture there?
Mr. LIEBELER. Well, you can't see the signs too well on that picture, which is Commission Exhibit No. 354, but I will show you some other pictures here on which the signs do appear. First of all, let me show you Hudson Exhibit No. 1 on which appears a sign that says, "Stemmons Freeway, Keep Right."
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Could you see that sign?
Mrs. BAKER. No.
Mr. LIEBELER. The Stemmons Freeway sign from where you were standing?
Mrs. BAKER. No; I couldn't see the sign because I was angled--we were stepping out in the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign--I don't know which one it is, but I saw the bullet hit on down this way, I guess, right at the sign, angling out.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think the bullet hit the street, only it was farther out in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you couldn't see the sign, you could see this thing hit the street near the sign?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It appears to me from looking at Commission Exhibit No. 354, that you can in fact make out where the signs are located along the side of the road and let's see if these do look like the signs. Now, as you come down Elm Street past the place you were standing going toward the triple underpass, there is a tree here on this little grassy triangular spot that is on the side of Elm Street toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, right on Dealey Plaza here by this concrete structure. Then, after the tree, going on down toward the triple underpass, it appears in the aerial photograph--a spot that looks like a sign or a shadow--it looks like a sign to me.
Mrs. BAKER. There is a sign there.
Mr. LIEBELER. And then there's another sign farther on down there.
Mrs. BAKER. This was a big sign here and there was a small one here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?
Mrs. BAKER. As I can remember, it was.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign.
Mr. LIEBELER. Would they have been as far down as the underpass or somewhere near the sign to have thrown a firecracker in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. It was near the signs.
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?
Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there. I could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.
Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?
Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Had the car already gone by when you saw this thing hit in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember whether it hit toward the left-hand side or the right-hand side of the President's car, or was it just immediately it? If you can't remember it that closely, all right.
Mrs. BAKER. I can't remember it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you actually see the President get hit by any bullets?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. How many shots did you hear?
Mrs. BAKER. Three.
Mr. LIEBELER When did you first become aware that they were shots?
Mrs. BAKER. With the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea where they were coming from?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, the way it sounded--it sounded like it was coming from-- there was a railroad track that runs behind the building--there directly behind the building and around, so I guess it would be by the underpass, the triple underpass, and there is a railroad track that runs back out there and there was a train that looked like a circus train as well as I can remember now, back there, and we all ran to the plaza--the little thing there I guess you call it a plaza--back behind there this other girl and I almost ran back over there and looked and we didn't see anything.
Mrs. Baker's testimony is a bit confusing in that she references a "sign"--the signs were on the north side of the street--but confirms that the thing hitting the pavement occurred "on the opposite side of the street." She also designated the "first" sign as the one near where the thing hit the pavement. (The Stemmons sign was the second. The Stemmons sign has its own story, which I won't go into right here.)
An image or picture marked by Baker would help to clear up her location and the location of the curb strike, and we have one.
A bit later after the excerpt above, Commission Exhibit 352 came under discussion, and was marked with a "1" to show where Baker was standing and "2" where Baker saw the thing hit the pavement near the curb. Now, these exact locations might be affected by imperfect recall or the fact that Baker was asked to indicate on an aerial photograph where she was standing and where she thought the thing landed, whereas her perspective at the time was at ground level. But she would surely know which side of the street the thing landed on, and she indicated the south side (#2) as where it landed:
An image or picture marked by Baker would help to clear up her location and the location of the curb strike, and we have one.
A bit later after the excerpt above, Commission Exhibit 352 came under discussion, and was marked with a "1" to show where Baker was standing and "2" where Baker saw the thing hit the pavement near the curb. Now, these exact locations might be affected by imperfect recall or the fact that Baker was asked to indicate on an aerial photograph where she was standing and where she thought the thing landed, whereas her perspective at the time was at ground level. But she would surely know which side of the street the thing landed on, and she indicated the south side (#2) as where it landed:
Image from https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_354.pdf
She also marked another image, "Baker Exhibit No. 1," with an "X" to show where she believed the thing hit the pavement. Note that the perspective problem still holds. This time she is shown a picture from the opposite point of view from the one she had. There is one sign visible, and she marked an "X" at approximately where she thought the thing hit the pavement. Interestingly, the pencil or pen mark was made with a different writing instrument than the one with which CE 354 was marked. Note the black under the large circle and the "C" inside it. (Perhaps the markings on CE 354 were done over with white pen for better visibility?)
It's worth noting that Baker's perspective of exactly where on the opposite side of the street was in relation to the signs the thing hit the pavement may not be reflected in this aerial image. Additionally, her exact places on Elm Street might be adversely affected by time and memory flaws and other issues, but certainly which side of the road should be accurate, and we know who was standing on that south side of the road. James "Ike" Altgens indicated on the same photograph that he was in approximately the place marked "3." But there were other people on that side of the road, as well. Charles Brehm, Jean Hill, and Mary Moorman were also on that side of the road. And one of them described something landing on the road nearby.
Virginia Baker told the Warren Commission that she thought it looked "like sparks." At first she thought it was a firecracker. Later, she decided it was a bullet strike.
I think it was something else. And an interview with Charles Brehm tells us exactly what.
Virginia Baker told the Warren Commission that she thought it looked "like sparks." At first she thought it was a firecracker. Later, she decided it was a bullet strike.
I think it was something else. And an interview with Charles Brehm tells us exactly what.
-----
Charles Brehm
Remember Charles Brehm's interview in Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment?
Remember that skull fragment or "whatever it was" that landed on the road next to the curb, near Brehm's feet?
Remember Charles Brehm's interview in Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment?
Remember that skull fragment or "whatever it was" that landed on the road next to the curb, near Brehm's feet?
Are there any other accounts of this "skull fragment" or "whatever it was"? And what on Earth happened to it?
To answer that, we turn to Sheriff's Deputy Seymour Weitzman.
-----
Seymour Weitzman
Sheriff's Deputy Seymour Weitzman, in his same-day Sheriff's Department report, described hearing about "Something red rolling on Elm Street." He investigated, and found "what appeared to be a portion of bone or bone structure which bore fresh blood stains." He stated that "This was taken to the Dallas Police Laboratory." (As it turned out, it was not actually taken to the DPD laboratory, but Weitzman might have assumed that it was.)
Sheriff's Deputy Seymour Weitzman, in his same-day Sheriff's Department report, described hearing about "Something red rolling on Elm Street." He investigated, and found "what appeared to be a portion of bone or bone structure which bore fresh blood stains." He stated that "This was taken to the Dallas Police Laboratory." (As it turned out, it was not actually taken to the DPD laboratory, but Weitzman might have assumed that it was.)
Seymour Weitzman's FBI report, from https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm
We come across this "bony structure" again in Weitzman's Warren Commission testimony. As it turns out, Weitzman not only saw this thing, he also picked it up, thinking at first that it was a piece of a firecracker. (I note that cameraman Malcolm Couch, in his Sixth Floor Museum "Living History" interview, described following a "well-dressed man" who had picked something up from the street and carried it away. Weitzman was known to have been wearing a jacket and tie on that day.) Weitzman gave this thing to a man who identified himself as a "Secret Service agent." The Secret Service agency denied that any agents stayed behind in Dealey Plaza, which happened to be against protocol (protocol being to "cover and evacuate," not go chasing after suspects or staying behind to investigate). This denial gave rise to the idea that there were one or two "fake" Secret Service men running around in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. But Weitzman also testified that he "found out later that it was a piece of the President's skull." How would he have "found out later" that the bony structure was skull bone if he had given it to a "fake" Secret Service agent?
Weitzman's FBI report recording him as saying that this bone fragment went to the Dallas Police Department laboratory was probably an erroneous assumption on Weitzman's part. He told the Warren Commission that he told the Secret Service agent that it "should" go to the DPD lab and assumed that it would go there, when it likely went somewhere else--like the FBI's laboratory, or possibly even the autopsy (where bone fragments were brought in during the chaotic event)--instead.
The "something red rolling on Elm Street" mentioned in this report might be what Stavis Ellis saw as his "curb strike." At leas, we have corroboration for something hitting the pavement near the south curb, and that "something" was a piece of the President's skull. The thing "like sparks" that Virginia Rachley Baker saw might have been the skull fragment bouncing or rolling down the street (Weitzman's "something red thing rolling on Elm Street") that Baker misinterpreted as "sparks" from what she first thought was a "firecracker" (and only later realized was gunfire).
Then again, Ellis described seeing the "dust" or "debris" with the first shot, not the second, and Virginia Rachley Baker said she saw her "sparks" about the time of the second shot. Stavis Ellis believed that his "curb strike" happened with the "first" shot, and the skull fragment didn't land near the curb until after the "second" shot. Both Ellis and Baker described hearing only "three" shots, but whether they heard the same three shots, or misinterpreted separate shots as "echoes," or inattention blindness caused them to miss any shots is a subject open for debate.
The Weldon image showing Ellis's first shot aligns pretty well with where Alan Smith and Pierce Allman and others place a shot as occurring, but not so well with where Virginia Rachley Baker saw her "sparks" and where Charles Brehm was standing when the skull fragment landed on the pavement near his feet (although the Baker and Brehm align pretty well with each other).
Yet despite the difference in location, both events happened fairly early in the assassination sequence (first or second shot, according to the witnesses), and by the acoustical evidence, the first and second impulses were only 2 1/2 seconds apart. There is also the speed of light vs. sound to consider, where the visual of whatever occurred arrived to Stavis Ellis's eyes before the sound of the shot reached his ears. There is a possibility that the time proximity between the first (Allman/Smith/etc.) shot and second (Altgens 6) shot could have confused Ellis into merging two slightly separated events into a single event in his mind? Could there possibly even be something else that connects the Smith/Allman shot with the Baker/Brehm sparky skull fragment?
What if the skull fragment ejected with the Smith/Allman shot (which Smith described as "forehead"), but didn't land on the pavement until a couple of seconds later?
How could that be?
To answer that, let's take a look at another DPD motorcycle officer, Bobby Hargis.
Weitzman's FBI report recording him as saying that this bone fragment went to the Dallas Police Department laboratory was probably an erroneous assumption on Weitzman's part. He told the Warren Commission that he told the Secret Service agent that it "should" go to the DPD lab and assumed that it would go there, when it likely went somewhere else--like the FBI's laboratory, or possibly even the autopsy (where bone fragments were brought in during the chaotic event)--instead.
The "something red rolling on Elm Street" mentioned in this report might be what Stavis Ellis saw as his "curb strike." At leas, we have corroboration for something hitting the pavement near the south curb, and that "something" was a piece of the President's skull. The thing "like sparks" that Virginia Rachley Baker saw might have been the skull fragment bouncing or rolling down the street (Weitzman's "something red thing rolling on Elm Street") that Baker misinterpreted as "sparks" from what she first thought was a "firecracker" (and only later realized was gunfire).
Then again, Ellis described seeing the "dust" or "debris" with the first shot, not the second, and Virginia Rachley Baker said she saw her "sparks" about the time of the second shot. Stavis Ellis believed that his "curb strike" happened with the "first" shot, and the skull fragment didn't land near the curb until after the "second" shot. Both Ellis and Baker described hearing only "three" shots, but whether they heard the same three shots, or misinterpreted separate shots as "echoes," or inattention blindness caused them to miss any shots is a subject open for debate.
The Weldon image showing Ellis's first shot aligns pretty well with where Alan Smith and Pierce Allman and others place a shot as occurring, but not so well with where Virginia Rachley Baker saw her "sparks" and where Charles Brehm was standing when the skull fragment landed on the pavement near his feet (although the Baker and Brehm align pretty well with each other).
Yet despite the difference in location, both events happened fairly early in the assassination sequence (first or second shot, according to the witnesses), and by the acoustical evidence, the first and second impulses were only 2 1/2 seconds apart. There is also the speed of light vs. sound to consider, where the visual of whatever occurred arrived to Stavis Ellis's eyes before the sound of the shot reached his ears. There is a possibility that the time proximity between the first (Allman/Smith/etc.) shot and second (Altgens 6) shot could have confused Ellis into merging two slightly separated events into a single event in his mind? Could there possibly even be something else that connects the Smith/Allman shot with the Baker/Brehm sparky skull fragment?
What if the skull fragment ejected with the Smith/Allman shot (which Smith described as "forehead"), but didn't land on the pavement until a couple of seconds later?
How could that be?
To answer that, let's take a look at another DPD motorcycle officer, Bobby Hargis.
-----
Bobby Hargis
DPD motorcycle escort officer Bobby Hargis was riding his bike to the left rear of the Presidential limousine, which was on the south side of the street, and can be seen next to Clint Hill in the Altgens 6 photograph.
DPD motorcycle escort officer Bobby Hargis was riding his bike to the left rear of the Presidential limousine, which was on the south side of the street, and can be seen next to Clint Hill in the Altgens 6 photograph.
Altgens 6 with Bobby Hargis annotated
Hargis was hit in the face by bone, blood, and brain matter. In the video below, he gestures to his left cheek, but I believe he was actually hit on the right side, the side closer to the President (and I'll explain why in a moment). This video, found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RwPaoK9iIk (starting at about 1:20) was, I believe, taken from The Men Who Killed Kennedy.
This interview implies that Hargis didn't realize he had been splattered with matter until after the shooting, when a fellow officer indicated that he had shmutz on his cheek.
Below is an early account of Hargis being "splattered with blood," from Daily News, November 24, 1963. This account makes it seem like Hargis was splattered with blood and "felt something hit" him with the later shot, the AR-15 head shot. He may well have been hit twice. But given the interview above, it may be possible that he didn't realize exactly when he "felt something hit," didn't realize Kennedy had been hit until the second head shot, and may have confused the sequence in his mind. It's also possible that the reporter misheard something Hargis said, and arranged the story into a more dramatic order. At any rate, other accounts place the limousine as stopping first, before the dramatic head head shot, not after, and then they took off.
taken from https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/DailyNews_11-24-63_0001a.gif
One also wonders how Hargis could have seen Connally's "real surprised" expression when Hargis was riding to the rear of the limousine and Connally was turning away from Hargis in the other direction to look at Kennedy. I think there may have been an attempt, either on the part of the reporter or on the part of Hargis, to create a bit more drama in the account. It may not have been entirely accurate. Another interesting aspect of this account is that it says, Hargis was "splattered with blood," and "Then (he) felt something hit (him)." The way these sentences are punctuated in the article indicates a weird sequence of being "splattered" and then feeling "something hit"--two things that should have happened pretty much simultaneously. I actually think the order of occurrence was the other way around, and Hargis' memory reconstructed it in way that made more sense, since he may not have been aware that Kennedy was hit in the head the first time, then saw that something was wrong in the limousine, and then could hardly miss the AR-15 head shot. Memory is an imperfect phenomenon, after all. Plus, this is a second-hand account, through a reporter, rather than one spoken directly by Hargis himself.
Here is what Hargis said in his Warren Commission testimony:
Mr. HARGIS. Well, at the time that the limousine turned left on Elm Street I was staying pretty well right up with the car. Sometimes on Elm we couldn’t get right up next to it on account of the crowd, but the crowd was thinning
out down here at the triple underpass, so, I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and a real shocked and surprised expression on his face.
Mr. STERN. On Governor Connally’s?
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; that is why I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that (indicating) the shot that killed him hit him. I don’t know whether it was the second or the third shot. Everything happened so fast.
Mr. STERN. But, you cannot now recall more than two shots?
Nr. HARRIS. That is all that I can recall remembering. Of course, ‘everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would hare noticed them.
Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally shot you have just described?
Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
Mr. STERN. Yes.
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood.
out down here at the triple underpass, so, I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and a real shocked and surprised expression on his face.
Mr. STERN. On Governor Connally’s?
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; that is why I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that (indicating) the shot that killed him hit him. I don’t know whether it was the second or the third shot. Everything happened so fast.
Mr. STERN. But, you cannot now recall more than two shots?
Nr. HARRIS. That is all that I can recall remembering. Of course, ‘everything was moving so fast at the time that there could have been 30 more shots that I probably never would hare noticed them.
Mr. STERN. Did something happen to you, personally shot you have just described?
Mr. HARGIS. You mean about the blood hitting me?
Mr. STERN. Yes.
Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood.
There are a couple of things to point out here. First, note that "everything was moving so fast at the time." It was a confusing experience (not only for Hargis, but also for Ellis, who was "convinced" by the curb removal that the curb strike had actually happened, not realizing it was a different curb). For example, Hargis initially thought that Governor Connally had been hit first. He also could not recall more than two shots, although he admitted that "there could have been 30 more shots" that he wouldn't have noticed.
I don't think Hargis noticed exactly when he was splattered with blood and what-not. To understand the reason I think that, as well as why I think he was struck with matter on his right cheek rather than his left (as he indicates in the video interview above), let's return to the Altgens 6 photo and take a closer look at Hargis in that picture.
I don't think Hargis noticed exactly when he was splattered with blood and what-not. To understand the reason I think that, as well as why I think he was struck with matter on his right cheek rather than his left (as he indicates in the video interview above), let's return to the Altgens 6 photo and take a closer look at Hargis in that picture.
On Hargis' right cheek, from the bottom of his sun glasses to the edge of his mouth, is an anomaly. I believe this to be the skull fragment that landed near Brehm's feet. I contend that it ejected from Kennedy's head with the first shot, the one that Alan Smith saw enter Kennedy's "forehead." I further contend that it stuck there momentarily as Hargis travelled down Elm Street on his motorcycle, and then fell off his cheek to land on the pavement next to the curb near Charles Brehm's feet, looking "like sparks" as it bounced and rolled a bit down Elm Street.
To further support my contention, let's look at accounts of "hair flying up" and "flesh" flying out of the car, and other similar accounts. Could these be Stavis Ellis's "cement dust"? I think they were.
To further support my contention, let's look at accounts of "hair flying up" and "flesh" flying out of the car, and other similar accounts. Could these be Stavis Ellis's "cement dust"? I think they were.
-----
Hair Flying Up (First Shot)
An early account in the Chicago Tribune (11/23/63) says that "hair on the President's head flew up," and then the "man behind the rifle" fired two more times after that.
An early account in the Chicago Tribune (11/23/63) says that "hair on the President's head flew up," and then the "man behind the rifle" fired two more times after that.
By this account, Kennedy was shot in the head with the first shot, which is related as the most important shot. I contend that when the "hair on the President's head flew up," it was the scalp lifting, and the skull fragment, along with blood and brains and whatever other matter, ejecting from the back of Kennedy's head. The skull fragment landed on Bobby Hargis's right cheek, where it can be seen in Altgens 6. It stuck there momentarily before flying off and landing in the street near Brehm's feet.
I believe that there was a brief delay between when the bullet struck Kennedy's head, and when the skull fragment landed next to the curb--long enough for Bobby Hargis and his motorcycle to travel down Elm Street from where the fragment initially landed on his cheek to where it fell off and landed on the pavement, but close enough together that someone trying to recall the sequence of things--someone like Stavis Ellis--might have merged the two things into a single event, especially when trying to constrain everything he saw into the "three" shots that were rumored to have been fired. Stavis Ellis's "cement dust" might well have been the ejectile from Kennedy's head, and his "curb strike" might well have been the skull fragment landing on the pavement near the curb. That the "cement dust" occurred momentarily before the "curb strike" might well have become confused in his memory, and his mental reconstruction may well have merged the two things into one.
There are reasons behind this conjecture, because a number of other people saw something occur with the first shot. They reported something flying around inside and out of the car with the first shot, but not a curb strike.
I believe that there was a brief delay between when the bullet struck Kennedy's head, and when the skull fragment landed next to the curb--long enough for Bobby Hargis and his motorcycle to travel down Elm Street from where the fragment initially landed on his cheek to where it fell off and landed on the pavement, but close enough together that someone trying to recall the sequence of things--someone like Stavis Ellis--might have merged the two things into a single event, especially when trying to constrain everything he saw into the "three" shots that were rumored to have been fired. Stavis Ellis's "cement dust" might well have been the ejectile from Kennedy's head, and his "curb strike" might well have been the skull fragment landing on the pavement near the curb. That the "cement dust" occurred momentarily before the "curb strike" might well have become confused in his memory, and his mental reconstruction may well have merged the two things into one.
There are reasons behind this conjecture, because a number of other people saw something occur with the first shot. They reported something flying around inside and out of the car with the first shot, but not a curb strike.
-----
Ruby Henderson
Ruby Henderson was standing on the north-east corner of the Houston-Elm intersection, in front of the Dal-Tex building. Her position puts her behind the limousine just after the turn onto Elm. She said that "at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing," she saw “paper” flying out of the car and later realized it was “flesh.” Moreover, in order to see the paper/flesh fly out of the President's car, there would have to be no other cars (like the Secret Service follow-up car) blocking her view, which gives us further indication of the timing of this shot. (See the bottom of the first page and top of the second page of her FBI report.)
Ruby Henderson was standing on the north-east corner of the Houston-Elm intersection, in front of the Dal-Tex building. Her position puts her behind the limousine just after the turn onto Elm. She said that "at the time the motorcade passed where she was standing," she saw “paper” flying out of the car and later realized it was “flesh.” Moreover, in order to see the paper/flesh fly out of the President's car, there would have to be no other cars (like the Secret Service follow-up car) blocking her view, which gives us further indication of the timing of this shot. (See the bottom of the first page and top of the second page of her FBI report.)
-----
Jack Franzen
Jack Franzen was standing with his wife and child in the grassy area on the south side of Elm Street. They were the last people on that side of the street before the limousine went through the Triple Underpass. His FBI report, like Ruby Henderson's, reveals some very interesting details:
Jack Franzen was standing with his wife and child in the grassy area on the south side of Elm Street. They were the last people on that side of the street before the limousine went through the Triple Underpass. His FBI report, like Ruby Henderson's, reveals some very interesting details:
Notice that the "small fragments flying inside the car" came with the first shot, not the last.
(Notice, too, that Secret Service men, some with firearms, "unloaded" from the car and ran up the grassy slope. I believe that Franzen is combining Kennedy's detail with Johnson's in this account, and Kennedy's detail returned to their car, while 2-3 of Johnson's men continued running up the hill. But that's another story.)
(Notice, too, that Secret Service men, some with firearms, "unloaded" from the car and ran up the grassy slope. I believe that Franzen is combining Kennedy's detail with Johnson's in this account, and Kennedy's detail returned to their car, while 2-3 of Johnson's men continued running up the hill. But that's another story.)
-----
Mrs. Charles Hester
The Dallas Times Herald assassination archives ("Morgue") contains a collection editor's notes, One of them, #449, contained very interesting information related to Mrs. Charles Hester, a payroll clerk in Zapruder's company Jennifer's Juniors, who described the first shot as "like a firecracker exploded in the car..whn Firstone (sic.) hit him...like firecracker exploding in his head, exploded blood." (Thank you, Denis Morrisette, for posting the information to the education Forum site at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30389-dallas-times-herald-editor’s-notes/) with a link to the Dallas Times morgue.)
The Dallas Times Herald assassination archives ("Morgue") contains a collection editor's notes, One of them, #449, contained very interesting information related to Mrs. Charles Hester, a payroll clerk in Zapruder's company Jennifer's Juniors, who described the first shot as "like a firecracker exploded in the car..whn Firstone (sic.) hit him...like firecracker exploding in his head, exploded blood." (Thank you, Denis Morrisette, for posting the information to the education Forum site at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30389-dallas-times-herald-editor’s-notes/) with a link to the Dallas Times morgue.)
Editors note #449 from the Dallas Times Herald archives, known as the "Morgue," from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1M579IE0NLpX3Ry-PxP03r6GNGZp9HoRz
There was also televised same-day reporting that the intersection of Houston and Elm, just at the end of the turn, east of the TSBD entrance, is "where the President was shot"--reporting by none other than Dan Rather.
-----
Royce Skelton
Now, here, actually is a witness who might corroborate Stavis Ellis's "curb strike."
From his same-day Sheriff's Department statement:
Now, here, actually is a witness who might corroborate Stavis Ellis's "curb strike."
From his same-day Sheriff's Department statement:
I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman say, "Oh no," or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the South away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane.
This was the first statement he made, on the same day, and I believe probably the most accurate to what he originally perceived. Here he says he "saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car." I believe "left" means to the car's left, not his own left as he was looking at the car from the top of the Triple underpass. And I believe the thing he saw "hit the pavement" was the skull fragment. I also think that when he heard "another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement," which he clarifies as "in the left or middle lane" (I'm not sure whether "left" means from the car's perspective or from his own perspective looking at the car from the Triple Underpass), but the fact that he said it could have come from the "left or middle lane" makes me think he saw the "puff of smoke" from the AR-15, and just assumed that it came from ground-level, which would be the pavement. That the "concrete was knocked to the south" can be partly explained by the wind direction. But note that "concrete" is not "pavement." It may be that what he saw was concrete-colored, which confused him. After all, everything happened in a very brief span of time, and happened unexpectedly. I speculate that the difference in the speed of travel of light (i.e., when he saw what he saw, about instantaneous with the event) versus the speed of sound (when he heard what he heard, which would have been slightly delayed from the visual) may have further confused him. Being one of the Dealey Plaza witnesses farthest away from the TSBD window, the difference between the speeds of light and sound would have affected his observations even more than other witnesses, and added another element of confusion as he tried to reconstruct the sequence in his memory afterwards. He saw something, and then heard "two shots" (I actually think he heard three, misinterpreting my SS warning/revolver shot as an "echo") and interpreting them as "more" shots because they occurred to his ears after he had seen something hit the pavement with his eyes. Then he heard "another" shot (one, by his count, but possibly the double-bang of the last two shots, misinterpreted as a shot plus "echo"), and associated his "concrete" spray (the AR-15 "puff of smoke, along with any ejectile from Kennedy's head) with that shot.
I do think that the difference in the speed of travel between light and sound may have created some confusion, because he saw something "hit the pavement" and then heard "two more" shots (the sound from the visual he had just seen). Then there was a pause (the "oh no" and Jackie grabbing JFK and/or Nellie grabbing JBC), and then he heard "another shot" (the double-bang, mis-interpreted as shot + echo, occurring 4.8 seconds after the previous shot in the acoustical evidence).
Things get more confusing when we see Skelton's later statements. (In fact, the farther away in time from November 22, 1963, the more confusion seems apparent--at least to me.) From his later (December 17, 1963) FBI report:
I do think that the difference in the speed of travel between light and sound may have created some confusion, because he saw something "hit the pavement" and then heard "two more" shots (the sound from the visual he had just seen). Then there was a pause (the "oh no" and Jackie grabbing JFK and/or Nellie grabbing JBC), and then he heard "another shot" (the double-bang, mis-interpreted as shot + echo, occurring 4.8 seconds after the previous shot in the acoustical evidence).
Things get more confusing when we see Skelton's later statements. (In fact, the farther away in time from November 22, 1963, the more confusion seems apparent--at least to me.) From his later (December 17, 1963) FBI report:
Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building. A few seconds later, he heard what he believed to be three shots. He did not see anyone fall but he saw a woman grab someone and hold him and heard her say "Oh, no! Oh, no!" It seemed as if the car slowed down for few seconds and then he heard a voice say something to the effect of: "Get out of here," and the car quickly sped away.
So here, he heard "three" shots instead of the previous "two more." I suspect that what he actually heard was the initial grouping of three shots misinterpreted as two (misinterpreting the SS revolver warning as an "echo"), then a pause (4.8 seconds in the acoustical evidence) then the double-bang, mis-interpreted as a single shot plus an echo. But there does seem to be a separation between the visual of the "dust spray" (which is now "in front" of the car, whereas it was previously to the "left rear" of the car), but still on the "driver's side" of the car), and the three shots that occurred "a few seconds later."
Note that we now have a time separation between the visual of the "dust spray" and the "few seconds later" when he heard "what he believed to be three shots." Again, sound travels slower than light, so the sound associated with a visual would have arrived to Skelton's ears after the visual--which can be very confusing, especially when trying to reconstruct the sequence of events in memory later.
I think the "something" landing on the pavement with his first grouping of "two" shots, per Skelton's same-day account, by this time was beginning to merge with the "concrete" spray of his later "another" shot, and the skull fragment from the first grouping was beginning to be forgotten, especially since this may have occurred before he actually perceived any sound like gunfire, due to the slower speed of sound. And as we will see, the "left-rear" or "driver's side" of the car will change as well, in his next statements, made to the Warren Commission.
From my own experience, I remember when I was a passenger in a vehicle immediately following a car that frequently backfired. I was entertained by the flash of backfire in the tailpipe, followed a couple of seconds afterward by the BANG! This happened repeatedly, at intervals, so I was able to recognize that the visual was associated with the delayed sound. The car I was riding in was a lot closer to the backfiring car than Skelton was to the TSBD window, and the discordance between the visual and the audio impressed me greatly.
Of course, Skelton was not given repeated experiences of seeing and hearing the assassination events; he was given only one experience. And his memory of that experience seems to have varied somewhat between re-tellings. (And as we will see, it will vary again in the next re-telling.) Memory is a reconstructed activity, and I believe that Skelton's memory constructs were affected not only by time between the event and the re-telling, time-delay between visual and auditory inputs, but also by his assumptions of cause and effect.
I'm not sure what Skelton means when he says that the "dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building." Perhaps he meant that the sound he associated with the "dust spray" seemed like it came from the TSBD? Or that he saw something just after the limousine had turned the corner, when it was closest to the TSBD? At any rate, I think the intervening weeks had started to merge the "something hitting the pavement" before his first grouping of "two" shots (as in his same-day account) with the "cement spray" in his later accounts. Memory is, after all, a process of reconstruction. And that reconstruction can occur with erroneous assumptions, as I think it did here.
Note the oddness of the statement that Skelton "did not see anyone fall." I suspect he was asked if he saw anyone fall, because (as Doug Weldon points out in his 1999 presentation), why would he mention what he didn't see. He didn't see Big Foot, he didn't see a flying saucer, etc.--none of anything else he didn't see was mentioned--but it is mentioned that he "didn't see anyone fall," which makes me suspect that he had been asked if he had seen someone fall, or had heard from his co-workers that they had seen someone fall. S.M. Holland, was one witness who saw a Secret Service man fall over "like he was killed, too." And even though I am certain that Hickey fell over, inattention blindness would explain why Skelton himself didn't actually someone fall over. That he didn't see Hickey fall does not mean that Hickey didn't fall--only that Skelton didn't notice it. But Skelton did see a "dust spray," which might have been the "puff of smoke" as described by his fellow railroad workers on top of the Triple Underpass, and made the incorrect assumption that it came from ground level.
Then we get to Skelton's even later Warren Commission testimony from April 8, 1964:
Note that we now have a time separation between the visual of the "dust spray" and the "few seconds later" when he heard "what he believed to be three shots." Again, sound travels slower than light, so the sound associated with a visual would have arrived to Skelton's ears after the visual--which can be very confusing, especially when trying to reconstruct the sequence of events in memory later.
I think the "something" landing on the pavement with his first grouping of "two" shots, per Skelton's same-day account, by this time was beginning to merge with the "concrete" spray of his later "another" shot, and the skull fragment from the first grouping was beginning to be forgotten, especially since this may have occurred before he actually perceived any sound like gunfire, due to the slower speed of sound. And as we will see, the "left-rear" or "driver's side" of the car will change as well, in his next statements, made to the Warren Commission.
From my own experience, I remember when I was a passenger in a vehicle immediately following a car that frequently backfired. I was entertained by the flash of backfire in the tailpipe, followed a couple of seconds afterward by the BANG! This happened repeatedly, at intervals, so I was able to recognize that the visual was associated with the delayed sound. The car I was riding in was a lot closer to the backfiring car than Skelton was to the TSBD window, and the discordance between the visual and the audio impressed me greatly.
Of course, Skelton was not given repeated experiences of seeing and hearing the assassination events; he was given only one experience. And his memory of that experience seems to have varied somewhat between re-tellings. (And as we will see, it will vary again in the next re-telling.) Memory is a reconstructed activity, and I believe that Skelton's memory constructs were affected not only by time between the event and the re-telling, time-delay between visual and auditory inputs, but also by his assumptions of cause and effect.
I'm not sure what Skelton means when he says that the "dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building." Perhaps he meant that the sound he associated with the "dust spray" seemed like it came from the TSBD? Or that he saw something just after the limousine had turned the corner, when it was closest to the TSBD? At any rate, I think the intervening weeks had started to merge the "something hitting the pavement" before his first grouping of "two" shots (as in his same-day account) with the "cement spray" in his later accounts. Memory is, after all, a process of reconstruction. And that reconstruction can occur with erroneous assumptions, as I think it did here.
Note the oddness of the statement that Skelton "did not see anyone fall." I suspect he was asked if he saw anyone fall, because (as Doug Weldon points out in his 1999 presentation), why would he mention what he didn't see. He didn't see Big Foot, he didn't see a flying saucer, etc.--none of anything else he didn't see was mentioned--but it is mentioned that he "didn't see anyone fall," which makes me suspect that he had been asked if he had seen someone fall, or had heard from his co-workers that they had seen someone fall. S.M. Holland, was one witness who saw a Secret Service man fall over "like he was killed, too." And even though I am certain that Hickey fell over, inattention blindness would explain why Skelton himself didn't actually someone fall over. That he didn't see Hickey fall does not mean that Hickey didn't fall--only that Skelton didn't notice it. But Skelton did see a "dust spray," which might have been the "puff of smoke" as described by his fellow railroad workers on top of the Triple Underpass, and made the incorrect assumption that it came from ground level.
Then we get to Skelton's even later Warren Commission testimony from April 8, 1964:
Mr. SKELTON. Just about the same time the car straightened up-got around the corner-I heard two shots, but I didn't know at that time they were shots.
Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?
Mr. SKELTON. Well, I couldn't tell then, they were still so far from where I was.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there-more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were theses dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car.
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were these dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car?
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that--I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
...
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SKELTON. I think I heard four---I mean---I couldn't be sure.
Mr. BALL. You think you heard four?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
...
Mr. SKELTON. There's one thing I could say---you have that other report?
Mr. BALL. What is that?
Mr. SKELTON. About when I saw one of the bullets where it hit on the pavement and it hit, the smoke did come from the general vicinity of where you say Oswald was.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?
Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.
Mr. BALL. You mean there was some smoke in the building?
Mr. SKELTON. No.; On the pavement--you know, pavement when it is hit with
a hard object it will scatter---it will spread.
Mr. BALL. Which way did it spread?
Mr. SKELTON. It spread just right in line, like you said.
Mr. BALL. I haven't said anything--tell me what you think it was?
Mr. SKELTON. Like I said---south of us--it would be southwest, you know, in a direct line from the Texas Depository.
Mr. BALL. I see. In other words, the spray seemed to go to the west; is that right?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
...
Mr. BALL. But you did see something light on the street?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL About where?
Mr. SKELTON. A bullet---let's see---this is kind of out of proportion [referring to diagram], and I would say the bullet hit about right here [indicating on diagram].
Mr. BALL. Then, let's mark that as "Skelton (2)" and we will make the first Skelton number (1) and then Skelton number (2), and this "X" mark here is where you saw the bullet, and which way did the spray go?
Mr. SKELTON. Just like it was going there.
Mr. BALL. Mark an arrow showing the direction that you think the spray was going.
Mr. SKELTON. (Marks the diagram with arrow.)
Mr. BALL. That's fine, and we will make that as an exhibit, Skelton Exhibit A and attach it to your deposition.
Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?
Mr. SKELTON. Well, I couldn't tell then, they were still so far from where I was.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there-more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were theses dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car.
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that-I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
Mr. BALL. Did the shots sound like they came from where you were standing?
Mr. SKELTON. No, sir; definitely not. It sounded like they were right there more or less like motorcycle backfire, but I thought that they were these dumbballs that they throw at the cement because I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where did it seem to you that the sound came from, what direction?
Mr. SKELTON. Towards the President's car.
Mr. BALL. From the President's car?
Mr. SKELTON. Right around the motorcycles and all that--I couldn't distinguish because it was too far away.
...
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. SKELTON. I think I heard four---I mean---I couldn't be sure.
Mr. BALL. You think you heard four?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
...
Mr. SKELTON. There's one thing I could say---you have that other report?
Mr. BALL. What is that?
Mr. SKELTON. About when I saw one of the bullets where it hit on the pavement and it hit, the smoke did come from the general vicinity of where you say Oswald was.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute let me ask you some questions about that. Tell me, now, about the smoke did you see some smoke?
Mr. SKELTON. After those two shots, and the car came on down closer to the triple underpass, well, there was another shot--two more shots I heard, but one of them--I saw a bullet, or I guess it was a bullet--I take for granted it was--- hit in the left front of the President's car on the cement, and when it did, the smoke carried with it--away from the building.
Mr. BALL. You mean there was some smoke in the building?
Mr. SKELTON. No.; On the pavement--you know, pavement when it is hit with
a hard object it will scatter---it will spread.
Mr. BALL. Which way did it spread?
Mr. SKELTON. It spread just right in line, like you said.
Mr. BALL. I haven't said anything--tell me what you think it was?
Mr. SKELTON. Like I said---south of us--it would be southwest, you know, in a direct line from the Texas Depository.
Mr. BALL. I see. In other words, the spray seemed to go to the west; is that right?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes.
...
Mr. BALL. But you did see something light on the street?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL About where?
Mr. SKELTON. A bullet---let's see---this is kind of out of proportion [referring to diagram], and I would say the bullet hit about right here [indicating on diagram].
Mr. BALL. Then, let's mark that as "Skelton (2)" and we will make the first Skelton number (1) and then Skelton number (2), and this "X" mark here is where you saw the bullet, and which way did the spray go?
Mr. SKELTON. Just like it was going there.
Mr. BALL. Mark an arrow showing the direction that you think the spray was going.
Mr. SKELTON. (Marks the diagram with arrow.)
Mr. BALL. That's fine, and we will make that as an exhibit, Skelton Exhibit A and attach it to your deposition.
Notice a number of things here. First, hearing a shot "right around the motorcycles and all that" supports the AR-15 accident theory, and I and others have used this statement to support that.
Second, "just about the same time the car straightened up--got around the corner..." would place the car early in the assassination sequence when something occurred.
Third, now he mentions only hearing two shots at the beginning of his sequence, and then later (in the same Warren Commission testimony) he says "four" I think what he meant to say is that he heard two shots, then a pause, and then two more. Notice that now the "three" total from his December FBI interview has now become "four." I think that in the intervening time before his testimony, he may have heard from others that one of his shot-plus-echoes (the double-bang) was actually two separate shots, thus accounting for why he later said "four." I also think that he was still mis-interpreting one of his "two" shots before the roughly 5 second interval as an "echo" (most likely the Secret Service warning shot, the second impulse matching the "rifle withdrawn" characteristics, likely from a revolver rather than a rifle).
Finally, from his marking of "Skelton Exhibit A," we get where he believed he saw his "cement spray"--and it's now on the opposite side of Elm Street than the "left-rear of the car" or "driver's side" of the car, and right next to the curb (which would be the only source of "cement").
Here is "Skelton Exhibit A." It's a bit confusing, since 1) the quality of reproduction is poor, 2) it's not to scale (by Skelton's own words "out of proportion"), and 3) two overpasses are shown, the "RR Overpass" (where Skelton was standing) across the middle of the sketch, and the "Stemmons Fwy" overpass across the top. It appears that others have marked the "Stemmons Fwy" overpass, since there are two "X's" that do not represent Skelton's position, which was on the Railroad overpass. So who drew this sketch and who the others who marked it were, I don't know. But Skelton's position was on the "RR Overpass," apparently marked by an "X" to the left side of where Elm Street passes below it, and he apparently marked an "X" with an arrow directed towards the access road that cuts across in front of the TSBD as his "concrete dust" (about 1/3 up from the bottom, between the word "Elm" and the "RR Overpass"):
Second, "just about the same time the car straightened up--got around the corner..." would place the car early in the assassination sequence when something occurred.
Third, now he mentions only hearing two shots at the beginning of his sequence, and then later (in the same Warren Commission testimony) he says "four" I think what he meant to say is that he heard two shots, then a pause, and then two more. Notice that now the "three" total from his December FBI interview has now become "four." I think that in the intervening time before his testimony, he may have heard from others that one of his shot-plus-echoes (the double-bang) was actually two separate shots, thus accounting for why he later said "four." I also think that he was still mis-interpreting one of his "two" shots before the roughly 5 second interval as an "echo" (most likely the Secret Service warning shot, the second impulse matching the "rifle withdrawn" characteristics, likely from a revolver rather than a rifle).
Finally, from his marking of "Skelton Exhibit A," we get where he believed he saw his "cement spray"--and it's now on the opposite side of Elm Street than the "left-rear of the car" or "driver's side" of the car, and right next to the curb (which would be the only source of "cement").
Here is "Skelton Exhibit A." It's a bit confusing, since 1) the quality of reproduction is poor, 2) it's not to scale (by Skelton's own words "out of proportion"), and 3) two overpasses are shown, the "RR Overpass" (where Skelton was standing) across the middle of the sketch, and the "Stemmons Fwy" overpass across the top. It appears that others have marked the "Stemmons Fwy" overpass, since there are two "X's" that do not represent Skelton's position, which was on the Railroad overpass. So who drew this sketch and who the others who marked it were, I don't know. But Skelton's position was on the "RR Overpass," apparently marked by an "X" to the left side of where Elm Street passes below it, and he apparently marked an "X" with an arrow directed towards the access road that cuts across in front of the TSBD as his "concrete dust" (about 1/3 up from the bottom, between the word "Elm" and the "RR Overpass"):
One wonders why Skelton wasn't given his choice of photographs to mark for his "Skelton Exhibit A," but note the "X" between the word "Elm" and the rectangle labeled "RR Overpass," with an arrow pointed to the right, apparently indicating that the "smoke" blew towards the access road or fence. And it's now not on the "left-rear" or "driver's side" of where the limousine, but now near the curb closer to where the passenger side of the limousine would be. Huh! I think that Skelton's assumption that what he saw was "concrete dust" was coloring his memory of exactly where that "dust" came from, because his assumption that it was made of "concrete" had affected his memory.
I think Skelton is rather inelegantly and with somewhat malleable memory trying to describe is something like this: Just when the car had turned the corner onto Elm, he saw something hit the pavement to the left-rear of the car, the skull fragment, and a couple of seconds later heard the disconnected three shots (with the middle one of less volume than the other two, which he misinterpreted as an "echo"), thus accounting for his first count of "two" shots initially. Meanwhile, the car continued to move down Elm Street. Then there was a pause in the audible shots (of just under 5 seconds in the acoustics), and then he heard two more shots close together (the double-bang), which he initially thought was a single shot but heard from others later were separate shots, thus accounting for the early total of "three" and later total of "four" in his WC testimony. With that second grouping of 1-2 shots, he saw something that looked like "smoke" or "cement dust" (the AR-15 "puff of smoke") that blew towards the TSBD (per the wind direction), and he assumed that a bullet had "hit the pavement" or the "concrete" there and created the "dust." In the intervening time between his initial Sheriff's Department account and his later accounts, he forgot that something actually. hit the pavement possibly before he even heard the first sound of gunfire, due to the slower travel of sound versus light. Skelton might also have seen something explode out of the President's head at the same time as the "puff of smoke," which may have added to his confusion. Note that he never described Kennedy being struck in the head. I think he added his assumption of a "pavement" hit to this second group of shots, forgotten the thing hitting the pavement before he even heard any gunfire and/or confused the thing hitting the pavement behind (same day report) the limo, the skull fragment, with his assumption that something had hit the pavement in "front" of the limo with his second grouping of "two" shots. There was a lot going on, in a very brief span of time, he was among the witnesses farthest away from the TSBD (thus most affected by the delay between the speed of light versus the speed of sound for any TSBD shots or shots originating from around the TSBD), and he was, understandably, somewhat confused.
I think Skelton is rather inelegantly and with somewhat malleable memory trying to describe is something like this: Just when the car had turned the corner onto Elm, he saw something hit the pavement to the left-rear of the car, the skull fragment, and a couple of seconds later heard the disconnected three shots (with the middle one of less volume than the other two, which he misinterpreted as an "echo"), thus accounting for his first count of "two" shots initially. Meanwhile, the car continued to move down Elm Street. Then there was a pause in the audible shots (of just under 5 seconds in the acoustics), and then he heard two more shots close together (the double-bang), which he initially thought was a single shot but heard from others later were separate shots, thus accounting for the early total of "three" and later total of "four" in his WC testimony. With that second grouping of 1-2 shots, he saw something that looked like "smoke" or "cement dust" (the AR-15 "puff of smoke") that blew towards the TSBD (per the wind direction), and he assumed that a bullet had "hit the pavement" or the "concrete" there and created the "dust." In the intervening time between his initial Sheriff's Department account and his later accounts, he forgot that something actually. hit the pavement possibly before he even heard the first sound of gunfire, due to the slower travel of sound versus light. Skelton might also have seen something explode out of the President's head at the same time as the "puff of smoke," which may have added to his confusion. Note that he never described Kennedy being struck in the head. I think he added his assumption of a "pavement" hit to this second group of shots, forgotten the thing hitting the pavement before he even heard any gunfire and/or confused the thing hitting the pavement behind (same day report) the limo, the skull fragment, with his assumption that something had hit the pavement in "front" of the limo with his second grouping of "two" shots. There was a lot going on, in a very brief span of time, he was among the witnesses farthest away from the TSBD (thus most affected by the delay between the speed of light versus the speed of sound for any TSBD shots or shots originating from around the TSBD), and he was, understandably, somewhat confused.
-----
Dan Rather's Same-Day Reporting
While narrating an aftermath film for the CBS evening news, Dan Rather twice showed the area of Elm Street just after the turn while narrating that "this is practically the spot where the President was shot" and "right there is where the President was shot." The videos are presented in episode 7 of my documentary series, but here are stills from the two times he locates the President as being shot just after the turn:
While narrating an aftermath film for the CBS evening news, Dan Rather twice showed the area of Elm Street just after the turn while narrating that "this is practically the spot where the President was shot" and "right there is where the President was shot." The videos are presented in episode 7 of my documentary series, but here are stills from the two times he locates the President as being shot just after the turn:
Dan rather narrates an aftermath film in the CBS Evening News of 11/22/63. As a cop walks towards the steps leading to the main TSBD entrance, Rather says "Right there, is where the President was shot." The video is in Part 7 of my documentary series.
Later in the film narration, Rather says, "This is practically the spot on the street where the President was shot." The Dal-Tex building can be seen on the left.
The place where Rather indicates that Kennedy was shot is the end of the turn onto Elm Street. This does not match any official location for a shot, but it does match Stavis Ellis's location for a "curb strike," as related by Doug Weldon.
-----
"Puff of Smoke"?
Of course, there are the "Puff of Smoke" witnesses (especially the railroad workers on top of the Triple Underpass) who described the puff of smoke as "coming out from under the trees," or alternatively "over the road" and "8-10 feet above the surface of the road." But that "puff of smoke" came from a shot late in the assassination sequence. I contend that the "puff of smoke" came from the AR-15, which the wind blew towards the fence, not from the fence out towards the roadway. It was a matter of perspective that caused S.M. Holland to think it was "coming out from under the trees." But the wind was blowing back towards the tree/fence, not from the fence towards the road. The AR-15 "puff of smoke," if Stavis Ellis saw it, would only have added another element to confuse his memory.
Of course, there are the "Puff of Smoke" witnesses (especially the railroad workers on top of the Triple Underpass) who described the puff of smoke as "coming out from under the trees," or alternatively "over the road" and "8-10 feet above the surface of the road." But that "puff of smoke" came from a shot late in the assassination sequence. I contend that the "puff of smoke" came from the AR-15, which the wind blew towards the fence, not from the fence out towards the roadway. It was a matter of perspective that caused S.M. Holland to think it was "coming out from under the trees." But the wind was blowing back towards the tree/fence, not from the fence towards the road. The AR-15 "puff of smoke," if Stavis Ellis saw it, would only have added another element to confuse his memory.
Image from an army training film showing the M-16 producing "puffs of smoke." The AR-15 was the civilian version of the M-16. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7cUbMu75PU (about 1:43)
The "puff of smoke," which other witnesses described as occurring when the limousine was farther down Elm Street, added one more element to confuse Ellis. However, Ellis described his "curb strike" as occurring towards the beginning of the assassination sequence, not towards the end, with what he said was the "first" shot. I believe he did see something with the first shot, as other witnesses described, but it wasn't a "curb strike."
-----
Putting it together
So here's what I think happened:
Some witnesses naturally make better witnesses than others, and memory is a reconstructive process. It can be mistaken, or even manipulated to some extent. While I am certain that Stavis Ellis saw something, perhaps even a "cloud" of something, it might not have been exactly what he thought it was, or caused by exactly what he thought caused it, or occurred exactly the way he thought it did. He was certain of the windshield hole, and I accept that the hole existed. But he put the hole as a back-to-front hole, whereas others describe it as a front-to-back hole, with one citing "fragmentation" (or beveling) on the inside of the glass, which would indicate a front-to-back trajectory:
So here's what I think happened:
Some witnesses naturally make better witnesses than others, and memory is a reconstructive process. It can be mistaken, or even manipulated to some extent. While I am certain that Stavis Ellis saw something, perhaps even a "cloud" of something, it might not have been exactly what he thought it was, or caused by exactly what he thought caused it, or occurred exactly the way he thought it did. He was certain of the windshield hole, and I accept that the hole existed. But he put the hole as a back-to-front hole, whereas others describe it as a front-to-back hole, with one citing "fragmentation" (or beveling) on the inside of the glass, which would indicate a front-to-back trajectory:
HSCA image showing the principles of "fragmentation" or "beveling."
Did Stavis Ellis look for or feel for fragmentation/beveling when he saw the windshield at Parkland? He never made mention of doing so. Rather, he just assumed that the shot had been from back-to-front, because he was trying to constrain his memory to "three" shots, which was what had been widely reported. He himself reported only "three," but he might have misinterpreted separate shots as "echoes," or inattention blindness might have caused him to "miss" additional shots. Furthermore, his "back-to-front" trajectory, given the Weldon image showing the general location of his "curb strike" is inconsistent with a back-to-front trajectory for a bullet (even one that had ricocheted) to have been fired from the TSBD and then penetrate the windshield at the front of the car, from the rear. The car would have to be farther down Elm Street for that to occur. (And indeed, Doug Max Stone's scenario, which relies heavily on Stavis Ellis's account of a "curb strike," places the "curb strike" farther down Elm Street, as we will see shortly.)
Stavis Ellis, like all of the other witnesses, was not expecting an assassination to occur. He was only human, and his memory and accounts were colored by things he had seen for himself (the windshield hole and "debris" cloud) with some of the things that he had heard from others (like the curb removal, which "convinced" him of his curb strike (even though the curb that was removed was on a different street), and only "3" shots fired). Meanwhile, this happened "in a split second," and "all the time" he was "moving up" (driving along Elm Street) and trying to control his bike. So there were multiple things going on competing for his attention. He saw something, but he didn't see it clearly.
The short duration of the entire assassination sequence (only 8 seconds) and the even shorter span between shots (about 2 1/2 seconds between the first and second shots) may have merged multiple occurrences into one "condensed" occurrence. Something happening on the north side of Elm Street (the "poof" off the Stemmons sign) along with something else happening on the south side of Elm Street (the skull fragment landing on the road) might explain why Ellis described something happening to his "left" front (the north side of Elm Street) in the Weisberg document, while elsewhere describing the same thing as happening on the "south side of the curb" (on the south face of the north side of the street curb? Or the curb on the south side of the street?) or saying "right here" as being where the event occurred while showing Doug Weldon on an image of the south side of the street by the Houston Street intersection. So I look for corroboration among other witnesses.
As it happens, there were witnesses who described stuff flying around inside the car, or flying out of the car. However, no other witness that I could find described a "curb strike" on the north end of the street. There were many bystanders in that area, and not one of them described anything resembling a "curb strike" near their feet. There is, however, one witness to a different version of the Zapruder film who saw something "poof" off the sign, which an obscure version of the Zapruder film appears to also show. (The extant Zapruder film was altered, so whatever it shows now might or might not reflect what actually happened in Dealey Plaza that day.)
One witness, however, saw something hit the pavement on the south side, the side across the street from the TSBD, something that looked "like sparks." Virginia Rackley (or Rachley) Baker, standing on the north side of the street, seemed to think this thing hit the south side of the pavement somewhere around the second shot. And there is another witness who was standing on the grass on the south side, Charles Brehm, and who also saw something (described by his interviewer Mark Lane as a "skull fragment") land on the road near his feet about the time of the second shot. The thing, "whatever it was," resembled a "bone structure" and turned out to be a skull fragment that was picked up by Seymour Weitzman, as Weitzman finally admitted to in his WC testimony (after a bit of dissembling and off-record discussion). Weitzman had been told about "something red" that had been "rolling on Elm Street," went to find it, and carried it away (subsequently turning it over to someone who identified himself as a "Secret Service" man, giving rise to the rumor that there were "fake" Secret Service men running around in Dealey Plaza--even though Weitzman "found out later" that the thing was a "skull fragment"). Weitzman, being a "well-dressed man" at the time, was seen picking it up and carrying it away by Malcolm Couch.
So here are multiple corroboration points for something hitting the south curb at about the time of the "second" shot. Ellis described his event as occurring with the "first" shot. And, in fact, I think the skull fragment did eject with the first shot, but didn't land on the south side of the street near the curb until after the second. The anomaly on Bobby Hargis's cheek in Altgens 6 shows that Hargis could have been struck in the face by a skull fragment from the first shot, which fell off moments later, just after the second (which probably occurred about the time the Altgens 6 picture was taken), but which I believe had nothing to do with the skull fragment that was apparently on Hargis's cheek in Altgens 6, which then landed on the road near Brehm.
There are, however, multiple witnesses to something flying around in the car or out of the car with the first shot, when the car was closest to the Houston/Elm intersection. Ruby Henderson, Jack Franzen, Mrs. Charles Hester reported seeing "paper" or "flesh," or "firecrackers" or some such flying around inside the car. This aligns well with Alan Smith, who saw Kennedy "shot in the forehead" about this time, and with the limousine location of Pierce Allman's first "Boom!" But in these accounts witnesses saw stuff in the car, not at the curb. Based on these accounts and other evidence, I believe that Kennedy was shot in the forehead/temple with the first shot, as Alan Smith described, and that Henderson/Franzen/Hester were seeing the ejectile from the back of the head and trying to describe it. They couldn't fathom that an assassination had just taken place, so they interpreted what they saw as "paper" or "firecracker."
For Ellis, the ejectile from the first shot may have gotten merged with the related but slightly delayed landing of the south-side skull fragment, merging with the "poof" of the Stemmons sign on the north side, into a single simultaneously occurring "curb strike." in his mind. After all, he wasn't "convinced" about his "curb strike" until he heard about the curb removal--but the curb that was removed was on a different street! Just because Stavis Ellis thought he saw "cement dust" doesn't mean that it was actually cement dust. Ellis only "convinced" himself that it was a curb strike when he heard about a section of curb being removed (per the Weisberg document), not realizing that the curb that was removed came from a different street.
The media reports of only "three" shots and Stavis Ellis's knowledge of the windshield hole's existence caused him to believe that the same missile that caused the windshield hole (in his mistaken back-to-front trajectory) also caused the curb strike (which would place the curb strike ahead of the limousine on Elm Street)--which ignores the fact that a shot in the location he indicated to Doug Weldon would have been either a frontal shot to Kennedy (especially if he faced somewhat to his right to look at bystanders), or a left-to-right trajectory across the limousine. At any rate, a back-to-front trajectory, given the Weldon image, would have been impossible for a shot from the TSBD window. Ellis's "front" of the limousine curb strike, per one account, would have been behind the limousine a moment later (matching the Baker/Brehm locations of the spark-like skull fragment landing in the street) as the car travelled down Elm Street, thus adding another element of confusion to the sequence of events, in addition to making his back-to-front trajectory for the bullet hole impossible. To make things worse, there is a slight delay between when any visuals would have reached Ellis's eyes versus when any sound would have reached his ears, given the difference in speed between light and sound. He was far enough away that there would have been a slight delay in the sound.
What I think Ellis actually saw was the ejectile from Kennedy's head from the first shot, not "cement dust" flying up from the curb. This was the same "small fragments flying inside the car" that Jack Franzen saw, the same "paper" that turned out to be "flesh" that Ruby Henderson saw, the same "firecracker exploding in his head" that Mrs. Charles Hester saw, with the same ejection causing Kennedy's hair to "fly up" as the scalp tore to eject the skull fragments and perhaps brain matter. One fragment landed on Bobby Hargis' right cheek, as can be seen in the Altgens 6 photograph, where it momentarily sticks before falling to the pavement near the curb by Charles Brehm's feet. The rapid sequence of events became mushed together in Ellis's mind, becoming one single "curb strike," which he only became "convinced" about when hearing that a section of curb had been removed from Dealey Plaza--not knowing that the section removed came from the Main Street curb, not the Elm Street curb.
He made a mistake--several mistakes, actually. Not deliberate mistakes, but mistakes caused by confusion due to the rapidity of events, what he saw at Parkland, and the rumors he heard, He tried to mentally constrain everything he saw into a "3" shot scenario, and in doing so created conflicts not only with the accounts of others ("first" vs. "second" shot) but also in his own accounts ("front left" vs. "south" side of the street). It all happened so quickly, it was easy to mush everything together into one single "curb strike" in his constructed memory.
Stavis Ellis, like all of the other witnesses, was not expecting an assassination to occur. He was only human, and his memory and accounts were colored by things he had seen for himself (the windshield hole and "debris" cloud) with some of the things that he had heard from others (like the curb removal, which "convinced" him of his curb strike (even though the curb that was removed was on a different street), and only "3" shots fired). Meanwhile, this happened "in a split second," and "all the time" he was "moving up" (driving along Elm Street) and trying to control his bike. So there were multiple things going on competing for his attention. He saw something, but he didn't see it clearly.
The short duration of the entire assassination sequence (only 8 seconds) and the even shorter span between shots (about 2 1/2 seconds between the first and second shots) may have merged multiple occurrences into one "condensed" occurrence. Something happening on the north side of Elm Street (the "poof" off the Stemmons sign) along with something else happening on the south side of Elm Street (the skull fragment landing on the road) might explain why Ellis described something happening to his "left" front (the north side of Elm Street) in the Weisberg document, while elsewhere describing the same thing as happening on the "south side of the curb" (on the south face of the north side of the street curb? Or the curb on the south side of the street?) or saying "right here" as being where the event occurred while showing Doug Weldon on an image of the south side of the street by the Houston Street intersection. So I look for corroboration among other witnesses.
As it happens, there were witnesses who described stuff flying around inside the car, or flying out of the car. However, no other witness that I could find described a "curb strike" on the north end of the street. There were many bystanders in that area, and not one of them described anything resembling a "curb strike" near their feet. There is, however, one witness to a different version of the Zapruder film who saw something "poof" off the sign, which an obscure version of the Zapruder film appears to also show. (The extant Zapruder film was altered, so whatever it shows now might or might not reflect what actually happened in Dealey Plaza that day.)
One witness, however, saw something hit the pavement on the south side, the side across the street from the TSBD, something that looked "like sparks." Virginia Rackley (or Rachley) Baker, standing on the north side of the street, seemed to think this thing hit the south side of the pavement somewhere around the second shot. And there is another witness who was standing on the grass on the south side, Charles Brehm, and who also saw something (described by his interviewer Mark Lane as a "skull fragment") land on the road near his feet about the time of the second shot. The thing, "whatever it was," resembled a "bone structure" and turned out to be a skull fragment that was picked up by Seymour Weitzman, as Weitzman finally admitted to in his WC testimony (after a bit of dissembling and off-record discussion). Weitzman had been told about "something red" that had been "rolling on Elm Street," went to find it, and carried it away (subsequently turning it over to someone who identified himself as a "Secret Service" man, giving rise to the rumor that there were "fake" Secret Service men running around in Dealey Plaza--even though Weitzman "found out later" that the thing was a "skull fragment"). Weitzman, being a "well-dressed man" at the time, was seen picking it up and carrying it away by Malcolm Couch.
So here are multiple corroboration points for something hitting the south curb at about the time of the "second" shot. Ellis described his event as occurring with the "first" shot. And, in fact, I think the skull fragment did eject with the first shot, but didn't land on the south side of the street near the curb until after the second. The anomaly on Bobby Hargis's cheek in Altgens 6 shows that Hargis could have been struck in the face by a skull fragment from the first shot, which fell off moments later, just after the second (which probably occurred about the time the Altgens 6 picture was taken), but which I believe had nothing to do with the skull fragment that was apparently on Hargis's cheek in Altgens 6, which then landed on the road near Brehm.
There are, however, multiple witnesses to something flying around in the car or out of the car with the first shot, when the car was closest to the Houston/Elm intersection. Ruby Henderson, Jack Franzen, Mrs. Charles Hester reported seeing "paper" or "flesh," or "firecrackers" or some such flying around inside the car. This aligns well with Alan Smith, who saw Kennedy "shot in the forehead" about this time, and with the limousine location of Pierce Allman's first "Boom!" But in these accounts witnesses saw stuff in the car, not at the curb. Based on these accounts and other evidence, I believe that Kennedy was shot in the forehead/temple with the first shot, as Alan Smith described, and that Henderson/Franzen/Hester were seeing the ejectile from the back of the head and trying to describe it. They couldn't fathom that an assassination had just taken place, so they interpreted what they saw as "paper" or "firecracker."
For Ellis, the ejectile from the first shot may have gotten merged with the related but slightly delayed landing of the south-side skull fragment, merging with the "poof" of the Stemmons sign on the north side, into a single simultaneously occurring "curb strike." in his mind. After all, he wasn't "convinced" about his "curb strike" until he heard about the curb removal--but the curb that was removed was on a different street! Just because Stavis Ellis thought he saw "cement dust" doesn't mean that it was actually cement dust. Ellis only "convinced" himself that it was a curb strike when he heard about a section of curb being removed (per the Weisberg document), not realizing that the curb that was removed came from a different street.
The media reports of only "three" shots and Stavis Ellis's knowledge of the windshield hole's existence caused him to believe that the same missile that caused the windshield hole (in his mistaken back-to-front trajectory) also caused the curb strike (which would place the curb strike ahead of the limousine on Elm Street)--which ignores the fact that a shot in the location he indicated to Doug Weldon would have been either a frontal shot to Kennedy (especially if he faced somewhat to his right to look at bystanders), or a left-to-right trajectory across the limousine. At any rate, a back-to-front trajectory, given the Weldon image, would have been impossible for a shot from the TSBD window. Ellis's "front" of the limousine curb strike, per one account, would have been behind the limousine a moment later (matching the Baker/Brehm locations of the spark-like skull fragment landing in the street) as the car travelled down Elm Street, thus adding another element of confusion to the sequence of events, in addition to making his back-to-front trajectory for the bullet hole impossible. To make things worse, there is a slight delay between when any visuals would have reached Ellis's eyes versus when any sound would have reached his ears, given the difference in speed between light and sound. He was far enough away that there would have been a slight delay in the sound.
What I think Ellis actually saw was the ejectile from Kennedy's head from the first shot, not "cement dust" flying up from the curb. This was the same "small fragments flying inside the car" that Jack Franzen saw, the same "paper" that turned out to be "flesh" that Ruby Henderson saw, the same "firecracker exploding in his head" that Mrs. Charles Hester saw, with the same ejection causing Kennedy's hair to "fly up" as the scalp tore to eject the skull fragments and perhaps brain matter. One fragment landed on Bobby Hargis' right cheek, as can be seen in the Altgens 6 photograph, where it momentarily sticks before falling to the pavement near the curb by Charles Brehm's feet. The rapid sequence of events became mushed together in Ellis's mind, becoming one single "curb strike," which he only became "convinced" about when hearing that a section of curb had been removed from Dealey Plaza--not knowing that the section removed came from the Main Street curb, not the Elm Street curb.
He made a mistake--several mistakes, actually. Not deliberate mistakes, but mistakes caused by confusion due to the rapidity of events, what he saw at Parkland, and the rumors he heard, He tried to mentally constrain everything he saw into a "3" shot scenario, and in doing so created conflicts not only with the accounts of others ("first" vs. "second" shot) but also in his own accounts ("front left" vs. "south" side of the street). It all happened so quickly, it was easy to mush everything together into one single "curb strike" in his constructed memory.
-----
Doug Max Stone's Scenario
Doug Max Stone is a writer/researcher with his own first-shot theory, a theory based in large part on things Stavis Ellis said, and which aligns Howard Donahue's original theory. Both Donahue and Stone rely on the (altered) Zapruder film as "evidence," although Stone admits that some editing/alterations occurred (frame removal, excising of sprocket area in the copies that would show Hickey picking up the AR-15, and limited splicing), but accepts that the Zapruder film shows an apparently uninjured President waving at the crowds before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I, on the other hand, contend that the entire film was altered to tell a different story from what actually happened, thus hiding the largely slow Secret Service reaction to the first shot (see accounts by Ralph Yarborough) as well as the AR-15 shot. As a result, Stone and I have had an ongoing debate over just what happened with the first and second shots. We agree on the AR-15 accidental shot, but disagree on the other aspects of the assassination, including what happened with the first shot, the number of shots, and the effects of each shot. For example, Stone supports the Single Bullet Theory, whereas I do not. My own scenario lines up with the acoustical evidence, which Stone apparently believes was discredited by the NAS study (which as Donald Thomas points out was flawed), whereas I believe that other evidence points to more than 3 shots being fired (although only three from the TSBD, the other 2 shooters being on Elm Street in moving cars), with the odds of "coincidences" in the acoustical evidence (e.g., the progressive nature of the shot sequence and the double-bang) being too minuscule to have occurred by chance (Thomas puts the odds at something like 100,000 to one against these occurring by chance). I also contend that, like the Zapruder film alteration, there was an active effort to cover up the acoustical evidence via an altered mic placement diagram (created by Dr. Barger, who was not actually present for the acoustical tests, based on a list of "street features" that someone had given him--a list that is unavailable to anyone wanting to see it). I explain more about the acoustics in Part 9 of my documentary series.
Let's take a look at Stone's first-shot scenario.
Stone provides some nice visuals (posted on various threads in the "JFK Assassination Discussion Group" Facebook forum) to support his idea of what occurred with the first shot: that it was a miss striking the north Elm Street curb and sending debris to strike Kennedy in the limousine.
Doug Max Stone is a writer/researcher with his own first-shot theory, a theory based in large part on things Stavis Ellis said, and which aligns Howard Donahue's original theory. Both Donahue and Stone rely on the (altered) Zapruder film as "evidence," although Stone admits that some editing/alterations occurred (frame removal, excising of sprocket area in the copies that would show Hickey picking up the AR-15, and limited splicing), but accepts that the Zapruder film shows an apparently uninjured President waving at the crowds before disappearing behind the Stemmons sign. I, on the other hand, contend that the entire film was altered to tell a different story from what actually happened, thus hiding the largely slow Secret Service reaction to the first shot (see accounts by Ralph Yarborough) as well as the AR-15 shot. As a result, Stone and I have had an ongoing debate over just what happened with the first and second shots. We agree on the AR-15 accidental shot, but disagree on the other aspects of the assassination, including what happened with the first shot, the number of shots, and the effects of each shot. For example, Stone supports the Single Bullet Theory, whereas I do not. My own scenario lines up with the acoustical evidence, which Stone apparently believes was discredited by the NAS study (which as Donald Thomas points out was flawed), whereas I believe that other evidence points to more than 3 shots being fired (although only three from the TSBD, the other 2 shooters being on Elm Street in moving cars), with the odds of "coincidences" in the acoustical evidence (e.g., the progressive nature of the shot sequence and the double-bang) being too minuscule to have occurred by chance (Thomas puts the odds at something like 100,000 to one against these occurring by chance). I also contend that, like the Zapruder film alteration, there was an active effort to cover up the acoustical evidence via an altered mic placement diagram (created by Dr. Barger, who was not actually present for the acoustical tests, based on a list of "street features" that someone had given him--a list that is unavailable to anyone wanting to see it). I explain more about the acoustics in Part 9 of my documentary series.
Let's take a look at Stone's first-shot scenario.
Stone provides some nice visuals (posted on various threads in the "JFK Assassination Discussion Group" Facebook forum) to support his idea of what occurred with the first shot: that it was a miss striking the north Elm Street curb and sending debris to strike Kennedy in the limousine.
Renderings of Doug Max Stones first shot scenario, from different perspectives. The bottom one aligns with Stavis Ellis's perspective.
Stone's scenario aligns more closely with Howard Donahue's original scenario than mine does. However, given that the Zapruder film was altered and cannot be trusted as "evidence," I believe the weight of the other evidence lies more heavily on my own scenario, which places the first shot farther back, closer to the corner, than Stone's does.
Notice what Stone has done here: he places the "curb strike" on the north side, and farther down Elm Street, than the Weldon image would indicate. Stone also argues that when Ellis says "south side of the curb," Ellis means the south facing side of the curb on the north side of the street. Yet Oswald would not have been able to hit the south-facing curb from his window. The closest he could come would be to hit the top edge where it meets the south-facing edge, so that's where he places the "curb-strike." (I, on the other hand, think the when Ellis says "south side of the curb," he might mean the curb on the south side of the street--i.e. Ellis misinterpreting the skull fragment that landed there as part of his "curb-strike." But though I think it much more likely that "south" would refer to the side of the street rather than the face of the curb, I also concede that "north" and "south" might easily be confused.
However, Ellis also said in the Weisberg document that what he saw occurred to his "left front near the curb" as he turned back to look at the car.
Kennedy was seated on the right-hand side of the limousine, which from Ellis's perspective would be on the left side of the car. Ellis did specify "left" and "curb" in the Weisberg document, but that was also along with being "convinced" of his curb strike scenario when he heard about a section of curb being removed--again, that section of curb actually being on Main Street instead of Elm Street. Being on the left side of the car, Kennedy was closer to the curb on the north side of the street. Given that what he saw occurred in a very brief amount of time, and later hearing about a curb strike and a section of curb being removed, Ellis may well have just assumed a "curb strike" when he saw stuff flying around inside and out of the car.
At any rate, note how far the "debris cloud" from a curb strike would have to travel in order to reach Kennedy in Stone's scenario: diagonally across a lane plus about a half of a lane more in order to reach Kennedy. I cannot imagine a debris cloud traveling that far without any of the many spectators on that side of the street noticing.
Or, let's say that it is the bullet itself that is deflected to hit the President, as Stone's rendering from the TSBD shooter's perspective seems to show. Or even that said bullet fragments before traveling to the car?
Well, now we're getting closer to my scenario, but still not there yet.
This scenario ignores that specialists (Mantik and Chesser) who looked at the autopsy X-rays, agree that some amount of alteration occurred, but they nevertheless agree that Kennedy was struck in the head at least twice--once from the front, and once from the rear. So when, in Stone's scenario, did that frontal shot occur? How does he account for the F8 "Mystery" photograph, which Mantik and Chesser both place as showing a hole at the rear of the head? How does he account for the "bullet fragment trail" that is too high in the head for either an EOP or a "cowlick" entry? Stone's scenario shows bullets or fragments or debris hitting the back-right side of Kennedy's head.
which aligns with the Weisberg document, but not any of the other accounts. Now, I take things like "north/south/east/west" and "right/left" with a grain of salt, knowing that people's sense of direction is often faulty, and right vs. left is largely a matter of perspective. For example, when viewing the limousine from a point in front of the car, the observer's right would be the same as the limousine occupants' left. But Ellis, as a DPD motorcycle officer, would be more familiar with the streets than most. At any rate, I think that when he said "south" side of the street in other accounts, he meant the south side of the street, although I can find at least one thing (the "poof" off the Stemmons sign) that occurred on the north side.
Importantly, Stone has also removed bystanders from his renderings--or rather, failed to put them in. Since bystanders were lined up along the sidewalk, his theorized "curb strike" shot would probably have had to penetrate through one of them to reach the curb.
Stone also uses at least one of the same witnesses that I do (Jack Franzen) to support his theory, and no doubt would would claim that accounts by Ruby Henderson and Mrs. Charles Hester also support his theory. But while those accounts might support his theory, they also support my own first shot theory--more strongly, in fact--provided one accepts that the Zapruder film was altered. These witnesses reported stuff flying around inside the car, not at curb-level, with the first shot. Virginia Rachley Baker reported seeing something "like sparks" down at curb-level, but what she saw occurred on the far side of Elm Street (not the near side as Stone's scenario places the "curb strike") and can be aligned with the Brehm/Weitzman skull fragment.
Of course, none of this appears in the extant (altered) Zapruder film.
Stone's placement of the limousine and "curb strike" doesn't match Ellis's own placement of where the event in question happened, as related by Doug Weldon. Stavis Ellis himself placed the event closer to the intersection, right where I place my first head shot.
Stone's rendering of the event from Stavis Ellis's perspective shows how distant the event was from Stavis Ellis's position, and how easily Ellis might have misinterpreted the event. Moreover, Stone's renderings do not show the witnesses on both sides of the street--witnesses who would create distractions for Ellis's attention. If those witnesses were added to the renderings, it would create a more accurate rendering that would show how easily Ellis might have misinterpreted what he saw. No other witness reported a curb strike on the north side of Elm Street, and what one reported as something "like sparks" on the south side of the street can be explained as something else--a skull fragment.
To support my own first-shot scenario, I have witnesses Pierce Allman (who gives us an indication of the limousine's location when the first "boom!" occurs), Alan Smith (who saw Kennedy "shot in the forehead"), Ruby Henderson (who saw "paper" or "flesh" flying around inside the car), Jack Franzen (who saw "pieces of firecracker" inside the car), Mrs. Charles Hester (who also saw a "firecracker" exploding inside the car, Dan Rather's same-day reporting of where "it" happened, newspaper account(s) of "hair flying up," the Altgens 6 anomaly on Bobby Hargis's cheek, and the image shown by Doug Weldon as Ellis's "right here." Stone has some of the same witnesses (who saw stuff flying around inside the car), but none who saw anything hit the north-side curb aside from Stavis Ellis himself (though only in the Weisberg document).
So I think the weight of the evidence supports my scenario over his.
There are other reasons why my first-shot scenario is correct (over Stone's). For example, the decorticate posture "chest grab" is indicative of severe neurological trauma. The back-of-the head blow-out hole described by the Parkland doctors and others is indicative of a shot from the front. (Stone place no shooter to the front of Kennedy.) Some witnesses described what appeared to be a bullet entrance wound in Kennedy's right forehead/temple. And what-not. These are listed and described in https://www.a-benign-conspiracy.com/what-happened---shot-1.html . For this article, I am limiting myself primarily to witness accounts to analyze what it was that Stavis Ellis saw.