Monday, June 25, 2007

Max Holland's 11 Seconds in Dallas

by DALE K. MYERS and TODD W. VAUGHAN

In a February, 2007, Internet article entitled "1963: 11 Seconds in Dallas", author Max Holland ("The Kennedy Assassination Tapes") and Johann W. Rush detailed their theory that Oswald fired his first shot several seconds before Abraham Zapruder began filming the Kennedy limousine, and consequently, Zapruder's infamous film did not capture the entire shooting sequence as previously accepted. Their theory subsequently received considerable attention around the world.

Despite the publicity by the less-than-knowledgeable media, the "facts" used by Holland and Rush to support their thesis were shown to be false and misleading the instant their article was announce on the Internet. Since then, Holland and Rush have dug in, defending the indefensible, and ignoring the obvious in what surely must be the most blatant example of poor journalism and appalling distortion in the Kennedy assassination in recent memory. You be the judge.

The day after the Holland-Rush article was published, Gary Mack, curator of The Sixth Floor Museum, assailed their effort in an email message, writing,

"Good heavens! Did anyone review this before publication? I'm afraid you guys are going to get hammered over your Zapruder film theory.

"Your selective exclusion of contrary witnesses and photo evidence has led to major errors with regard to a first shot possibly coming several seconds before Z133.

"One of the best witnesses is photographer Tina Towner. Tina has always been specific that the first shot came just a second or two AFTER she stopped filming; she actually stopped only a second or two before Z133. Your hypotheses, that the first shot came while the limo was in the middle of the first pair of road stripes (or earlier), requires the first shot to have been fired one or two seconds BEFORE Towner stopped filming. That just can't be true. Take a look at the full frame Towner film we used in the Discovery Channel show "Death In Dealey Plaza" and watch for the road stripes. Towner could not possibly have been confused about when the first shot was fired in relation to when her film ended.

"Other evidence is even more powerful. A recorded interview with DPD Sgt. Jim Chaney the afternoon of the assassination places the first shot at around Z160. Chaney, riding only a few feet to the right rear of the limo, explained that the first shot came as Jackie was "looking to her left." She does that, very briefly, around Z160 (see the Croft #3 photo for reference). That frame happens to fall some two or three seconds after Towner stopped filming.

"So it would seem that your suggestion of the first shot being fired "well before Z133" is ill-founded at best.

"Perhaps you were led astray by "Position A"? Do you not realize that the limo location in Position A bears little resemblance to the route of the limo that day? As is very well established from the full frame (including sprocket hole area) Dorman and Towner films, the limo turned from straddling the yellow line in the middle of Houston Street into the very center of the middle lane on Elm. There was no wide swing into the north lane of Elm..."

Mack's critique is spot on. My analysis of films of the Kennedy motorcade, detailed in the graphic report "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination" demonstrates that Tina Towner stopped filming just seven-tenths of a second before Zapruder began filming the president's limousine. And Mack is also correct about the presidential limousine never being in the position described as "Position A," [17H880] upon which Holland-Rush seemed to place so much emphasis.

Yet, Holland bristled at the suggestion that "Position A" wasn't important, writing:

"Whether or not the Cadillac is correctly positioned in the photo, the real issue is the description of Position A as defined by Shaneyfelt and Frazier in their testimonies. Moving the Cadillac doesn't change the accuracy of this definition."

Is Max Holland kidding when he writes: "...Moving the Cadillac doesn't change the accuracy of this definition..."??? Of course it matters. If the limousine is positioned incorrectly, then any information gathered from that incorrect positioning is not valid. The 1958 Cadillac used in the FBI re-enactment and photographed in "Position A" does not represent any position that the president's 1961 Lincoln limousine occupied on November 22nd, and therefore cannot be used as a reference for when Oswald first had a clear shot at Kennedy's back. What is so hard to understand?

As you might suspect, Gary Mack’s critique of the Holland-Rush article is only the tip of the iceberg.

Holland and Rush wrote in their article that “...the Zapruder film has always been pored over, as if it were a Rosetta stone, by students of the assassination looking for equally persuasive visual evidence that would reveal the timing of the pesky first shot...”

Too bad Holland and Rush didn’t do the same.

Holland-Rush wrote that those who postulate that the first shot was fired around Z160 were either seduced by Gerald Posner who “...posited that the errant first shot was fired at Z 160...” (actually it was the HSCA’s discredited acoustic evidence that pointed to that frame) or have rested that rationale on “...a common and unexamined premise: that since the second and third shots were captured by the Zapruder film, the first one must have been, too.”

That’s not true at all. Those who have studied the Zapruder film know that the film itself contains the best evidence of a shot fired immediately prior to Z160 as seen in the actions of Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Connally, and Governor Connally. All three react exactly as they testified that they did immediately after the first shot. Their actions, contemporary to the first shot, occur no where else in the film. Assuming a quarter of a second reaction time (a typical human startle response time) puts the first shot about 5 frames before Governor Connally’s reaction beginning at Z162, hence (Z155-157). And yes, we can argue all day long about whether JBC reacted immediately (one-quarter second) or leisurely (2.6 to 3 seconds according to Holland-Rush’s theory). Given JBC’s testimony and experience as a hunter, I’m going with almost immediately.

Instead of examining the Zapruder film, Holland-Rush presented the following as the “...most important and salient facts...” which support their thesis that the first shot was fired before Zapruder began filming (i.e., before Z133):

The ear witnesses were right. “...There was a longer pause between the first and second shots than there was between the second and third shots...” consequently, “...A shot that occurred before Zapruder was filming...would neatly correspond with what so many ear witnesses heard.”

The eyewitnesses were right too. Here, Holland-Rush listed three eyewitnesses (Brennan, Jarman, and Frazier) who testified that the first shot occurred: “...just after the president’s limousine turned left from Houston...”; “...after the president had passed my position...I really couldn’t say how many feet or how far, a short distance I would say...”; “...just right after [the president] went by — he hadn’t hardly got by...”

None of these cherry-picked statements are definitive, are they? If we’re going to be selective about who we cite, how about Bonnie Ray Williams (whom Holland-Rush doesn’t mention) who testified “...After the President’s car had passed my window, the last thing I remember seeing him do was, you know – it seemed to me he had a habit of pushing his hair back. The last thing I saw him do was he pushed his hand up like this. I assumed he was brushing his hair back. And then the thing that happened then was a loud shot...” [3H175] Kennedy does brush his hair back repeatedly (no less than four times in Dealey Plaza as depicted in multiple amateur films) the last time just as Zapruder begins filming at Z133. At that frame, Kennedy’s hand is up brushing his hair back. The limousine’s position at that moment is just passed the window from which Bonnie Ray Williams is viewing the motorcade. If a first shot is fired around Z160, Williams heard the first round go off about 1.5 seconds after JFK brushed back his hair. Coincidence?

Holland-Rush backed up the vague eyewitness accounts by citing the additionally vague testimony of three Secret Service agents (Kinney, Hickey, and Landis): “...As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot...”; “...After a very short distance I heard a loud report...”; “...president’s car and the follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out...At this moment I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle...”

Holland-Rush’s key eyewitness? T.E. Moore, an eyewitness who told author Larry Sneed 24-years-after-the-fact that “...There was a highway marker sign right in front of the Book Depository, and as the president got around to that, the first shot was fired...” Around to that? What does that mean, exactly?

From this record, Holland-Rush claimed to have solved “two bewildering puzzles that have always defied explanation."

The first one is, why didn’t Oswald shoot before Z150, when the president was a closer target?” Holland-Rush believe Oswald did fire the first shot well before Z133.

That leads to the answer to the second puzzle, “which has been even more exasperating to resolve, is how did Oswald, who would promptly hit President Kennedy in the back at a distance of around 190 feet, and then in the head at a distance of 265 feet, manage to be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots?”

Holland-Rush’s answer? Oswald’s first shot hit a traffic light pole which extended out over Elm Street and came between Oswald and the limousine 1.4 seconds before Z133. (I offered the 1.4 second timing during an earlier email exchange with Holland in which Holland insisted that Z133 depicted the limousine next to the first road stripe. It is actually next to the second road stripe. I knew then that whatever Holland was cooking up was in trouble. The 1.4 second timing is based on my synchronization of eight amateur films taken in Dealey Plaza and detailed in my 179 page graphic report, "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination.")

Holland-Rush uses the fabulously ludicrous “Position A” image (which Gary Mack has already effectively dismissed) to bolster his position. Finally, Holland-Rush wrote that the traffic pole (which is still there) was never checked for a “ding” which could have proven their theory to be true. Case Closed (pardon the pun).

Hold your horses.

Had Holland and Rush bothered to examine the sniper’s nest photographs they would have seen that the answer to the question as to why Oswald didn’t shoot before Z150 (or while the limo was on Houston Street for that matter) is a simple matter of the physical arrangement of the boxes. The distance between the window sill and the first row of boxes is only 20-21 inches wide – too narrow for anyone to position themselves in that row and fire down on Houston Street or on the earliest portion of Elm Street (never mind the fact that Oswald would be exposed in the window to do so) – unless of course, Oswald were standing, not kneeling. To fire the next two shots, Oswald would have to drop into a kneeling position in order to see through the half-open window, re-align the target, and fire – all within a few seconds. Plausible? You be the judge.

More to the point, Holland-Rush’s argument – and many others over the last four decades – seems to assume a key fact in explaining the first missed shot; the first shot must have missed because it deflected off of something (i.e., the traffic light pole, a tree branch, etc.). Why? Why does everyone assume that Oswald’s first shot missed because it hit an intervening object? Isn’t it possible that the first shot missed because Oswald’s aim was poor?

There are a million-and-one reasons why a first shot can be way off target, as any avid hunter will tell you. It may be that Oswald simply fired prematurely (buck fever anyone?) Or perhaps, Oswald intended to wait until the limousine was further down Elm Street to fire the first shot, but when the moment arrived, the target was so deliciously close that Oswald couldn’t resist and changed strategy at the last moment? We know from the physical arrangement of the sniper’s nest that a shot as earlier as Z160 (and certainly earlier) couldn’t be accomplished from the same shooting position as the last two shots. We also know that the first shot was the only left-to-right tracking shot in the entire shooting scenario. This is a key point. A tracking shot is one of the hardest to accomplish and even more difficult considering the cramped, closed quarters that were dictated by the arrangement of the sniper’s nest. Did the butt of the rifle strike the row of boxes behind Oswald as he attempted to track the limousine? Who knows?

Personally, I don’t see a problem with the first shot missing simply because of the difficulty of the shot. No half-baked theories needed.

I’m afraid Holland-Rush’s article added nothing of value to the case and only muddied the waters even further – if that’s possible.

I posted my thoughts, as detailed above, to a private email chain of which Max Holland was a member. Holland immediately responded by questioning whether I was trying to avoid a public debate about the merits of his article by posting my response privately. Uh? The only thing I was trying to avoid was Holland's own public humiliation for writing something under the guise of journalism that was so transparently and pathetically irresponsible.

Do you think Max Holland reviewed his theory of an earlier shot after the thumping he received from two informed quarters? Of course not. Instead he circled the wagons and fired back, writing:

"This current debate is not about which theory fits best with all the facts in evidence, including eyewitness and ear witness testimonies, and extant photographs and home movies, and the possible deflection of the bullet. This is about a deeply vested position, and the fact that Dale Myers did not think outside the box, and consider, evidently, the possibility that the first shot occurred before Zapruder re-started filming."

What nonsense. Of course, I considered the possibility that the first shot was fired before Zapruder began filming the limousine's journey down Elm Street (i.e., pre-Z133). So have a lot of people. Over the course of thirty-plus-years of research, you can't help but consider all of the possibilities. But at the end of the day, there is no credible evidence that such a thing occurred - no eyewitness or ear witness testimony, extant photographs, or home movies. It's one thing to think outside of the box, but when you stray from reality as far as Max Holland and Johann Rush have, one can only conclude that either Holland and Rush aren't familiar with the record or they are deliberately misleading their readers. It's our belief that the latter is true - they aren't familiar with the record. And while that's forgivable (hey, anyone can make a mistake), when someone who claims to be a historian of record denies the truth, well, that's just dangerous.

For instance, Holland-Rush uses an ambiguous statement of T.E. Moore, as told to author Larry Sneed in "No More Silence" more than two decades after the fact, to support his contention that the first shot was fired well before Zapruder began filming. When researcher Todd Vaughan pointed out that Moore could easily have meant the R.L Thornton freeway sign located further down Elm Street when referring to "a highway marker sign right in front of the Book Depository," rather than the cluster of highway markers located at the corner of Elm Street, as assumed by Holland (both signs being on the south side, or in front of the Depository), Holland wrote:

"Yes, it would have been nice if Larry Sneed had asked T.E. Moore which highway sign he meant. Unfortunately, he didn't. Because there were others doesn't negate our point regarding a possible connection between the U.S. highway markers and the traffic light. Also, T.E. Moore was standing on the southeast corner of Elm and Houston. It's a lot easier to see the U.S. Highway markers than the Thornton freeway sign from that point. Finally, it seemed to make sense to us to interpret 'right in front of the Book Depository' to mean 'right in front of the [entrance to] the Book Depository.' By contrast, it would be somewhat inaccurate to describe Thornton sign as being 'right in front' of the TSBD."

But, why all the speculation and interpretation? Holland apparently didn't know that T.E. Moore gave a statement to the FBI 47 days after the assassination, in which he spelled out exactly what sign he was talking about:

"...By the time President Kennedy had reached the [R.L.] Thornton freeway sign, a shot was fired..." [24H534]

No ambiguity there; the sign referred to by Moore was the R.L. Thornton sign, not the cluster of highway signs guessed at by Holland.

A quick review of the record finds additional support for Moore's FBI statement (and I'm sure we could find more if we did a more diligent search) in the report of Secret Service Special Agent (SA) William T. McIntyre who was riding on the right-rear running board of the Secret Service follow-up car, right behind SA Clint Hill. In his November 22, 1963 statement McIntyre wrote:

"After [the turn onto Elm], there was essentially no crowd, and green expanses of lawn stretched to the right and left of the motorcade. Directly in front of us was an underpass with a green sign with white lettering, stating "Entering Thornton Freeway." The Presidential vehicle was approximately 200 feet from the underpass when the first shot was fired..." [McIntyre Statement]

Again, the area of the R.L. Thornton freeway sign marks the limousine's location at the time of the first shot (i.e., Z160). So much for all of Holland's interpretations in an effort to mold Moore's ambiguous, latter day remarks to author Larry Sneed into something supportive of the Holland-Rush theory.

When Moore's 1964 FBI statement was shown to Holland, he ignored the citation, writing:

"I think our explanation is not more speculative than the previous rational paradigm, which I accepted until recently. Actually, I think it is less speculative because it conforms better to certain facts as we know them. A first shot around or after Z 150: must, by definition, contradict earwitness testimony; relies on subjective interpretations of movements and why people moved when they did, or unproven jiggle analysis; testimony of traumatized people (namely, the occupants in the limo) and doesn't do much to explain the deflection of the 1st missile. (I've always been troubled that Larry Sturdivan dismissed this possibility in his book).

"By contrast, a first shot around Z107: conforms with ear witness testimony, as the 1.4 second difference is appreciable; is supported to varying degrees by a number of extra-car eyewitnesses (Brennan, Euins, TE Moore, Vicki Adams, SS men in the followup car conforms), and holds out the possibility of rationally explaining why the first shot was errant . . . namely, it glanced off the signal mast."

The idea that a first shot around Z107 is "supported to varying degrees" by "...Brennan, Euins, TE Moore, Vickie Adams, [and] SS men in the followup car" is simply not the case.

First, in addition the Moore's FBI statement, researcher Todd Vaughan points out that eyewitness Howard Brennan described hearing only 2 shots. After hearing the "first" shot, Brennan testified that he looked up at the Book Depository. When did this "first" shot occur? Certainly not at Z107, as Holland claims. We know this because Zapruder frame 207, the last frame in which Brennan is visible, shows that Brennan has not yet looked up at the Depository as he testified (a fact first noticed back in the late 1960's). It seems pretty unlikely that it took Brennan better than 5.5 seconds to react to the "first" shot. What seems much more likely and reasonable is that the two shots that Brennan heard were actually the second and third shots fired at about Z223 and Z313. Consequently, Brennan's testimony is not supportive of a Holland-Rush shot as early as Z107.

Second, Holland-Rush quote eyewitness Amos Euins as saying, "I saw the president turn the corner in front of me and I waved at him and he waved back. I watched the car [go] on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot." Holland-Rush then wrote: "We believe the only "black and white sign" in the vicinity was the U.S. highway marker sign per T.E. Moore; the Stemmons and R.L. Thornton signs were/are green and white."

In fact, the R.L. Thornton sign was black and white, as contemporary color photographs show. But more important, Euins was standing across the street from the Depository's main entrance and the six black and white highway signs in front of it. If the first shot occurred at Z-107, as Holland and Rush claim, then the limousine was essentially still making its turn onto Elm Street, and it certainly had not gone down Elm by any appreciable amount, as Euins described. If the first shot occurred at this point, how in the world could Euins claim that he "...watched the car [go] on down the street..." before he heard the first shot?

On the other hand, it's not too hard to envision Euins, given his position on Elm Street, recollecting that the limousine was along his line-of-sight with the Thornton freeway sign at the time of the first shot (i.e., about Z-160).

Third, Holland asserts that the testimony of Miss Victoria Elizabeth Adams is also supportive of a shot in the Z107 range, though Holland doesn't specify how. In fact, Adams, who viewed the limousine with Elsie Dorman (who was filming the motorcade) and two other women from a fourth floor window of the Book Depository, testified: "I watched the motorcade...proceed around the corner on Elm, and apparently somebody in the crowd called to the late President, because he and his wife both turned abruptly and faced the building, so we had a very good view of them." [6H388] Asked whether the limousine had gotten directly opposite her window by then, Adams responded, "I believe it was prior, just a second or so prior to that...Then we heard - then we were obstructed from the view." By what? ""A tree. And we heard a shot, and it was a pause, and then a second shot, and then a third shot." [6H388]

Just a week earlier, Adams told the FBI the same thing, "...just after the car carrying President Kennedy had passed on the street below, I heard three loud reports..." [22H632][Emphasis added]

My three-dimensional computer reconstruction of the shooting, based on the Zapruder film and other films and photographs of the shooting (including the film taken by Elsie Dorman who was standing next to Victoria Adams) demonstrates that by the time the limousine disappeared from the women's field-of-view, Zapruder had already begun filming the limousine. In other words, according to Adams, the first shot was fired after Z133, not before, as the Holland insists.

Dorothy Ann Garner, who was standing with Adams, agrees, telling the FBI: "I recall that moments following the passing of the Presidential car I heard three loud reports..." and "...at the time of the shots, the Presidential car was out of view behind a tree." [22H648] [Emphasis added]

I don't know how Holland-Rush can read testimony like that of Victoria Adams and Dorothy Garner and claim that their statements support a shot fired before the limousine disappeared from their vantage point. To make such a claim and cite Victoria Adams as supportive by any amount is nothing short of blatant deception.

Fourth, Holland also claims that Secret Service agents riding in the follow-up car support the idea of first shot fired before Zapruder began filming (i.e., Z133). Yet, if the first shot occurred at Z107, as Holland-Rush claim, then the presidential limousine was still completing its turn onto Elm Street. Where does that leave the Secret Service follow-up car? Even further back in the turn at a point where they hadn't even begun the descent down Elm Street.

But the agents Holland cites as being supportive of a Z107 shot clearly state that the follow-up car made the turn, straightened out, and went down Elm:

Samuel A. Kinney - "As we completed the left turn and [went] on a short distance, there was a shot." [18H731]

George W. Hickey, Jr. - "Just prior to the shooting the presidential car turned left at the intersection and started down an incline...After a very short distance I heard a loud report which sounded like a firecracker." [18H762]

Paul E. Landis, Jr. - "...the president’s car and the follow-up car had just completed their turns and both were straightening out." [18H754]

When you break it all down, the Holland-Rush premise is based on the idea that a great many of the ear witnesses heard a longer pause between shots one and two than between two and three. Since the shooting scenario of Z160, 223, and 313 is more evenly spaced, Holland-Rush have pushed the first shot back to an earlier moment in order to achieve a sequence that they believe is more in keeping with the ear witnesses.

Yet the Holland-Rush scenario fails on a very basic level - what it sounds like. Here are two audio recordings, one contains the shot sounds spaced at Z160, Z223, and Z313. The second contains the shots spaced as Holland-Rush propose - Z107, Z223, Z313. Click on each one, close your eyes, and imagine you are an ear witness to the shooting. Can you honestly say that one version is spaced more evenly than the other?

SHOTS_v1.MP3 (Z160, Z223, Z313)

SHOTS_v2.MP3 (Holland-Rush / Z107, Z223, Z313)

Yet Holland-Rush's reasoning fails on even a simpler level, for what they fail to acknowledge is that the vast majority of ear witnesses who claim the last two shots were bunched closer together describe those two shots as being practically on top of each other. So, you see, the Holland-Rush scenario doesn't fit the earwitness accounts after all.

How reliable are ear witness accounts? It's already been pointed out by many experts over the decades that there are a variety of variables that have be to considered when weighing ear witness accounts. Those variables include where those ear witnesses were standing in relation to the source and the target, whether they heard the muzzle blast and the super-sonic crack of the bullet passing their position (or just one or the other), whether they heard echoes, whether they heard the sound of the impact (several, including Secret Service agents described the head shot impact as a loud thud), and whether they heard all of the shots or just a few and which shots they heard.

Considering the number of variables involved, it's difficult to imagine that anything of value can be gleaned from a study of the ear witness accounts.

In the final analysis, the Holland-Rush thesis has no support whatsoever in the historic record. They might just as well have pulled their thesis out of thin air. They started with a false premise, based on a generalization of the ear witness accounts which describe the spacing of the shots, then backward engineered an earlier first shot which fails to pass the litmus test in every respect. When they were called out on it, they refused to acknowledge the obvious. What a disappointment. Let's hope that any future writings from Max Holland and Johann Rush have more bite than sizzle to them.

END

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think the problem with Holland and Rush is the Columbus syndrome. It is natural for anyone looking into the JFK case to hope they make some discovery that everyone else has missed. And they would not able to weight the evidence objectively. Their hopes for the early shot scenario makes them hopelessly biased.

Fuhrman did good research for his book "Murder in Greenwich" on the murder of Martha Moxley. But in his book "A Simple Act of Murder: November 22, 1963", he does a poor job. He "discovered" that the Single Bullet Theory is wrong, despite the alignment of the wound location (to within zero to two inches), the simultaneous movements of JFK's arms and Connally's coat and right arm and comes up with a theory that everyone else had missed with Oswald being the lone gunman, but JFK and Connally being wounded by separate bullets.

The difference between his two efforts? The Moxley case was ground that was not extensively investigated and the investigation that had been done was deeply flawed. Fuhrman was able to look at the evidence objectively, without being influenced by subconscious hopes of discovering something new, and was able to discover many new facts in that case. But in the JFK case, he was not able to do so. The desire to find something new caused him to weight the evidence with bias.

As related in Sturdivan's "The JFK Myths" I suspect that Dr. Baden and the other medical experts for the HSCA were influenced by the Columbus syndrome and wrongly concluded that the bullet struck JFK high in the head when the autopsy doctors had it right all along, the bullet struck lower.

Dale K. Myers said...

For more on Max Holland's first shot theory, check out: "Holland Déjà Vu" (Dec., 2007).

Dale K. Myers said...

For even more on Max Holland's first shot theory, check out: Cherry-Picking Evidence of The First Shot (Dec., 2008).

James Warner said...

Hi Dale,
Your highly detailed work in the JFK assassination is TERIFFIC! I read your writings and see how you present the FACTS (yes...that's aimed at those who detract your work) and I am in awe. The assassination of John F. Kennedy has been the most scrutinized and controversial murder of the century. So many theories abound that is makes one almost dizzy trying to absorb both the facts and rumors. Thank you very much for being so thorough. Please keep writing.

C. DeFazio said...

I saw the program on National Geographic this past Thanksgiving weekend and I believe that I can blow a couple of holes in Mr. Holland's conclusion that there were 11 or more seconds from the first shot to the last and that Mr. Zapruder starting filming after the first shot.

First - If you look at the original Zapruder film, you will actually see that Mr. Zapruder shakes slightly while holding his camera as each shot is fired.

Second - There is a little girl on the first several frames of the Zapruder film running with the Presidential limousine on the other side of Elm Street. She is running freely and happily and then all of a sudden stops, probably in reaction to the first shot.

Mike Walster said...


I'm amazed, I have to say. Actually barely ever do I experience a site that's both educative and entertaining, and permit me notify you, you may well have hit the nail on the head. Your notion is excellent the problem is anything that not adequate folks are talking intelligently about. I am extremely joyful that I stumbled throughout this in my find for something referring to this.