To what extent do Extracts (I) – (IV) in Source F present a full and accurate eye- witness account of the assassination?


(Use Source G to help you answer this).


Source F is from a book “The Kennedy File” by D. Jones and D. Simkins, there are four eye-witness accounts, from Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Carolyn Arnold, and Arnold Rowland. Hill was a school teacher, she was standing near the Presidents car at the time of the shooting. “I heard four to six shots”, she seems quite reliable, being a respectable teacher and also seems quite sure of what she heard, “I’m pretty used to guns. They weren’t echoes or anything like that.”


G. Arnold was a young soldier on leave standing on the slope of the Grassy Knoll, one would expect that being a soldier, he would be used to guns and he claims “the shot came from behind me” (him).


C. Arnold was a secretary in the Book Depository, this was the building that Lee Harvey Oswald was accused of assassinating the President out of the sixth floor window. She places Oswald inside the building fifteen minutes before the assassination: “I went into the lunch room on the second floor for a moment…Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats…and appeared to be having lunch.” One would wonder if Oswald was going to shoot the President, would he be eating lunch “a quarter of a hour” before you do it.


Rowland, a bystander, told the Warren Commission himself that he saw two men on the sixth floor of the depository building. He actually went into so much detail he claimed he had seen two men, one in the left hand side window holding a rifle with a telescopic sight. One would question the accuracy of this witness, as it sounds like an exaggeration to say the telescopic sight on the rifle was visible from the ground.


Source G is from another book call “Case Closed” by Gerald Posner, and one by one this extract rubbishes these four witnesses. But before we even get Source G, there are already cracks beginning to appear in the statements given, for example Arnold and Rowland who completely contradict each other and suggest both are lying.


In “Case Closed” it describes more inconsistencies in statements given by these witnesses. It tells us that within half an hour of the assassination she was asked if she saw or if anything drew her attention and she said “No”. But in source F she had said she heard “four to six shots”, this was in 1983. But then in 1986 she had changed her story once more saying: “I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence.” We cannot believe anything this woman says as one cannot be sure if she even knows or can remember what she really saw or heard, she is very unreliable.


G Arnold, the soldier, said he was standing on the grassy knoll but in source G we find that there were photographs taken of the grassy knoll, not showing him. He excused this as saying he was lying flat on the ground but photo enhancements show no person lying flat on the ground. Is he lying? One cannot be sure if he was even present when the assassination took place.


C Arnold told the FBI immediately after the assassination that she did not see Oswald at all. Source G also tells us that she waited 15 years until she told her story, which is in source F, to Antony Summers. Two people had accompanied her when she left the second floor at a quarter past twelve on 22nd Nov 1963. They say they didn’t see Oswald in the lunchroom where C Arnold said he was fifteen minutes before the assassination. This does not give any clue to where Oswald was at this time as it has been rubbished by these two women. C Arnold is an unreliable source as there is no one to back up her claims, and there is also the possibility of her making this story up for her own personal gain, for example money and fame.


Rowland, in source G, is to have said to have told a policeman and FBI agent that he saw a single white male