Scheller, Arthur M.

English

Via Sapientiae: The Institutional Repository at DePaul University

DePaul Law Review Volume 18 Issue 1 Fall 1968 Article 20 Thompson: Six Seconds in Dallas Arthur M. Scheller Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Arthur M. Scheller, Thompson: Six Seconds in Dallas, 18 DePaul L. Rev. 340 (1968) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol18/iss1/20 This Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact digitalservices@depaul.edu. DE PAUL LAW REVIEWAt any rate Professor Leach's sprightly little vade mecum for the property lawreformer is stimulating reading and a good source for vigorous quotations.IRVING E. FASAN*REAsoNiNc. Professor Shaffer says that, "[This] middle ground is sometimes devious andoften capable of an ancient and esoteric sophistry, but it produces change, it maintainsstability better than overt overruling would, and it is, for all its righteous dishonesty,useful." 43 NOTRE DAME LAW. 146 (1967). Is this also what Professor Leach really ad-vocates, however without the deviousness and sophistry? But without these cloaks, dowe really have the same thing? Isn't the fiction a vital part of the process?* Assistant Professor at DePaul University College of Law, Member of the IllinoisBar. J.D., University of Chicago, formerly in practice in Chicago, 1957-1966.Six Seconds in Dallas. By JosIAH THOMPSON. New York: Bernard Geis, 1967.Pp. 314. $8.95.The publication Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson, an Assistant Pro-fessor of Philosophy at Haverford College, in which he concludes that there werefour shots from three guns in six seconds. This again raises a familiar issue tostudents of the Kennedy assassination-how does one account for the forwardmovement of President Kennedy's body in frame 313 of the Zapruder film and theapparent violent backward movement of his body in frame 314? Writers had raisedthis problem as early as 1965, but Thompson's distinctive contribution was toanalyze the photographs by means of micro-analysis and measurement, therebyachieving a scientific reconstruction in order to answer the problems of the sourceand timing of the shots.One of the difficulties in studying the Zapruder film as it appears in the WarrenCommission Exhibits is that the originals are in the private vault of Life magazine(which purchased them for $25,000 within several hours of the assassination) andthe Commission only had available to them a copy of a copy. Fortunately Profes-sor Thompson, while in the employ of Life magazine, had the opportunity to ex-amine sharper material. Mr. Zapruder's film picks up the presidential motorcadeat what is known as frame 161, and continues until the motorcade disappears underthe underpass at frame 434. No one has ever disputed the conclusion that thefatal second wound occurs in frame 313, although many commentators argue aboutthe occurrence of the first shot-the Warren Commission placing it between frame210 to 225. To Thompson, the Zapruder film in its entirety is the most importantpiece of evidence available to the Commission. Ironically, Mr. Zapruder had earlierin the day decided not to bring his eight millimeter movie camera to work becauseof an overcast sky condition, he somehow managed to return to his home when theovercast lifted at midmorning, and arrived at his office near Dealey Plaza just intime to film the historic event.In addition to the Zapruder film, there were no fewer than 22 other people takingpictures in Dealey Plaza which were known to and available to the Commission.It is primarily to this type of evidence that Thompson structures his analysis, as hestates: "[T]he present study seeks to make proper use of the photographs inas-much as they constitute the only inviolable form of evidence. Whereas witness[Vol. XVIIIBOOK REVIEWSreports can be in error . . . and pieces of physical evidence can be tampered with... photographic evidence is reliable."'Thompson's analysis of the photographic evidence (primarily the Zapruder film)leads to this undisputable hard core physical fact: after holding steady for sometwelve frames, the President's head is suddenly driven forward between frames312 and 313 at a forward acceleration of 69.6 feet per second and in frame 314which is 1/18th second later, his head is moving backward and to the left at anacceleration of 100.3 feet per second.After examining several hypotheses which might account for this change inmovement, such as that the President's head struck some fixed surface in the car,or that Mrs. Kennedy pulled the President into her arms after the impact, or thatthe car suddenly decelerated and then accelerated, or that the President suffereda neuromuscular reaction, he rejects them all and then suggests that the only logicalalternative is that a shot from a second assassin came from the grassy knoll withperfect timing, striking the President's head 1/18th of a second after the shot fromthe Book Depository. To quote Thompson: "First, a bullet from behind explodingforward, and in that same split second another bullet driving into the explodingmass, forcing tissue and skull in the opposite direction."'2His speculations then lead to the following reconstruction. An assassin, shootingfrom the Book Depository, fired a shot which hit the President in the back; asecond assassin, shooting from the roof of another building (Houston Street Build-ing) shot and wounded the Governor. The first assassin then fired again hitting thePresident in the back of the head (frames 312 and 313) and a third assassin, behindthe stockade fence, shooting a pistol, hit the President in the side of the head(frame 314). Altogether, there were four shots from three guns in six seconds.Having started with a hard core physical fact, the change in movement shown bythe Zapruder film, the analysis becomes pure speculation should there be any in-complete hypotheses accounting for the double movement. Herein lies the basicerror of his analysis: has every hypothesis accounting for the double movementbeen examined and rejected? One glaring unsuggested and unexamined hypothesisis what physical effect would a bullet entering from the rear have if it explodedwithin a skull in light of Newton's second law of motion that acceleration is di-rectly proportional to the resultant force and is in the same direction as that force.Because of this failure, Professor Thompson's conclusions must fall.Josiah Thompson appears to have joined a small cult of critics involved in thepublic attacks upon the Warren Commission. His introduction to the movementwas by Vincent Salandria, one of the first on the scene and his index was preparedby Sylvia Meagher, an ardent toiler in the cause. In this light, it is interesting tonote that Thompson apparently has still inadvertently retained his sense of humorwhen he remarked that: "I think some of us feel that Fortinbras hasn't arrived andthat everything is somehow incomplete. And that's what we want: we want Fortin-bras to arrive." 3ARTHUR M. SCHELLER*1 THOMPSON,. SIX SECONDS ix DALLAS 11 (1967).21d. at 111.3 43 NEw YORKER, June 10, 1967, at 11.* Assistant Professor at DePaul University College of Law. Member of the Illinoisand Wisconsin Bars. LL.B., Marquette University 1954.1968]

Thompson:  Six Seconds in Dallas

https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3066&amp;context=law-review

Thompson: Six Seconds in Dallas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Via Sapientiae: The Institutional Repository at DePaul University