Features: The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter: Part 2

If the jacket were "hunched up," wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth?

"No, not necessarily. It . . . it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that . . . aaah … that it gets . . . that . . . aaah . . . this … this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back … sit back now . . . all right now … if… usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling is right up here, but if … but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits … it’s not … it’s not, .. it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back."

What about the shirt? "Same thing."

So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

"No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt … after all; we lined up the shirt … and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front . . ."
But where did it go in the back? "Well, the back hole, when the shirt
is laid down comes … aah . . . well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to … aaah .. . understand the . . . aah …  the angle of decline which … "

Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front?

"Well, I think that … that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower."

Somewhat lower?

"Perhaps. I, I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt."