[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I did not see the comment below -

Ben Holmes Wrote:"Not the Triple Overpass...

Not under the Triple Overpass...

But to the right of it (as you're looking toward the TSBD from ahead of the limo)

Now, were there eyewitnesses to such a shooter? Nope... none that I'm aware of. But I think that the ballistics evidence quite firmly places a shooter there."

Was he hiding in a culvert? Who knows... I'm just putting the shooter in the general area that the ballistics shows he must have been. The fact that no-one saw the shooter is, in my opinion, quite meaningless.

This is my opinion - and until or unless more evidence comes up - I think it's the best explanation for the frontal shot.

IF there was a frontal shot I would agree it is a location worth considering, however it is not one from which an assassin could make an easy exit and neither does it afford a good view.

What better exit could their be than to get in a car located right there, and drive away?

As for the view, it's the same as the alleged assassin in the 6th floor, and it's level rather than 60 feet up. How you can define this as not a good view is quite amazing:

Patrick C Wrote:Assuming the seating arrangements were known to this alleged "assassin" it would seem an odd choice of location.

On what basis are you making such an argument? Being in a location that is hidden, has vehicle parking for a fast getaway, and has an excellent view with the victim coming virtually straight at you... tell us Patrick ... WHY is it an odd choice?

It's apparently a brilliantly obvious choice... Far better than the TSBD, where an assassin could be trapped.

Patrick C Wrote:Another major issue is that you now introduce three locations left front, right front and rear high up.....this is not a sound pattern reflected at all in the witness testimony.

You complain that the earwitness evidence is unreliable, then you desperately wish to hold on to it when you think it supports your view. How strange!?

Two of the three locations you mentioned are reflected in the witness testimony - why do you deny this?