[Patrick C]

I did not see the comment below -

"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.[/quote]

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.

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

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.