REOPEN KENNEDY CASE

Paul Francisco Paso at August 13, 2015 at 5:58 AM

No shots came out of the TSBD IMO. The rifle and shells was a diversion with the arrow pointing at Oswald. Having a shooter in the TSBD would be madness. What if someone spots them? The plan will fall to pieces. The shots came from somewhere else. Fuck knows where. My guess is a TSBD employee brought in the rifle and shells. Again, fuck knows who.

We may not know WHO but we have an idea where to start looking.

Either the couple of fellows who came in late (Shelley, Frazier - from the Where's Your Rider thread) and the one who came in early, Dougherty (Daugherty or whatever spelling).

They would be most likely to not be noticed so much because 1) - no one else was there yet, or 2) - everyone there would be busy at their jobs and not see anything... well, all except for that lazy good-for-nothing Givens, huh?

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,

you just had to open them there can of worms.

I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide? 

The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of. 

Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,

you just had to open them there can of worms.

I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries. 

Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide? 

The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of. 

Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide? 

The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of. 

Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.

Same question, notwithstanding there need not be a team, but for the life of me can't imagine a lone person taking pot shots from the window on the sixth....where's the rifle which fired those shots. Hidden, is that what we think.

The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

You're buying into those sightings then?

You might consider re reading the thread.

Like everything else in this case I'm not ready to accept any longer any of the stuff we've been fed as fact or even halfway true.

Of course this is only my opinion. It matters not.

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,

you just had to open them there can of worms.

I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries. 

Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.

Not wishing to be objectionable, but Redfern can you supply a link to those conclusions, I am under the impression they were different, and could not agree, my failing memory maybe to blame but just to be sure....

My understanding is the two reports couldn't agree on the source mic to begin with, and then there was disagreement on other crucial points.

Again my apologies if I have this all wrong

cheers mate

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:51 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Of course one other obvious question would be, where is the rifle that actually fired the shots from that eastern most window on the sixth floor?

Easy to hide? 

The contention that shots were fired from the eastern most window on the sixth floor also then requires a team of at least two maybe three persons, spotter, shooter and odd body to hide the throwdown and plant the other evidence we know of. 

Only my opinion of course, but it does seem a bit odd, at least to my mind

I've never really understood the argument that a sniper would need a spotter in Dealey Plaza. A sniper would know exactly where his target was going to be and presumably practiced aiming at numerous vehicles beforehand.

The Kennedy assassination has never struck me as the ultra-sophisticated operation portrayed by some. The 6th floor sniper was observed as early as 12.15 when it is known Oswald was downstairs. Several witnesses saw him - admittedly, most of these sightings were closer to 12.30.

To anyone who didn't have help from the inside, or who hadn't actually worked there, the TSBD was a nightmare in terms of escape.

Just my view, but once the MC rifle was discovered I doubt very much whether DPD were remotely interested in searching every box or container let alone tear up the floorboards. Jack Dougherty had considerable latitude between 12.00 and 12.45 to do whatever was necessary, although the 'floor-laying' team may have built the sniper's nest.

Admittedly, this is largely conjecture. But so too is much related to what actually happened in the TSBD shortly before and after the assassination.

I think it was more sophisticated than it was crude. Snipers are meant to be hiding. The worst place for a sniper to hide that day was the 6th floor of the TSBD where the patsy was suppose be. Whoever those witnesses may have seen on the 6th floor were maybe probably planting the rifle and the shells. Someone had to do it  just before they shot the President.

I am with Mick on the dictabelt stuff but I understand the technical stuff less. I doubt they can get that much information about the acoustics of Dealey Plaza as they claim from a shiity old source like a dictabelt recording. Didn't Edison invent the dictabelt 100 years ago?

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 4:41 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM

Mick Purdy at August 13, 2015 at 2:01 PM

Redfern at August 13, 2015 at 12:39 PM

In my view, shots were fired from the easternmost 6th floor window. The acoustics study verified this.

The acoustics study also indicated that in all likelihood a bolt-action rifle was not used, given the short interval between the first two shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The MC rifle and shells were planted to frame Oswald.

There was ample opportunity to plant the incriminating evidence and it would have been relatively straightforward to hide the weapon that was actually fired - after all, the TSBD was a warehouse.

Now you dang gone and dunnit Redfern,

you just had to open them there can of worms.

I'm not so sure about the dictabelt recording, I've always thought it was suspect. I'd like to have someone revisit that recording with todays technology. If it hasn't been done already. I've read some of the material available and I'm not so confident that the tests were accurate. That cuts both ways too, even for a grassy knoll shot.

Of course my lay opinion counts for zero should someone point me to a recent study of the material

Ideally, the Dictabelt tapes should be digitised and re-analysed - not only the segment covering Dealey Plaza and the ride to Parkland but the tapes covering later transmissions related to Tippit and the subsequent chase for his killer. Is there evidence of editing in these segments? However, the broad conclusion would be the same - to a very high degee of probability there was a gunman behind the picket fence and a significant likelihood three gunmen fired on November 22nd.

A genuine re-analysis would require the original tests in Dealey Plaza to be carried out more thoroughly and I'm not sure this is a practical proposition. There is also the issue of whether any new buildings constructed since 1963 would render further examination problematical.

Unlike eyewitness accounts and even discussions related to medical evidence and the autopsy, the acoustics study removes the elements of objectivity and ambiguous phraseology. Arguments related to bullet trajectories should be almost entirely objective, although we have seen attempts to 'place' Kennedy and Connally in positions within the limousine that militate in favour of the SBT. We have also, unfortunately, endured Dale Myers's bogus animations being given publicity in TV documentaries. 

Acoustics is a hard science. It relies on basic mathematical and physical principles and does not allow for 'wiggle room', although results are couched in terms of probability.

Remember that a second team of experts drafted in to examine the results of the first group reached similar conclusions.

Not wishing to be objectionable, but Redfern can you supply a link to those conclusions, I am under the impression they were different, and could not agree, my failing memory maybe to blame but just to be sure....

My understanding is the two reports couldn't agree on the source mic to begin with, and then there was disagreement on other crucial points.

Again my apologies if I have this all wrong

cheers mate

The acoustics reports carried out for the HSCA are contained in this volume:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961

Testimonies given at the HSCA are probably easier for lay people to understand.

James Barger:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscabarg.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscabar2.htm

Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasay:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscashot.htm

If we don't accept the acoustics evidence, then we are left with a conundrum.

It is difficult to prove in absolute terms whether a shot was fired from a certain location even if witnesses observed a man with a rifle and heard gunfire from that approximate location. It strikes me as impossible to prove that a shot was not fired from that location.

Apart from Jackson, Euins and Brennan, other witnesses spoke of a man on the upper floors of the TSBD with a rifle - Rowland 15 minutes beforehand towards the SW windows on the 6th floor and Carolyn Walther in a SE window shortly before the shots, although she specified (I believe mistakenly) a different floor. Witnesses in the jail appear to have seen a gunman too, although they were never interviewed by DPD or the FBI.

Numerous witnesses saw a figure wearing a light-coloured shirt in the SE window very shortly before the shots rang out with film evidence supporting these sightings. Noticeably, film footage of Prayer Man shows two men looking in the general direction of the upper floors of the TSBD.

If it is argued that firing a shot from the upper floors of the TSBD would attract attention, then surely walking around with a rifle or briefly pointing it out the window would also attract attention. But do we dispense with evidence from seemingly reliable witnesses which is relatively consistent because it doesn't fit our preferred solution? This is exactly what lone nut advocates do time after time.

Most contributors to these pages accept that there was at least one shot from the 'grassy knoll'. (I believe there were two, with one being the 'Rosemary Willis shot'.) No rifle was discovered in the vicinity, even although there was much less time and space available to hide any.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no witness statements officially or unoifficially identifying locations other than the TSBD or the picket fence area as the sources of gunfire.

Returning to the acoustics evidence, it is strange that in its own way this seems to have suffered a similar response to the arguments surrounding Prayer Man. It is perplexing that the one serious scientific study carried out on the assassination which proved a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt has been allowed to be fade into the background.

As for the significance of the risk of a sniper attracting attention? I believe this shows confidence that Oswald would quickly be identified as the suspect and Truly's 'he's an employee' excuse a rehearsed response rather than an off-the-cuff improvisation.

This thread is becoming one of the reasons why I believe the medical, ballistics and acoustic evidence is the biggest quagmire in the whole assassination research field.  It's so fucked up that no-one will ever agree.  It is why I hold my head in my hands every time I see Pat Speer and Nail Varnish Varnell go at it at the EF over the back wound or I see yet another fucking thread about bullets and impact points from Bumfuck Bob.  Utter shite.

Hope you don't think I'm trying to stifle discussion here but if I've seen one acoustics/ballistics discussion lead nowhere I've seen 5000.  The dictabelt analysis is yet another area of the assassination where contradictions and confusion has been (purposely IMO) weaved into and around it. Unfortunately, I'm not intelligent enough to understand it and have, in the past, relied upon others to decipher it for me.  I have to admit, I'm still none the wiser.  

On the subject of assassins "practicing on moving cars" there is a report available that makes claims from a pretty reputable Dallas couple that their car was shot at in Dealey Plaza either the day before or a couple of days before 11/22.  

Thanks Redfern for the link and the reply.

And thanks too Lee Farley, for reminding us not to get bogged down in old tired stuff/shite. Its so very true. Goes nowhere fast!

In response to Redfern

If we don't accept the acoustics evidence, then we are left with a conundrum.

Whether we do or don't accept it IMO matters not, we are left with a conundrum either way. So in the end we go round and round until we're all dizzy.

It is difficult to prove in absolute terms whether a shot was fired from a certain location even if witnesses observed a man with a rifle and heard gunfire from that approximate location. It strikes me as impossible to prove that a shot was not fired from that location.

And the point is? The thread seems to show that eyewitnesses can be unreliable, embelish their accounts and even lie. Surely all we are doing here is showing that it's possible that no shots were fired from the TSBD. the fact that the Warren report says 3 shots came from the 6th floor window doesn't make it so.

Apart from Jackson, Euins and Brennan, other witnesses spoke of a man on the upper floors of the TSBD with a rifle - Rowland 15 minutes beforehand towards the SW windows on the 6th floor and Carolyn Walther in a SE window shortly before the shots, although she specified (I believe mistakenly) a different floor. Witnesses in the jail appear to have seen a gunman too, although they were never interviewed by DPD or the FBI.

Who are the "other witnesses" who spoke of a man on the upper floors with a rifle. Name them!

Witnesses who appear to have seen a guman is very different to somebody seeing a rifle protruding from the 6th floor window

Numerous witnesses saw a figure wearing a light-coloured shirt in the SE window very shortly before the shots rang out with film evidence supporting these sightings. Noticeably, film footage of Prayer Man shows two men looking in the general direction of the upper floors of the TSBD.

Again this is not proof of anything

If it is argued that firing a shot from the upper floors of the TSBD would attract attention, then surely walking around with a rifle or briefly pointing it out the window would also attract attention. But do we dispense with evidence from seemingly reliable witnesses which is relatively consistent because it doesn't fit our preferred solution? This is exactly what lone nut advocates do time after time.

I agree If I were to argue for a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD then I would also agree it could attract attention. As someone on this thread has mentioned before now, for all we know it could have been a broom stick handle which was poked through the window or anything else for that matter or nothing at all.

We are not dispensing evidence! We are scrutinizing the veracity of it.

As Ed has clearly shown, most of the eyewitnesses to a rifle barrel or a shot fired have displayed a propensity to fabricated and embelish their accounts after the fact

Most contributors to these pages accept that there was at least one shot from the 'grassy knoll'. (I believe there were two, with one being the 'Rosemary Willis shot'.) No rifle was discovered in the vicinity, even although there was much less time and space available to hide any.

To the best of my knowledge, there were no witness statements officially or unoifficially identifying locations other than the TSBD or the picket fence area as the sources of gunfire.

None that we have ever been informed about. 

Returning to the acoustics evidence, it is strange that in its own way this seems to have suffered a similar response to the arguments surrounding Prayer Man. It is perplexing that the one serious scientific study carried out on the assassination which proved a conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt has been allowed to be fade into the background.

Please don't return to it. It saddens me greatly to think near on 40 years later the two analysis studies of that tin foil belt lend so much weight to a conclusion by a Government body, only to be left open to endless ridicule for the next 1000 years IMO. It should be left alone, we have better fights to fight me thinks!

As for the significance of the risk of a sniper attracting attention? I believe this shows confidence that Oswald would quickly be identified as the suspect and Truly's 'he's an employee' excuse a rehearsed response rather than an off-the-cuff improvisation.

I can only repeat what others have siad and its speculative and only an opinion, but it would seem on the surface a terrible place for a sniper, not only because of the escape route but it would seem an impractical spot for a shot as well. IMO

Just my two cents worth mate nothing more!

Interesting reading Mick and Redfern. My thought on one point is that if the SN was planned with no shooter, then as a staged scene they needed an abort capacity. If the shooting, (assumedly originating from elsewhere) does not occur, then do not wave a gun out the window, do not scatter shells about, do not stack the last few boxes. Just leave it as an innocent area where books are stored. If the first shot does sound, count the shots heard, leave the right number of shells, show the gun out the window etc.

 I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered. 

Mick Purdy at August 14, 2015 at 12:43 PM

 I follow the logic Jake, and I can certainly understand what you're saying. But I'm not convinced the framers of Lee cared less about an abort plan. If that means things were left there I don't think it mattered. 

You could be right and I'll leave it at that. I'll end up going around in those circles again, not with you mind you, just chasing my own scenarios from one to the next. That's why I like PM. It's a picture. It's him or it isn't. (I think it is).

Don't worry too much mate, all I ever seem to do is go in circles.

I agree the picture of PM is a lot easier in many ways.

It is hard to fathom the hostility on this thread to the acoustics study and the view that shots were fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Should the two teams of experts have concluded that only three shots were fired from the TSBD at intervals allowing for the operation of a bolt-action rifle, you can be certain this would have been pounced on as the final, definitive proof that the Warren conclusions were vindicated. It didn’t quite work out that way, though, but for some reason there seems to be a desire to throw the wheat out with the chaff. In essence, the study confirmed what people standing in Dealey Plaza 15 years previously felt they had experienced – as far as witness accounts of ‘grassy knoll’ shooters were concerned, evidence that was routinely trashed as some form of mass delusion.

My background has involved ploughing through many academic papers so the acoustics analysis isn't particularly difficult for me, although I can appreciate that people who aren't scientists might find it perplexing.

There might be some justification in scrutinising the testimony of Euins, Brennan and Jackson, but the former two at least quickly reported their sightings of a sniper. Brennan’s clothing description corroborated that of others – yet another factor ruling out Oswald as the sniper.

The MC rifle and shells could obviously have been placed anywhere on the upper floors of the TSBD in order to frame Oswald. However, we know that a pile of boxes was constructed near the easternmost window to form a ‘sniper’s lair’. If the general aim was to assassinate Kennedy and create the impression shots were fired from this window where is the conceptual difficulty in believing that shots were indeed fired at Kennedy from that window? So what if this tallies with the Warren Commission? Its overriding concern lay in ‘proving’ Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots.

If there was a large degree of risk in being detected, that applies equally if not more so to shooters in the car-park. Yet we know that all escaped, which is the proof of the pudding as far as conspirators were concerned. While it seems clear to some later researchers that there had to be inside help as far as the TSBD shooter was concerned, this angle was largely overlooked for years.

The acoustics analysis did not preclude the possibility of shots being fired from other locations in Dealey Plaza. It could only deal with waveforms which were identified as being the strongest candidates representing gunfire. I believe several more (probably suppressed) shots were fired from the rear.