• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent do extracts 1-4 in source E present a full and accurate eye-witness account of the assassination?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent do extracts 1-4 in source E present a full and accurate eye-witness account of the assassination? (Use source F to help you answer this) To find out which witnesses are reliable and which are not I am now going to go over all evidence shown in both sources, E and F. to do this I will need to go over each witness separately taking all aspects into account. Jean Hill- in 1983 Jean Hill said she was used to guns and recognised that there was four to six shots fired from different guns, and she was sure they weren't echoes. When interviewed a half hour after the assassination she said she saw nothing, but in 1986 she told Jim Marrs that she saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence. There is doubt cast weather Jean Hill is reliable or not. Although she is a well educated school teacher who claims to know guns and was near the presidents' car, her story is too inconsistent, though people believe this is possibly because of stress and memory loss at the time. ...read more.

Middle

The only thing that is consistent about his story is the shot coming from behind the grassy knoll. Using the information provided in sources E and F, I believe that Gordon Arnold does not provide a full and accurate account of the assassination. Carolyn Arnold - in 1983 she said she saw Lee Harvey Oswald fifteen minutes before the assassination eating his lunch on the second floor of the Texas book depository. When she first told this story to Anthony Summers in 1978 her friends claimed they did not see Oswald. Although when interviewed by the FBI immediately after the assassination, she claimed she didn't see Oswald at all. In 1963 Carolyn Arnold told FBI that she did not see Oswald but later in 1978 said she did see him in the second floor lunchroom, although this shows clear inconsistency, she may have been in shock while being interviewed by the FBI. As she and Oswald both worked in the book depository she would be likely to notice him. ...read more.

Conclusion

If he will lie under oath about small things then possibly he would lie about anything. His wife also said he had a tendency to exaggerate. Although his story significantly changes this could be down to shock at the time or just realising the importance of seeing an extra man in the window. Using the evidence provided in Arnold Rowland's statements I believe this does not provide a full and accurate account of the assassination. Three out of four of these sources prove very unreliable and the other casts doubt, this is down to delays and inconsistencies in their statements, each witness contradicts at least one other witness, but some do support each other, for example Jean Hill and Gordon Arnold both heard shots from behind the grassy Knoll. Although Carolyn Arnold and Arnold Rowland's stories couldn't both be true as Mrs Arnold saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom at the same time Mr Rowland saw the man in the window and described him to look like Oswald. I believe Carolyn Arnold is the closest witness to providing a full and accurate account of the assassination. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Julius Caesar section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Julius Caesar essays

  1. World War 1

    "But someone was still yelling out and stumbling and floundering like a man in fire or lime". Owen saw threw his gas mask what was happening to him, Owen wanted to help him as he plunged at him guttering, choking, and drowning.

  2. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

    Noting the compelling nature of this new opinion, one may suggest that, ?It is the government?s right to discipline people who obey the law, in order to keep the world in tact.? You may well feel that I am going crazy by now, having two completely different things in one piece of writing.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work