history coursework for gcse
...have made the story up for publicity. Finally the fact she was at this major event could also make her evidence unreliable because she may have got caught up in the hectic scenes and controversy. The next account came from Gordon Arnold who was a young soldier on the slope of the Grassy Knoll and he claims the shot came from behind him. People have claimed that he was clearly not visible in any photographs and cannot be seen on videos. In source F in 1993 he says he was lying flat on the ground but photo enhancements do not show any such person in that place. Gordon may be reliable because he was a young soldier and would have no reason to lie. He may be reliable because he is a soldier and would be very used to guns. Gordon did not change his main story for fifteen years which could make him reliable and he too may have been affected by the event and had short memory loss due to the shock and fear of the event. There are a number of reasons why Gordon Arnold may be unreliable. The main reason why he is unreliable is because he claimed in 1978 and 1983 that he was standing on the Grassy Knoll but very specific photo enhancements show no such person. Then suddenly in 1993 he changed his story and claimed he was lying flat on the ground and could not be seen because of this in any photographs. Many questions have risen from this evidence- Why is he not in any of the photographs? Did he change his story because of the photo? Why did he wait until 1978 to tell his story? Could he have been lying to get publicity or money? All these questions make it seem as though he was very unreliable. There is also a clear delay in coming forward with his evidence and the changes in his story make it a major doubt about his reliability. Finally he may be unreliable because he was affected by the shooting and could have exaggerated what he saw. The third account from “The Kennedy File” was from Carolyn Arnold who was a secretary working in the Book Depository. In 1978 in source E Arnold claimed she seen Lee Harvey Oswald eating his lunch fifteen minutes before the assassination on the second floor of the building. In source F in 1963 she was interviewed by the FBI and claimed she had not seen Oswald and it wasn’t until 1978 that she told her story but however her friends with her at the time also claimed they had not seen Oswald. Carolyn Arnold may be reliable because she actually worked in the Depository building and would be able to recognise Lee Harvey Oswald. She too may have been suffering from shock and her memory may have come back in stages which may have been the reason for her changing her story between this fifteen year period and she too may have done this in the hope for publicity or money. She also contradicted herself with her evidence because she claims she seen Oswald in the Depository building but then her friends claimed they hadn’t seen him at all. The final account of evidence came from Arnold Rowland who was a bystander at the parade and in source E he claimed he had seen two men on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository and he even confessed to the Warren Commission that he had seen these two men fifteen minutes before the assassination in 1963. He also claimed he saw one man in the far left window of the building fifteen minutes before the assassination holding a rifle with a telescopic sight and that he had seen another dark complexioned man at the right hand window of the building. Arnold Rowland could be a reliable source of evidence because he was clearly an observant bystander and could have seen everything that was going on. He may be reliable because he too may have witnessed memory loss from the shock of such a shocking and horrific event which could hav...