Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What evidence did the Warren Commission use to establish Oswald's timeline on November 22 1963?
Executive summary
The Warren Commission reconstructed Lee Harvey Oswald’s November 22, 1963 timeline primarily from physical/forensic evidence (the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle, a homemade brown paper bag, palmprints/fibers) and witness testimony placing him in the Texas School Book Depository before and shortly after the shooting; the Zapruder film and other photographic evidence also helped fix timing and sequence [1] [2] [3]. The Commission took testimony from hundreds of witnesses and relied on agency reports to conclude Oswald fired three shots from the sixth‑floor southeast window and then left the building [3] [4] [5].
1. How the Commission anchored Oswald to the Depository that morning
The Commission emphasized that Oswald worked at the Texas School Book Depository and had routine access to the sixth floor, and several employees said they saw or heard him in that area throughout the morning of November 22; that workplace access framed the starting point for its timeline [6] [1]. Investigators coupled those eyewitness accounts with physical traces — notably a long brown paper bag found near the sixth‑floor window and the rifle later identified as Oswald’s — to place him at the sniper’s position shortly before the motorcade passed [1] [2].
2. Physical and forensic evidence the Commission used to link Oswald to the rifle
The Warren staff matched the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor to Oswald through purchase records, a photograph of Oswald holding the rifle, and forensic tests on the weapon and bag (the report concluded the picture showed the same rifle and that fibers/palmprints linked Oswald to the paper bag that carried it) [1] [2]. That chain of custody and forensic linkage were central to asserting that Oswald brought the weapon into the building on November 22 [2].
3. Timing and sequencing: Zapruder film, test experiments, and the “assassin’s eye view”
A key temporal anchor was the Zapruder home movie and other photographic material, which the Commission used to sequence frames and to time wounds and reactions; they then ran photographic and scope tests to show lines of sight and how shots could have been fired as the limousine passed [3] [4]. The Commission combined frame-by-frame analysis with witness accounts and ballistic reconstructions to establish that three shots were fired from the sixth floor and when Oswald must have been at the window and then absent thereafter [4].
4. Reconstructing Oswald’s movements after the shooting
The report reconstructed Oswald’s exit from the building, his route through Dallas, and his alleged killing of Officer J.D. Tippit, using a mix of eyewitness testimony and forensic/ballistic evidence. The Commission asserted near minute‑by‑minute precision for his movements following the assassination, relying on interviews and agency reports submitted to the panel [4] [5].
5. Volume of testimony and documentary sources underpinning the timeline
The Commission compiled testimony from more than 550 witnesses and over 3,100 agency reports — material it placed in appendices and the National Archives — and used that corpus to corroborate sequence, occupation of places, and ownership of the weapon [3] [5] [7]. The Warren Report and its supporting volumes contain the depositions, exhibits, and forensic analyses the Commission cited to tie Oswald to each step of the timeline [7].
6. Where critics and later panels focused their scrutiny
Later investigations and critics targeted elements that were essential to the Commission’s timing—most notably the single‑bullet theory and the precise timing in the Zapruder frames—because those parts constrain how quickly Oswald would have had to fire between shots; critics argue those timing constraints make the Warren sequencing debatable, while the Commission and later forensic panels defended their reconstruction [8] [4]. The House Select Committee on Assassinations later reexamined some forensic conclusions and noted both consistencies and continuing disputes with the Warren findings [8] [6].
7. Limitations in the Commission’s approach and admitted gaps
The Warren Commission compiled enormous documentation, but it relied heavily on FBI, Secret Service, and CIA reports and on contemporaneous witness statements; critics and declassified agency histories have since suggested the Commission did not receive full or consistent cooperation from all agencies, and some contemporaneous internal actions and omissions have been criticized as limiting the completeness of the timeline [9] [5]. Available sources do not mention any newly discovered direct eyewitness placing Oswald at the exact sixth‑floor window at the shot‑by‑shot instants beyond the physical and photographic inferences cited by the Commission [1] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking the original evidence
If you want the Commission’s primary evidentiary claims: they rested on workplace eyewitnesses who saw Oswald that morning, the rifle purchase/photograph/fingerprint and fiber links to the paper bag and weapon, the Zapruder film and photographic timing experiments, and extensive witness and agency reports assembled into the Warren Report [1] [2] [3] [5]. Those same elements — especially the single‑bullet timing and reliance on agency materials — are where subsequent reviewers focused their challenges and reexaminations [8] [6].