Bullet Theory has had a long lifespan. First, describe what it is, then offer one critique.

According to the "single-bullet theory", a 6.5mm caliber projectile. encased in a copper sheath and fired from a sixth floor, it went through President Kennedy's neck, Governor Connally's chest and wrist, eventually landing on the latter's thigh. The bullet passed through fifteen layers of clothing, approximately twelve inches of fabric, struck the knot of the President's tie, removed two inches of ribs, culminating in the thigh bone. The bullet that allegedly did all of this was found on the governor's gurney in the hospital corridor, becoming key evidence for the case.

In its conclusions, the Warren Commission found persuasive evidence from experts that a single bullet caused both the wound to the President's neck and the injuries to Connally. It establishes that there was a "difference of opinion" between the members of the Commission "regarding this probability" but established that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that none of the members had doubts that the shots were fired from the window on the sixth floor of the Depository building.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations of the House of Representatives of 1978 agreed with the Single Bullet Theory, but not in the time it took. The Single Bullet Theory has been fervently defended by those who agree with the Warren Commission's findings and equally criticized by those who disagree.

Explanation:

The criticism that can be given to this theory would be that in a case like this, in which the judgment on the preparation of the appeal has at all times been restricted to the previous question of its possible extemporaneity, once this was ruled out, the body a quo was obliged to verify compliance with the, that until then had not been verified: the observance of the requirements established in the much cited section 2 of article 89 of the LJCA.

In conclusion, a single bullet, therefore, when the court or sentencing has entered to examine all of the procedural premises in the instance, consequently proscribing a new review of the viability of the appeal for reasons additional to that already raised ab initio. Extra ammunition, on the contrary, and the possibility of subsequently denying the preparation for different reasons, when that prior examination was about specific aspects, for example, the timing, legitimacy or appeal of the resolution.