The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Robert Prudhomme]

Seriously, Gary, if you know how a bullet can make a horizontal elliptical hole in the back of Connally's suit coat and, less than an inch further on, inflict a vertical elliptical wound in Connally's back, I would be very interested in seeing this.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Murr?

[Gary Murr]

Hello Robert:

Of course the simplest and correct answer is that the "vertical elliptical wound" in John Connally's back was never oriented vertically in the first place. Rather it was a horizontal wound matching that, in appearance, of the aperture found on the back/side of the Governor's suit jacket.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And you have some kind of proof to back this claim up?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

It is not for me to speak for Gary, but I believe he has explained himself in this forum on a number of occasions. As I understand it, Gary believes the chest wound was incurred post 313 and at a point where - he may have been lying on Nellie's lap.

Gary's post suggested that if Connally's body position was as described then what looks like a horrzontal entry wound on his clothing would actually be a vertical wound. As I remember Gary's commentary on the wounds he always felt that the position - as described above of Connally's body position - best explained how a bullet could enter and exit Connally's body as described by Robert Shaw.

You like to retort "prove it." Well, instead I suggest, you prove that Connally could not be wounded as described by Gary. If Connally was positioned as I have described - then Gary is right in stating the shape of the damage to John Connally's clothing does indeed support that a bullet could indeed enter his body under those circumstances. Rather than asking Gary to prove his position - can you prove his conclusion to be wrong?

[Gary Murr]

Robert and James et al:

Though I am extremely busy at the moment with work and other projects unrelated to this specific subject matter, I will take the time to respond to Robert's query of "proof." I will break my reply into more than one posting and if possible will attempt at some point to aid the reader with illustrations. Below then is the beginning, Part One, if you will.

There is no question that one of the true anomalies in the wounding of John Connally was the contradiction presented by the shape/appearance of the holes/openings presumed to be, and in my opinion beyond argument, those of apertures of entrance. The aperture present on the "back" of the Governor's suit jacket was and remains something that is physically tangible, visible in photographs taken within months of the wounding, and an opening that exists to this day on this same suit jacket. I have personally handled this jacket and photographed and measured all of the openings present on the jacket and while the passage of decades has occurred since the wounding event took place, and the suit jacket has undergone various cleanings, the potential alterations that have resulted to these same "holes" is miniscule to the point where there virtually is no difference in the "size" of these same holes. In a perfect world these same pieces of physical evidence, and by this I speak to all of the Governor's clothing, should have been acquired and examined as soon as was physically possible, an examination that would have undoubtedly included the taking of photographs, but as anyone who has studied this subject matter can attest, this unfortunately did not happen. That does not alter the fact that this opening of entrance on the suit jacket is oriented horizontally and possesses physical attributes of measurement that were accurately and succinctly calculated by Robert Frazier and members of the FBI Lab in April of 1964. The wound of entrance on John Connally's "back" is a different matter altogether.

Unlike the opening on the back of the suit jacket, the wound of entrance - opening - on John Connally's right posterior surface, virtually adjacent to his right scapula, was physically tangible initially and importantly only to those who worked to repair this same entrance wound. It was never photographed, which should come as no surprise. That being fact we are left with the visual observations and written work of those responsible for the repair to this site, that team of physicians led by Dr. Robert Shaw. And it was Dr. Shaw's "drawing" rendition of the shape and most importantly the orientation of this wound of entrance that has for over 50 years presented anyone interested in this wound site with the contradiction of opposites - horizontal orientation [suit jacket] vs vertical orientation [Governor Connally's "back"] generated by the wounding missile. All "official" investigations into this event, such as the Warren Commission and the HSCA, as well as those who would defend the concept of the single bullet theory, [sBT] have explained/justified the contradiction of appearances of the two entrances with an argument that posits as its foundation the concepts of yaw and/or tumbling by the entering missile. These same attributes possessed by the wounding missile were generated and amplified beyond the norm as a result of this same bullet having struck an intervening object, John Kennedy, prior to its impact with the Governor's back and then passage "through" his right thoracic area. Only a fool void of any concepts of ballistics would argue that a stable bullet - and the alleged ammunition of this wounding, 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company is a bullet that is extremely stable in flight - would not begin to tumble upon emergence from an object such as a human body. And again, anyone who has studied this subject matter, in particular as it relates to the validity of the SBT, is well aware that in the passage of time since the Governor's wounding attempted "duplication" of the theory of singularity, though something that in truth is physically impossible, seemed to at least repeatedly confirm the concept of tumbling by this same ammunition [the most recent such venture being that aired on the PBS network last November as the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination event occurred]. Therefore the solution to the contradiction of the openings of entrance is "scientifically" and ballistic[ly] proven to be true and this aspect of the SBT is confirmed. However, I do not believe this to be the real truth of this particular wound site and I will begin my explanation in the next posting.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Interesting, so far.

Only two things I would take issue with, and I may be misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

First, bullets begin tumbling while they are in a wound, if they are going to tumble at all. If the bullet did pass through JFK's neck, which I believe is utter nonsense, it was not tumbling or even beginning to yaw when it exited JFK's throat. The proof of this is the neat exit hole in the throat; so neat, in fact, we are still arguing over whether it was an exit or entrance wound. If this bullet exited JFK without tumbling, what made it tumble on its way to Connally?

Second, PBS Nova? Give me a break. They proved nothing. Here is a question for you. What year were the PBS tests conducted, and what did they use for ammunition?

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

If Connally was lying on his side, wouldn't the hole in the suit and the wound still both now be horizontal holes, if Connally was sat back up afterwards? This is assuming the elongation was due to the steep angle of the bullet's trajectory.

P.S. Do you see now how the bullet could exit below and to the left of Connally's right nipple?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

It is not my view that Connally was wounded post 313, I was repeating one of the views of Gary. Gary also contends that Connally could be turning to his left. It is my view Connally sustained his wound around 230.

Gary commented that the bullet could have been tumbling on exiting Connally's body. The twin hole exit through Connally's shirt does not support that. The twin holes because the shirt was most likely folded slightly. The shape and size of these holes argue against tumbling. Gary is right the damage to the inside of the jacket could support tumbling, however it would also support the bullet entering the inside jacket pocket at an acute angle. The exit through the front of the jacket does not suggest tumbling. That said, Gary's work on the ammunition of the time gives his thinking an authority way beyond yours and my understanding of the case. However I am suggesting there is ambiguity as to whether the bullet was tumbling.

You question whether I now accept that the bullet exited left of the right nipple. No I do not. The damage to the shirt makes clear the bullet exited right of the right nipple. The right nipple is to the left of the holes on the shirt.

[Gary Murr]

Interesting, so far.

Only two things I would take issue with, and I may be misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

First, bullets begin tumbling while they are in a wound, if they are going to tumble at all. If the bullet did pass through JFK's neck, which I believe is utter nonsense, it was not tumbling or even beginning to yaw when it exited JFK's throat. The proof of this is the neat exit hole in the throat; so neat, in fact, we are still arguing over whether it was an exit or entrance wound. If this bullet exited JFK without tumbling, what made it tumble on its way to Connally?

Second, PBS Nova? Give me a break. They proved nothing. Here is a question for you. What year were the PBS tests conducted, and what did they use for ammunition?

Robert:

I will answer the questions you have posed herein now; I have just returned home from work so I will keep my answers brief as I would like to get back to my synopsis/examination of the back wound if I can this evening. I am not sure if you have misinterpreted what I have said or not. However, I am aware that bullets will begin to tumble while "they are in a wound." I also do agree with the concept that a bullet did not pass through JFK's neck, back to front. And further agree with you that this same theoretical bullet that struck Governor Connally in the back was not tumbling upon impact. The point I was trying to make is that it is those in officialdom, and defenders of the SBT, that need the bullet that impacted Connally's back to be tumbling; if not how do they explain the appearance of the Governor's wound as depicted by Dr. Robert Shaw?

As far as the PBS documentary is concerned, I would not be so hasty as to conclude that it/they "proved nothing." If nothing else it proved that "the" bullet could not have been responsible for Connally's thoracic wound and in turn could not have been responsible for the wound to his right radius. And yes, I am very aware as to when the Haag's conducted their tests, as well as just what types of ammunition they used. I have been exchanging correspondence with Michael Haag since the late spring of this year.

[Gary Murr]

Robert,

It is not my view that Connally was wounded post 313, I was repeating one of the views of Gary. Gary also contends that Connally could be turning to his left. It is my view Connally sustained his wound around 230.

Gary commented that the bullet could have been tumbling on exiting Connally's body. The twin hole exit through Connally's shirt does not support that. The twin holes because the shirt was most likely folded slightly. The shape and size of these holes argue against tumbling. Gary is right the damage to the inside of the jacket could support tumbling, however it would also support the bullet entering the inside jacket pocket at an acute angle. The exit through the front of the jacket does not suggest tumbling. That said, Gary's work on the ammunition of the time gives his thinking an authority way beyond yours and my understanding of the case. However I am suggesting there is ambiguity as to whether the bullet was tumbling.

You question whether I now accept that the bullet exited left of the right nipple. No I do not. The damage to the shirt makes clear the bullet exited right of the right nipple. The right nipple is to the left of the holes on the shirt.

Hello James:

If I gave the impression in my original answer "that the bullet could have been tumbling on exiting Connally's body..." it was not intentional. However, having stated that I will indicate that I do believe that the bullet responsible for the thoracic wound most likely was tumbling, or in the process of tumbling upon exit, notwithstanding the appearance of the aperture of exit on the front of the Governor's shirt. It is my opinion that the majority of the aperture found on the front of the Governor's Arrow dress shirt was; [a] the result of the material being folded, a statement you have made and one I agree with; potentially rib fragments that were ejected through the hole in the front of the Governor's chest, though just what the quantity of these fragments were remains unknown; and, [c] the weak nature of the fabric of the cloth itself in relation to the missiles that did exit the front of the Governor's thorax. Again we have a dichotomy herein, for the damage sustained and visibly seen on the front of the shirt is far in excess of the aperture on the interior lining of the Governor's suit jacket, an aperture in turn that basically mirrors the hole of exit on the front of the suit jacket - approximately circular in shape and 3/8" in diameter, described, by Robert Frazier, I believe, as through-and-through.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

If Connally was shot at z230, while he was facing forward, this would establish two things.

One, the bullet that struck Connally in the back did not come within two feet of JFK, but passed well to his right.

Two, the bullet did not come from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD, and had to originate from a point further west.

Dr. Shaw testified to the WC that the bullet exited slightly below and medial to Connally's right nipple, meaning the exit wound was between his right nipple and sternum. For those that refuse to believe or accept this, and insist the wound was below the nipple, this still means the bullet was travelling on a course from right to left across Connally's chest. Once again, I emphasize the elastic nature of the 5th rib at this point, and the fact there was a stress break in this rib far from the impact point. A straighter path could be obtained from entrance to exit point by the rib being temporarily pushed into the pleural cavity, resulting in the stress break further along the rib. Once the bullet passed, the rib would return to its original position. It is possible for a bullet to get from the mid axillary line to a point just medial to the right nipple without passing through the pleural cavity.

From my perspective, this excludes all frames of the Zapruder film that do not show Connally turned to his right as possibilities for the frame in which Connally was shot in the back, if we assume the shot originated from behind the limo.

The right to left course of the bullet across Connally's chest makes a complete mockery of the SBT, as no alignment of JFK and Connally at any point in the Zapruder film can accommodate this bullet path.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Gary

I am glad we are in agreement about a number of things in this case. I still don't see the explanation that reconciles Frazier`s description of a horizontally elliptical hole in the back of Connally's suit coat and a vertically elliptical wound in Connally's back, but I am willing to wait until you are ready to share this information. If the bullet did not first pass through JFK, I fail to see how passing through 10 cm. of the spongy section of Connally's 5th rib could make a 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet even THINK about tumbling. It just isn't that kind of bullet, and bullets almost identical to this bullet were shot from 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifles through the skulls of elephants in Africa. They were chosen for this task because of their incredible penetration abilities, and their great resistance to tumbling in wounds.

BTW, just what year did they conduct the PBS tests, and what ammunition did they use in the tests?

[James R Gordon]

Gary

If the bullet did not first pass through JFK, I fail to see how passing through 10 cm. of the spongy section of Connally's 5th rib could make a 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet even THINK about tumbling. It just isn't that kind of bullet, and bullets almost identical to this bullet were shot from 6.5mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer rifles through the skulls of elephants in Africa. They were chosen for this task because of their incredible penetration abilities, and their great resistance to tumbling in wounds.

Robert,

I will let Gary speak for himself, however I am not aware he has specifically stated it was 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet. I have certainly not said that. There is no evidence - from what I can see - that the bullet that caused Connally's thoracic wound was a 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet to the exclusion of all others.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Excellent! Now we are thinking outside of the box.

What type of bullet do you and Gary believe it was?

Remember, the whole case against LHO is dependent on that one FMJ bullet "found" on a stretcher at Parkland and matched to the rifle found on the 6th floor. Oh, and the wrist wound was 2.5 cm. long. That is an unusually long bullet that can make such a long wound, just like a 6.5mm Carcano bullet.