The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Robert Prudhomme]

A couple of questions.

When or where did Dr. Shaw state the lateral (right to left) angle of the chest wound track was 25°, measured, I am assuming, from a line drawn straight across Connally's thorax?

Outside of the fact this is where the FBI marked the entrance wound on a diagram, how do we know the entrance wound was not out at the extreme portion of the latissimus dorsi muscle, instead of just to the right of the scapula?

Why do you jump back and forth from lateral angle to angle of decline?

If Connally was turned 14-25° to his right, and the bullet entered the extreme edge of the latissimus dorsi muscle, contacted the 5th rib at the mid axillary line, travelled 10 cm. of that rib and exited MEDIAL to the right nipple, there is no way that bullet originated from the SE corner of the TSBD, the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building. The origin of the bullet had to be much further west in the TSBD, as it is likely this bullet was travelling a fairly severe right to left angle across the right front of Connally's chest.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

In fact, the exact location of the entrance wound in Connally's back is one of those "elastic" pieces of FBI evidence, and I believe it is no coincidence that the vertical/horizontal orientation of this wound is not found anywhere in Dr. Shaw's testimony. He may have stated what the orientation was, but there are many other instances where the testimony that ended up in the WCR was not quite what the witness stated.

The importance of the vertical/horizontal orientation is this; investigators needed to portray the entrance wound as close as possible to Connally's shoulder blade, in order to show a wound made by a bullet that originated from JFK's throat and travelled from there to Connally on a downward angle and, most importantly, it also had to strike Connally's 5th rib a glancing blow on the way by. By showing the entrance wound as vertical, the impression is given of the bullet entering from high up, on the flat of the back, through the latissimu dorsi muscle, just medial to the armpit crease. This would line up a bullet from JFK's throat with the 5th rib and, if Shaw's testimony about the bullet exiting medial to the right nipple (between the right nipple and sternum) was ignored, one could almost believe a bullet originating from behind the limo could have caused Connally's chest wound.

However, if the orientation of the wound was horizontal, as SA Robert Frazier's testimony about the horizontal bullet hole in the back of Connally's suit coat would indicate, the bullet would have hit the side of Connally's chest, at the crease of the armpit, and left a horizontal wound for the simple fact it hit the side of the chest at an oblique angle.

Originating from JFK's throat, a bullet entering at this point would have missed the 5th rib altogether, passing only through the latissimus dorsi muscle.

However, Shaw's evidence clearly indicates the bullet traversed Connally's 5th rib at a right to left lateral angle of 25-40° and exited to the LEFT of Connally's right nipple.

This means one of two things happened. If Connally received his chest wound at z223/4, the bullet could not have originated from anywhere behind the limo, but would have originated from a point well to the right of the rear of the limo, as viewed from behind the limo. If Connally was wounded by a bullet originating from the SE corner of the TSBD, he would need to be turned quite far to his right, something he is not seen doing until z236, long after JFK is seen reacting to his wound(s).

[Gary Murr]

A couple of questions.

When or where did Dr. Shaw state the lateral (right to left) angle of the chest wound track was 25°, measured, I am assuming, from a line drawn straight across Connally's thorax?

Outside of the fact this is where the FBI marked the entrance wound on a diagram, how do we know the entrance wound was not out at the extreme portion of the latissimus dorsi muscle, instead of just to the right of the scapula?

Why do you jump back and forth from lateral angle to angle of decline?

If Connally was turned 14-25° to his right, and the bullet entered the extreme edge of the latissimus dorsi muscle, contacted the 5th rib at the mid axillary line, travelled 10 cm. of that rib and exited MEDIAL to the right nipple, there is no way that bullet originated from the SE corner of the TSBD, the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building. The origin of the bullet had to be much further west in the TSBD, as it is likely this bullet was travelling a fairly severe right to left angle across the right front of Connally's chest.

Hello Robert:

As far as I am able to ascertain, Robert Shaw never physically stated that the lateral right to left angle of the wound tract through John Connally's thorax was one of 25 degrees. What Shaw did measure was the downward angle, back to front, of the angle/"line" that joined the two resultant scar tissue wound sites, a process of measurement that occurred during the April 21, 1964 testimony session of John Connally. Actually Shaw measured this downward angle twice, utilizing calipers he borrowed from Dr. Charles Gregory [who was present during the Governor's testimony session] once while Connally was standing erect with his shirt removed, and a second time with the Governor seated in his chair in the VFW building, the location of the Washington based WC testimony sessions, again with the shirt removed. With the Governor standing this downward angle was 25 degrees; with the Governor seated, the angle became 27 degrees. [4H137-138]

And for clarification, again as far as I know the FBI never marked an entrance or exit wound representative of the Governor's wounds on any anatomical diagram. SA Robert Shaw did draw a diagrammatic representation of the right to left angle of the bullet path "through" the Governor but this was based strictly upon the holes found on the Governor's suit jacket. Frazier constructed this drawing on April 13, 1964, four days after the FBI lab finally received the Governor's clothing for examination. With the suit jacket positioned as though the Governor was seated erect, this right to left angle through the suit jacket measured 20 degrees; with the suit jacket positioned such that the Governor was sitting but tilted slightly forward the right to left angle remained 20 degrees. Curiously enough, and again based upon strictly the entrance and exit holes on the suit jacket, Frazier arrived at a downward angle in the erect seated position of some 30 degrees; with the suit jacket tilted slightly forward, a downward angle of 32 degrees was calculated, again back to front on the suit jacket. And finally, with the suit jacket on a mannequin as though the Governor were standing, this downward, back to front angle measured on the suit jacket was measured as 40 degrees. What is most curious and still a puzzle to me is that when this same back to front downward angle was physically measured on the Governor's skin surface in 1978 by Dr. Michael Baden, he obtained an angle of 45 degrees downward, back to front. Of course the Frazier measurement's do not take into account the position of the suit jacket on the Governor at the actual time of his wounding, something that is obviously open to interpretation depending upon just when one feels the Governor actually received his thoracic wounding.

FWIW

Gary Murr

[Robert Prudhomme]

I would imagine, considering that we can see the Governor's suit jacket hanging open in the Zapruder film, that the bullet holes in the suit coat would be of very little help in determining an accurate right to left or lateral angle for the Governor's chest wound. It would be very interesting to see just how SA Frazier actually was able to deduce a lateral angle of 20°, using only the suit coat. From my perspective, that number seems woefully small.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

I would imagine, considering that we can see the Governor's suit jacket hanging open in the Zapruder film, that the bullet holes in the suit coat would be of very little help in determining an accurate right to left or lateral angle for the Governor's chest wound. It would be very interesting to see just how SA Frazier actually was able to deduce a lateral angle of 20°, using only the suit coat. From my perspective, that number seems woefully small.

And actually Robert, to a certain degree Frazier would appear to be in agreement regarding the unreliability of using the clothing alone in determining an accurate right to left/lateral angle for the thoracic wound. Below is from page 3 of the officially dictated lab report of Frazier et al and their four day examination of the Governor's clothing. The document bears Lab No. PC-80185, is dated April 22, 1964, curiously enough the day after the April 21st WC testimony sessions of Shaw, Gregory, Shires, and John and Nellie Connally, and is the fifth paragraph on page 3 of this report:

"It was determined from the location of the holes in the coat and the shirt that a bullet entering the back, passing undeflected through the body and leaving the front, would have passed through Governor Connally at an angle of approximately 35 degrees downward from the horizontal and approximately 20 degrees right to left if he was sitting erect and facing forward at the time he was shot. These angles are such that it would have been possible for Governor Connally's right arm and left leg to have been in direct line with the projectile. Any change in Governor Connally's position would affect the angles set out above. The possibility should not be overlooked that garments can shift from their normal position on the body. There is no way of determining, from an examination of the clothing, whether such a bullet may have followed a straight line path or may have been deflected in the body."

Though there is absolutely no question that there are documented areas in which members of the FBI lab played more than a little "loose" with evidentiary materials, there is equally important documentation which indicates that members of this same lab were uncomfortable with the WC staff attempt to ram the SBT down their collective throats - but not to the point where they were willing to come out and admit as such, at least not in 1964.

FWIW

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Gary

I am assuming the 20° angle from right to left stated by Frazier would be measured from a line running through the Governor's spine and sternum?

[Gary Murr]

Robert:

I apologize for not responding sooner. In answer to your previous statement, no, curiously enough Robert Frazier did not measure the right to left angle he did utilizing a line [horizontal] running through the Governor's spine/sternum. Frazier actually utilized a horizontal line that ran across "Connally's" right shoulder, in essence at 180 degrees to the center of his Connally figure. The drawings are actually "crude" in the sense that they are hand drawn, one of the "shirt" and a second drawing which appears to represent the suit jacket over the shirt with each drawing showing Frazier's calculated right to left angle

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Gary

You never cease to amaze me with the gems you pull from your collection. I would love to get a look at all of your material some day, though I can appreciate just how many years it likely took you to gather it all.

Okay, just for clarification, you're saying that Frazier gave a right to left lateral angle of 20° for the path of the bullet, measured from a line passing through Connally's shoulders?? Or, in another way of describing it, a right to left trajectory of 70°, measured from a line passing through his spine to his sternum?

My God, Frazier is describing a bullet trajectory that was almost travelling sideways through the front of Connally's chest.

Am I interpreting something incorrectly here?

[Gary Murr]

Hi Gary

You never cease to amaze me with the gems you pull from your collection. I would love to get a look at all of your material some day, though I can appreciate just how many years it likely took you to gather it all.

Okay, just for clarification, you're saying that Frazier gave a right to left lateral angle of 20° for the path of the bullet, measured from a line passing through Connally's shoulders?? Or, in another way of describing it, a right to left trajectory of 70°, measured from a line passing through his spine to his sternum?

My God, Frazier is describing a bullet trajectory that was almost travelling sideways through the front of Connally's chest.

Am I interpreting something incorrectly here?

Hi Robert:

No, you are not interpreting something incorrectly here, rather I believe I inadequately was/am able to convey in words what the Frazier diagram represents. If you have made any mistake, and it is obviously an innocent one, is that you have interpreted my original description as indicating that the Frazier horizontal line, which would form the base line from which the right to left angle was calculated, was drawn by Frazier through Connally's shoulders, plural. However that is not correct. Perhaps if I were to explain it in different terms I will make myself clearer. Visualize looking straight down overhead at the diagram - i.e. looking straight down onto a person holding both of their arms at their side. You would basically see the top of their head and the extensions of the clavicles out to the shoulders. If you were to then draw two parallel lines, one through the spine/sternum, and a second line parallel to the first line, left to right, or right to left, through this person's right shoulder only, you would end up with in essence a set of "railroad" tracks, for lack of a better descriptive phrase. Frazier drew a line connecting the holes on the back of the suit jacket and shirt to those on the front of the same garments and arrived at an angle of 20 degrees, right to left, away from the line that runs through the figures right shoulder. I hope this is a little clearer. Unfortunately I, like you and I am sure others, struggle when attempting to "cut and paste" or add diagrams, jpegs, etc to my responses; I just can't seem to get the handle on Photobucket!

Gary

[Larry Hancock]

I have been given permission to post this link , discovered by Linda Giovanna Zambanini, as well as her comments after viewing the segment that deals with Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires on Connolly’s wounds.

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02395_s01.do

Linda is an experienced CVICU/ICU/CCU/ER nurse and has worked for a general surgeon. The video interview speaks for itself, Linda’s observations and comments are as follows:

“Dr. Shires opens, saying there were 3 wounds - and lists the back wound separately from the wrist and leg wounds, calling it a "tangential wound" - not a through and through wound. Shaw then says clearly, the bullet that entered Connolly's back DID NOT PENETRATE into the body cavity! It was STOPPED by the rib which it shattered! Of course, this is proof the "magic bullet" was a complete fabrication - the bullet never passed THRU THE BODY to hit the wrist and then the thigh! The clip goes from 40:00 to 43:03. At 41:00 Shaw starts talking about the back wound .... at 41:45 - 42:07 Shaw says:

In other words, the bullet never actually entered the body cavity, but it caused an opening into the body cavity, by the shock like impact against the rib, which it fractured. THE BULLET, ITSELF, DID NOT ENTER THE BODY CAVITY - IT ONLY WENT THROUGH THE CHEST WALL.

In concluding, Dr. Shires says he agrees with Mrs. Connolly that it's a good thing he turned because "...otherwise the bullet would have been straight through and through and would have involved the heart.

It should have been clear to us all along that the op report and testimony of Dr

Shaw HAD TO BE changed by him later, OR forged by someone else, to go along with the

SBT. Doctors *immediately* dictate or hand write their op reports (usually dictate - even

in '63 I believe, especially in metropolitan hospitals). So his original op report

would have been dictated before, and agreed with, his statements in this early press

conference in which he reports the bullet did NOT transit the chest! It would have

detailed exactly what he clearly described in laymen's terms to the press only hours

later! Of course...this was BEFORE Tague's account necessitated the SBT to cover up

the coup, and thus necessitated a drastic change in Shaw's op report - and his WC

testimony.”

I am very much interested in what Gary and Robert have to say after viewing the video. Larry

[Gary Murr]

I have been given permission to post this link , discovered by Linda Giovanna Zambanini, as well as her comments after viewing the segment that deals with Dr. Shaw and Dr. Shires on Connolly’s wounds.

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02395_s01.do

Linda is an experienced CVICU/ICU/CCU/ER nurse and has worked for a general surgeon. The video interview speaks for itself, Linda’s observations and comments are as follows:

“Dr. Shires opens, saying there were 3 wounds - and lists the back wound separately from the wrist and leg wounds, calling it a "tangential wound" - not a through and through wound. Shaw then says clearly, the bullet that entered Connolly's back DID NOT PENETRATE into the body cavity! It was STOPPED by the rib which it shattered! Of course, this is proof the "magic bullet" was a complete fabrication - the bullet never passed THRU THE BODY to hit the wrist and then the thigh! The clip goes from 40:00 to 43:03. At 41:00 Shaw starts talking about the back wound .... at 41:45 - 42:07 Shaw says:

In other words, the bullet never actually entered the body cavity, but it caused an opening into the body cavity, by the shock like impact against the rib, which it fractured. THE BULLET, ITSELF, DID NOT ENTER THE BODY CAVITY - IT ONLY WENT THROUGH THE CHEST WALL.

In concluding, Dr. Shires says he agrees with Mrs. Connolly that it's a good thing he turned because "...otherwise the bullet would have been straight through and through and would have involved the heart.

It should have been clear to us all along that the op report and testimony of Dr

Shaw HAD TO BE changed by him later, OR forged by someone else, to go along with the

SBT. Doctors *immediately* dictate or hand write their op reports (usually dictate - even

in '63 I believe, especially in metropolitan hospitals). So his original op report

would have been dictated before, and agreed with, his statements in this early press

conference in which he reports the bullet did NOT transit the chest! It would have

detailed exactly what he clearly described in laymen's terms to the press only hours

later! Of course...this was BEFORE Tague's account necessitated the SBT to cover up

the coup, and thus necessitated a drastic change in Shaw's op report - and his WC

testimony.”

I am very much interested in what Gary and Robert have to say after viewing the video. Larry

Hello Larry:

I have just sent you a private e-mail regarding this series of clips and as indicated therein I found the Shires/Shaw exchange very interesting. I can indicate to all that what Shaw described in this press conference is what is written, in his own handwriting, in both his post-operative report and in his formal typed report dictated from his notes. One of the issues one faces is in attempting to "translate" the language of the surgeon with and to the written and or spoken word. The most important item to take from Dr. Shaw's comments is his absolute knowledge that the offending bullet of thoracic impact never penetrated the body cavity itself, a point that Shaw clearly delineates for those members of the press gathered at Parkland Hospital. So too his use of the concept of tangentiality associated with this wound site, a critical point in understanding the flight path of the bullet as well as the Governor's position at impact in order that this geometrical observation was left behind for repair. Based upon my discussions with Dr. Shaw, including just when he sat down and dictated his formal op report, I would estimate that this press conference occurred at Parkland at some point in time around or near 7:00 p.m. CST on November 22nd, but again this is only an estimate.

Gary Murr

[Gary Murr]

Larry et al:

And by way of a quick follow-up, and if I get time I will return to this later; Linda Zambanini is correct, Dr. Shaw did sit down and commit to the construct of his handwritten post-op notes, form which his formal "final" draft would be constructed, almost immediately on the heels of his operation. As I recall he indicated to me that he did so just shortly after 5:00 p.m. on November 22nd. However, I would beg to differ with Linda with reference to the concept that Shaw's notes were either forged at a later date or changed in some way by him or otheres as this is not true. Dr. Shaw was not the "neatest" of writers and if anyone has ever tried to understand/translate a prescription hastily written by a surgeon, you can appreciate what I am indicating herein. Think of Dr. Shaw's rough post operative notes, both on the day of the assassination and for over a week after the event during Connally's recovery, as a 27 page prescription; it literally took me over a week to "translate" this material and transpose it so I could see just what the good doctor was indicating. And if you read Shaw's deposition session and testimony session with Arlen Specter and the WC carefully, you will see that he does impart/mention the concept of a tangential wound - something that Specter and company probably really did not wish to pursue to fruition.

Gary

[Larry Hancock]

Thanks Gary, this not being my area, it does then seem that one of the key issues is the nature of a "tangential" wound, which would seem to speak strongly against the official WC shooting scenario?

Linda is not a member here, if the moderators pick up this thread it would be good if she could be added to discuss this thread. I have no idea how that works at the current time.

-- Larry

[James R Gordon]

Larry,

There are better quality versions of that press conference. I had understood that the press conference was on the 23rd. That certainly was the date on my copy of the video. I have always been so grateful to the unknown reporter who asked how close the bullet came to a major organ. Without that question we would not have had that comment by Robert Shaw.

The conversation between Robert and Gary - that I have closely followed - has made clear exactly where the exit wound was. I accept I was in error in my location of the wound. However - and here is where this path of the bullet traveling down the 5th rib is very important. How much of the exit wound was caused by the bullet and how much was caused by the exiting bone fragments? And where within the location of the exit wound did the bullet? This exit wound was not just the consequence of the bullet. Its size and position was the combined consequence of the exiting bullet as well as the exiting bone fragments.

The wrist wound was a separate wound. From the moment Gary suggested it was caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot I have always agreed with. I even presented some slides - when at Canterbury - to show some evidence of it.

The thigh wound was always a troubling wound. Dr. Shires is on record about being troubled by it. I never worked hard on it and took the easy way out and thought it might be a fragment from the head wound. The most work detailed work I have seen on this wound is Gary's work.

When Connally received his wound is a problem. Gary's recent talks with Robert have made me reconsider whether this wound was received post 313. However I cannot fully come on board with this point because of the Z 290 and following frames when I suggest Nellie rescues John Connally. If John Connally was wounded by that time and Nellie is indeed rescuing him then Connally received his wound before the head shot.

James.

[Mark Knight]

As a STUDENT--as opposed to a theorist--of the JFK assassination, I wish to state that this is one of the most enlightening and informative threads to grace this forum in quite some time. Thanks to all the principals involved.