Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.

Packed with wax.

What would be the possible source for these?

Could they be exiting fragments?

If they were entrance wounds then I'd speculate they were from the windshield frame hit.

Has anyone done a close examination of the one good facial photograph to try to identify these?

The phrase "approx 2" is curious. Wouldn't you say 2-3? It has to mean more than 1, it can't be 1 1/2.

In a longer interview, Robinson claimed that every bone in JFK's face was broken, and that this could be viewed from the inside of the empty skull. He also made reference to the shrapnel wounds in the face, and stated the reason for packing them with wax was to prevent leakage through these wounds, indicating the particles causing them might have originated in the cranial cavity.

If everything Robinson says is true, not only does this place the back wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder, it is also indicative of two shots striking JFK's head; one from the front and one from behind.

I have always been curious about the "smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shaped, flapped down. (3")". When Robinson described this wound years earlier, he described it as nothing more than a round 1/4 inch hole.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

Having extensively studied the drainage holes in the other photos, I can concur with John's conclusion that what he's pointed out is a drainage hole. Good eye!

[John Dolva]

Yes. And I think the clincher could be a better photo copy. Also, there are other photos, plus a knowable autopsy table standard which may make it possible to predict where other drainage holes must be and if other fainter indicators are there on this photo...

re Who/what's holding up the head? Someone or something of course. Perhaps the person stretching the scalp over the posterior portion of the head wound also supports the head, + rigor mortis.

edit typos, the body is mapped by anterior. posterior, front back. (and lateral designations) every part has an anterior and a posterior, which may be anterior or posterior of other parts.

Edited November 1, 2015 by John Dolva

[Roy Wieselquist]

The back wound is very important, i.e., the lower of the back wounds. I'm talking about the one between T-5 and scapula, from the slug that made the holes in the President's shirt and coat six inches from the top of the (small, Edwardian) collar. The higher right-back wound, the shoulder actually, seen in some photos, seems dubious to me

Muh notes are a mess right now, and I have a few pots boiling on the stove so to speak, but this is my general idea of the T-4, T-5 level back wound and why:

This back wound is an exit wound. The TINY throat wound, the damage to the top right lung, and this LARGER (than the throat puncture) wound in the back between spine and shoulder blade---they all line up like a laser and point to the front-left of JFK, and up at about a 15 degree angle. To the South Grassy Knoll area between the South end of the RR bridge and the Postal Building. Sherry Fiester has done exhaustive, admirable work about shots coming from this area.

More evidence? The SS or DPD riding to the right and behind JFK stated he saw, very early in the shooting, "a SPRAY of water (liquid) come OUT of the President's back about six inches down." Now, someone may say, "Could be backspatter." But no. That's on bare skin, or maybe with one thin layer of clothing, but never with a quality cotton/linen shirt AND a quality suit jacket. Clint Hill said JFK "was struck six inches down the back on the right side." But that lawman was guarding/looking directly at the Pres, and Hill's duty was Jackie and he was seeing JFK somewhat out of the corner of his eye, so that passive voice "was struck"(sounding like the bullet ENTERED there) really translates: "a wound appeared" in that spot.

Also, at the Bethesda autopsy fiasco, either Sibert or O'Neill saw an intact, or nearly intact, bullet roll out of the President's clothing, which disappeared of course. Here's what I'm thinking: since the missile hit little or no bone, it stayed close to its original state. And how it could have been wedged in his clothing: the bullet made it through JFK and the clothes on his back, and it was at such a downward angle that it hit the hard leather seat (with metal frame underneath), bounced back, and got tangled in his clothes in his death agony. At Parkland they didn't have time to inspect anything, didn't even see the hole in his back before the corpse was taken away at gunpoint. A nurse could have wrapped up the clothes, put them in a bag, and no one molested THEM at least until much later at the Bethesda circus. )This bullet that fell out of JFK's clothing at Bethesda also could have been another, later, shot from SGK, the one that entered LEFT temple and exited right occiput. Not the subject of this topic, but it too could have fallen out of JFK's mangled scalp behind his collar.)

There are more, smaller reasons I believe this, but these are the main ones. It has bugged me the last couple years since I've had this idea that I can find no similar thinking in the community. It seems this back wound as an entry has been accepted as given. Or maybe that would reduce the number of shots in the recounting of the Dallas coup d'etat. Never you fear--- if the throat, lung, and back wounds are due to one bullet, that still makes at least eight shots.

Another thing that bugs me: Three great witnesses, Father Huber and Dr. Jenkins at Parkland and the guy who made a list of what he saw at Gawler's in DC, saw a bullet-hole in JFK's LEFT temple, as well as all the other damage. Everyone concentrates on the damage to the right side of our last real President's head. I believe this late shot to JFK's left temple, also from Lucien Sarti on the SGK, is what blew out the right occiput. But that's another story.

Can someone tell me, PLEASE, why is it accepted as doctrine that the large® backwound between T-4 or 5 and scapula (the only genuine backwound I would argue--whereas the higher, smaller one in the shoulder at the level of C-6/T-1 is manufactured) is an ENTRANCE wound rather than an EXIT wound?

Edited December 12, 2015 by Roy Wieselquist

[Chris Davidson]

Chris,

The only moment I could get to replicate the Connally wound was Z 230.

However the source was not the Oswald window but but the 6th floor west window.

Doodling.

I believe it's easier to imagine Jackie in the body position that Connally describes himself in, while being shot.

West end.

chris

Connally.mov

[Cliff Varnell]

Can someone tell me, PLEASE, why the backwound six inches down as an entrance wound has been accepted as doctrine?

There was only one wound in the back.

Four inches below the bottom of the collar: T3, where the clothing holes, the witnesses, and the proper medical documents put it.

It isn't a mystery.

There are only souls who insist on making it a mystery...

[Sandy Larsen]

Using the ruler as a guide, assuming it is a 12 inch ruler I measure the center of the wound to be 1.2" below the line.

Sandy,

If you go back and re-read my post #283, the testimony from HSCA Volume 7, it is stated that it is a CENTIMETER ruler. IIRC, the scale can be read well enough to indicate it's marked in centimeters. You may want to re-do you calculations...

Tom

Thanks for pointing that out, Tom.

Do you know of a back wound photo where I can actually see the marks? Well enough to use the marks to take the measurement? Or well enough to count the number of marks?

Without that, the best I can do is assume the length the ruler and use that to take the measurement. A standard U.S. ruler is slightly longer than 12" / 30.5 cm in length. As for metric, it appears that the standard length is 30 cm. That is only 1.6% shorter than a U.S. ruler. So if that is the length of the ruler in the photo, it barely affects my measurement.

(BTW I didn't take into account the fact that perspective makes the ruler look shorter than it really is. But If I were to take that into account, that would only make my case stronger.)

[Sandy Larsen]

There is one person, not a physician, who likely spent more time with JFK's body (actually handling it) than anyone else on the night of the autopsy. Below is a transcript of a telephone interview with Thomas Evan Robinson, an enbalmer with Gawler's Funeral Home. This interview was conducted by Investigator Joe West on May 26, 1992.

Transcription Thomas Evan Robinson

Personal contact info deleted to protect Mr. Robinson's privacy May 26, 1992 (Phone)

Wounds:

Large gaping hole in back of head.

patched by placing piece of rubber.....over it.

Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris.

No surprise there.

Smaller wound in right temple.

Crescent shped, flapped down (3")

(approx 2) Small sharpnel wounds in face.

Packed with wax.

Due to a shot from behind? Maybe Humes was right about the bullet wound on the back of the head near the occipital protuberance.

Wound in back (5 to six inches) below shoulder.

To the right of the back bone.

Consistent with T3, right? Inconsistent with back photo, right?

Adrenlin gland and brain removed.

Other organs removed and then put back.

Hmm... Why would adrenal glands be removed?

No swelling or discoloration to face.

(Died instantly)

Dr. Berkley (family physician) came in an ask.....

"How much longer???"

He (Robinson) was told (funeral director)

"Take your time."

Is in favor of exhuming body.....to settle once and....for all.

(Robinson quote) "Good pathologists would know exactly"

[John Dolva]

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. Prob can count the divisions. Might be possible to actually identify the ruler by the markings.

edit add: I counted the divisions and found 5 measured as 2.5 cm (WYSIWYG) 100% zoom on my screen. So, scaling up the image to 200% gives an image pretty much to scale at 100% zoom. So saving it as PDF using PosteRazor enables printing a full scale poster.

Edited November 3, 2015 by John Dolva

[Sandy Larsen]

The back wound is very important, i.e., the lower of the back wounds. I'm talking about the one between T-5 and scapula, from the slug that made the holes in the President's shirt and coat six inches from the top of the (small, Edwardian) collar. The higher right-back wound, the shoulder actually, seen in some photos, seems dubious to me

Muh notes are a mess right now, and I have a few pots boiling on the stove so to speak, but this is my general idea of the T-4, T-5 level back wound and why:

This back wound is an exit wound. The TINY throat wound, the damage to the top right lung, and this LARGER (than the throat puncture) wound in the back between spine and shoulder blade---they all line up like a laser and point to the front-left of JFK, and up at about a 15 degree angle. To the South Grassy Knoll area between the South end of the RR bridge and the Postal Building. Sherry Fiester has done exhaustive, admirable work about shots coming from this area.

More evidence? The SS riding on the front-right running board of the follow-up car, Winston Lawson I believe, stated he saw, very early in the shooting, "a SPRAY of water (liquid) come OUT of the President's back about six inches down." Now, someone may say, "Could be backspatter." But no. That's on bare skin, or maybe with one thin layer of clothing, but never with a quality cotton/linen shirt AND a quality suit jacket. Clint Hill said JFK "was struck six inches down the back on the right side." But Lawson was guarding/looking directly at the Pres, and Hill's duty was Jackie and he was seeing JFK somewhat out of the corner of his eye, so that passive voice (sounding like the bullet ENTERED there) really translates: "a wound appeared" in that spot.

Also, at the Bethesda autopsy fiasco, either Sibert or O'Neill saw an intact, or nearly intact, bullet roll out of the President's clothing, which disappeared of course. Here's what I'm thinking: since the missile hit little or no bone, it stayed close to its original state. And how it could have been wedged in his clothing: the bullet made it through JFK and the clothes on his back, and it was at such a downward angle that it hit the hard leather seat (with metal frame underneath), bounced back, and got tangled in his clothes in his death agony. At Parkland they didn't have time to inspect anything, didn't even see the hole in his back before the corpse was taken away at gunpoint. A nurse could have wrapped up the clothes, put them in a bag, and no one molested THEM at least until much later at the Bethesda circus.

There are more, smaller reasons I believe this, but these are the main ones. It has bugged me the last couple years since I've had this idea that I can find no similar thinking in the community. It seems this back wound as an entry has been accepted as given. Or maybe that would reduce the number of shots in the recounting of the Dallas coup d'etat. Never you fear--- if the throat, lung, and back wounds are due to one bullet, that still makes at least eight shots.

Another thing that bugs me: Two great witnesses, Father Huber at Parkland and the guy who made a list of what he saw at Gawler's in DC, saw a bullet-hole in JFK's LEFT temple, as well as all the other damage. Everyone concentrates on the damage to the right side of our last real President's head. I believe this late shot to JFK's left temple, also from Lucien Sarti on the SGK, is what blew out the right occiput. But that's another story.

Can someone tell me, PLEASE, why the backwound six inches down as an entrance wound has been accepted as doctrine?

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory.

[Roy Wieselquist]

Cliff Varnell re post #321,

I'm not making an issue of where exactly the genuine back wound is. Thorax vertebra-3,4, or 5 doesn't make much difference for what I'm talking about. I think it's T-4, maybe between 4 and 5, the reason there wasn't destruction of the back part of some rib. What I'm wondering is why is everyone sure that this is an ENTRANCE wound? I think it's an EXIT wound. Lord have mercy, I don't think it's a mystery that it IS a wound! Or even where it is.

I edited my last sentence of the original post, #319, to try to make it clearer, but now that I see it, maybe I should have broken it into a few sentences. The point is----is THE back wound an entrance wound as everyone seems to have assumed for 52 years? Or is it an exit wound as the physical evidence has forced me to believe? There may be some simple explanation I have missed through the years. Here I'm only concerned with exit vs. entrance, simple. Nothing about some kind of mystery of genuineness or exact placement. I don't know what you're talking about. Maybe my post is convoluted, not clear.

[Roy Wieselquist]

Sandy Larsen #325,

The back wound is very important, i.e., the lower of the back wounds. I'm talking about the one between T-5 and scapula, from the slug that made the holes in the President's shirt and coat six inches from the top of the (small, Edwardian) collar. The higher right-back wound, the shoulder actually, seen in some photos, seems dubious to me

Muh notes are a mess right now, and I have a few pots boiling on the stove so to speak, but this is my general idea of the T-4, T-5 level back wound and why:

This back wound is an exit wound. The TINY throat wound, the damage to the top right lung, and this LARGER (than the throat puncture) wound in the back between spine and shoulder blade---they all line up like a laser and point to the front-left of JFK, and up at about a 15 degree angle. To the South Grassy Knoll area between the South end of the RR bridge and the Postal Building. Sherry Fiester has done exhaustive, admirable work about shots coming from this area.

More evidence? The SS riding on the front-right running board of the follow-up car, Winston Lawson I believe, stated he saw, very early in the shooting, "a SPRAY of water (liquid) come OUT of the President's back about six inches down." Now, someone may say, "Could be backspatter." But no. That's on bare skin, or maybe with one thin layer of clothing, but never with a quality cotton/linen shirt AND a quality suit jacket. Clint Hill said JFK "was struck six inches down the back on the right side." But Lawson was guarding/looking directly at the Pres, and Hill's duty was Jackie and he was seeing JFK somewhat out of the corner of his eye, so that passive voice (sounding like the bullet ENTERED there) really translates: "a wound appeared" in that spot.

Also, at the Bethesda autopsy fiasco, either Sibert or O'Neill saw an intact, or nearly intact, bullet roll out of the President's clothing, which disappeared of course. Here's what I'm thinking: since the missile hit little or no bone, it stayed close to its original state. And how it could have been wedged in his clothing: the bullet made it through JFK and the clothes on his back, and it was at such a downward angle that it hit the hard leather seat (with metal frame underneath), bounced back, and got tangled in his clothes in his death agony. At Parkland they didn't have time to inspect anything, didn't even see the hole in his back before the corpse was taken away at gunpoint. A nurse could have wrapped up the clothes, put them in a bag, and no one molested THEM at least until much later at the Bethesda circus.

There are more, smaller reasons I believe this, but these are the main ones. It has bugged me the last couple years since I've had this idea that I can find no similar thinking in the community. It seems this back wound as an entry has been accepted as given. Or maybe that would reduce the number of shots in the recounting of the Dallas coup d'etat. Never you fear--- if the throat, lung, and back wounds are due to one bullet, that still makes at least eight shots.

Another thing that bugs me: Two great witnesses, Father Huber at Parkland and the guy who made a list of what he saw at Gawler's in DC, saw a bullet-hole in JFK's LEFT temple, as well as all the other damage. Everyone concentrates on the damage to the right side of our last real President's head. I believe this late shot to JFK's left temple, also from Lucien Sarti on the SGK, is what blew out the right occiput. But that's another story.

Can someone tell me, PLEASE, why the backwound six inches down as an entrance wound has been accepted as doctrine?

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

A potential problem I can think of right away is that the slope of the back wound was reportedly downward from back to front. That's inconsistent with this new (to me) theory.

Sandy,

That is the problem: "reportedly" downward from back to front. I have never seen that any of the autopsists even tried probing in different directions. When the official autopsy began, after 8 pm, over six hours after JFK was dead, it seems that a gunman from behind and high up had already been tried and convicted in everyone's mind. And the rigor mortis in all those different soft tissues could have closed over any bullet path.

As one example of Humes' utter incompetence, he was certain it was a shallow wound. Why? Because his LITTLE FINGER could only go in it to the first knuckle! How scientific is that? The joker probably messed up what evidence there was left. On another site, I fell in love with the simple common sense of a guy named Bob Prudhomme, who just like me notes that Humes was trying to jam something at least 5/8" wide into a 3/8" hole.

The pleural cavity has some kind of tough cartilagenous lining (forget what it's called in Greek). So if the examiner didn't find the exact spot where there was a tear in it, sure, it would appear to be a shallow wound. Which, forcing his durn digit into, he could make go in any direction.

Thanks, Sandy, for that concise re-stating, "...possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet." I wish I'd put it that way somewhere.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Roy Wieselquist

[Ron Ecker]

Also, at the Bethesda autopsy fiasco, either Sibert or O'Neill saw an intact, or nearly intact, bullet roll out of the President's clothing, which disappeared of course. Here's what I'm thinking: since the missile hit little or no bone, it stayed close to its original state. And how it could have been wedged in his clothing: the bullet made it through JFK and the clothes on his back, and it was at such a downward angle that it hit the hard leather seat (with metal frame underneath), bounced back, and got tangled in his clothes in his death agony. At Parkland they didn't have time to inspect anything, didn't even see the hole in his back before the corpse was taken away at gunpoint. A nurse could have wrapped up the clothes, put them in a bag, and no one molested THEM at least until much later at the Bethesda circus.

His clothes were never at the autopsy. The clothes were given to Greer at Parkland and he had them taken to the White House.

[Tom Neal]

Wow, I cannot believe I never considered this possibility -- the throat wound being the entrance and back wound being the exit for the same bullet.

The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not...

Tom

[Tom Neal]

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left.

John,

I've done some fiddling with this image myself. I can't read the numerals, but that word is definitely "Centimeters." And Boswell states in his testimony that this is a centimeter ruler.

Tom