James R Gordon

You would have to ask Gary that question, though I doubt he will answer you. The answer is at the heart of his other study. He has spent years researching the ammunition of the 50's and 60's and I know he is prouder of this work than the Connally trilogy. Having much of the Connally trilogy and knowing the quality of the research therein I really look forward to the time when he does release it.

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,

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.

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?

Robert,

I am very busy at the moment which is one reason I have not replied sooner. The other is a contradiction I can't quite get my head around. Robert Shaw was quite catagoric that the bullet never entered the chest cavity. It ran down the outside of the 5th rib. Now the problem is that if the bullet exited below the right nipple that would take it inside the chest cavity. As I understand it the position of the nipple is inside the area of the cage.

The press conference on the 23rd Robert Shaw was explicit the bullet was outside the thoracic cage. I have always believed Robert Shaw, but on the other hand I cannot explain how the bullet did not enter the thoracic cage and yet the position of the exit wound suggests it might have.

I simply cannot explain that contradiction and I do not - at present - have the time to work on it.

Was there a point you were trying to make there Robert.

Because the wound was "slightly medial" that means it was slightly right of the right nipple. How far right it is now impossible to say.

My point is that the bullet exited through the wound from outside the thoracic cavity. I understand the wound was more oval than round. However from what I can see, a 1 inch radius takes you outside the thoracic cavity. This of course is further emphasised because the wound was not centred below the right nipple but slightly medial to it. Clearly wherever the wound was positioned, it was in a position to allow the bullet to exit the body from outside the chest cavity.

Really Robert are you being serious??

There were not two different wounds. There was one wound slightly under two inches in diameter. However it was created by two different missiles: bone fragments from the 5th rib and the exiting bullet.

Here is the image. Unfortunately I do not know when the incident occurred.

I note that Gary has commented that he and I diverged on a number of issues. That is true and one of these areas is his belief that chest wound took place after Z 313. For a while I agreed with Gary that the wound was post 313. The incredible movement by John Connally after 313 seemed to confirm that.

Two points made me change my mind.

1. Discovery that from Z 290 to Z 325 we see Nellie getting John Connally out of danger. Which confirmed that he had already been injured.
2. the second was the source of any trajectory after Z 325.

What those proponents appear to ignore is not could John Connally’s body be impacted by a shot around 325 and after: when John Connally is lying on Nellie’s lap. There is no doubt that a bullet would indeed be able to strike him.

However this bullet has to enter exactly where it did on John Connally’s body. It must follow the exact angle of inclination and it must exit where the bullet exited. That is very different form just saying could a bullet strike him at this point. I know that Gary is aware of this difference. Because - at this point John Connally is lying down - the trajectory angle is moving away from the North Plaza and towards the South. Depending on what moment you choose - and therefore the position of the car on Elm Street at that point - will determine how far South the source is.

What is absolutely unarguable is that once John Connally is lying down it is impossible for the source to be either the TSBD or the Daltex.

James

Robert,

I assume the diagrams you refer to are those I used in post number 18. If they are not those I have no idea what you are talking about.

I prefer to use Robert Shaw’s statement to the press on the 23rd when he says the bullet did not enter the thorax. That said this comment from his deposition will suffice.

“the bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib.” 6H86

The diagram that you complain so bitterly about is an attempt to explain the route of the bullet through John Connally’s body.

The salient point is that the bullet did not enter chest cavity but passed along the “slanting direction of the fifth rib.” 10cm’s is equivalent to 4 inches. Though I do not have the data beside me that purple rectangle is exactly 4 inches in length ratioed from the know heights of the 5th rib. Maybe the rectangle should be a little further forward, but unlikely too far.

Now why the rectangle is in the position it is in. It was based on where the trajectory pointer would impact the rib based on the wound’s point of entry. The position of the rectangle is not based on Robert Shaw’s statement, but where from the point of entry a straight line would impact with the 5th rib.

Now you complain that this impact point should be further forward. One thing that is very clear in Robert Shaw’s deposition as well as his testimony is that the bullet traveled along the direction of the rib. Placing that rectangle any further forward would seriously impact on the bullet’s point of entry.

A further point to suggest that the bullet was to the right edge of the exit wound was the description of the damage done to the 5th rib. “The bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential way pushing it out causing a fracture at a point further up the rib (like a tree limb breaking from pressure exerted near its end)” 1HSCA272; 274-275

Pushing the rib out of place - which can be seen on the x-rays - ensures the bullet is traveling in a direction outside the chest cavity.

Other evidence that the bullet did not enter the chest cavity is the comments that Robert Shaw made about the intercostal muscles.

“It was found that the fourth and fifth intercostal muscle bundles were almost completely intact where the rib had been stripped out.” 4H105 and CE392

“The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile, to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much

along its line of inclination.” 4H112

“The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of

the bullet.” 6H86

Therefore if the bullet did not enter the chest cavity - as Robert Shaw is explicit that it did not - then the bullet cannot have exited anywhere near the right nipple. The position of the right nipple is well within the boundaries of the chest cavity.

You appear to have some medical experience. So get a diagram of the body and place the right nipple on the chart. You will see it is within the chest cavity area. The bullet - therefore - could not have exited there. The bullet had to exit at a point outside the chest cavity. So what did exit through that point in the body was not the bullet but the fragments of the 5th rib. As I have pointed out you can see the damage on the shirt created by these bone fragments.

Gary mentioned the H shape on the shirt. That shape is where the exit wound would have been on the shirt. However, in this area - aside from the vertical columns of the H and the horrizontal bar - there is no damage to this area of the shirt aside from the two bullet holes. Something was pressed against that part of the shirt and prevented the bone fragments penetrating the shirt. However if you look elsewhere on the shirt you will see the diagonal line of fragment damage.

What is interesting about this angle of damage is that it replicates the angle of damage that was caused to the to the middle lobe of the right lung 6H88 It is a quite extraordinary line of damage to the shirt. However at the exit point, there is no damage to the shirt aside from the two bullet holes.

It is my conclusion that this 2 inch exit hole in the chest was created by a combination of the bullet’s exit along with the exit of fragments of the fifth rib. Where each exited within that hole is not clear. All that seems certain is that the bullet exited from outside the chest cavity.

James.

Robert Mady:-

If CONNALLY is stunned and laying on top of NELLIE how did she manage to move him to a crouched facing forward position by Z-325?

Why is this not mentioned in testimony?

It is mentioned in testimony by both John Connally and Nellie Connally to the WC as well as the HCSA?

Robert,

There is a difference between assertion and fact. I have read Gary Murr's trilogy, it is clear you have not. The authority and meticulous documentation of this work - whose footnotes run to hundred's of detailed references - throw those thoughts into the stratosphere.

In addition, I am one of the very few people who has a copy of the entire John Connally medical record from Parkland. That record makes clear how and where John Connally was wounded and where he was not wounded - irrespective of the plethera of unsubstantiated theories.

That said, you are absolutely correct in pointing out that there are serious inconsistencies in the Connally's record. They are not at all consistent. There is even the point, that both are on record in testimony stating that when they heard the head shot John Connally was lying on Nellie's lap. That did not take place till after Z 315/7

Fellow members I am too busy on another topic to devote myself to this argument. May I point out that if you want the authority on what happened to John Connally then refer yourself to Gary Murr's trilogy on the wounding of John Connally. It is authority beyond dispute. Nobody, on this forum including myself, have anything like the knowledge that Gary has accumulated. His understanding of this matter dwarfs us all.

Below are a sample of videos that attempt to put the record straight.

I tried to put together a post but was prohibited because of the number of images. I'll reformat it as a interactive PDF that members can download. Basic points:-

Did the bullet enter John Connally's thorax. No!!! See Robert Shaw's news conference on saturday 23rd

How could John Connally turn after being wounded. Answer initially he felt no pain. See 1964 News Conference

What happens to John Connally and Nellie Connally after Z290 - 320?

Nellie pulls John Connally overn onto her lap and places her body over him. See my Canterbury presentation linked already on this thread.

I will put this together as a Interactive PDF and post it.

James.

If Connally was facing forward, and the bullet struck him at the mid axillary line, outside of the margin of the scapula, how did the bullet manage to come into contact with the 5th rib AND follow the 5th rib on a course to just below the right nipple? Would the bullet not be required to change course, once it got past the scapula?

There is your problem. You suggest the bullet followed the angle and course of the 5th rib. It did not do that.

Robert Shaw stated that the bullet stuck Connally on the side. The purple area is the area of damage done to the 5th rib.

The bullet did not continue down the trajectory of the rib. It continued down the line where it struck the rib.

As previously pointed out on the forum when the bullet exited it created two holes. The red line indicates the likely exit point. The blue arrow the approximate position of the right nipple. Yes the exit wound was huge, but it was not the just the bullet that created the wound: it was the bone fragments and the bullet. The part of the wound close to the nipple was likely cased by the exiting bone fragments. You can still see some of their holes in the shirt.

James.

Hello James

According to the testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw, the bullet impacted Connally at the mid axillary line, or the midpoint between back and front of the thorax, making a burrowing wound that followed the 5th rib and then exited under his right nipple. This clearly shows a bullet path travelling at an angle of right to left in relation to Connally's thorax.

If Connally was hit at z230/231, while he was facing forward, this bullet would have to be following a path that well to the right of JFK in order to inflict such a wound on Connally.

In order for Connally to have received such a wound from a bullet originating from behind the limo, he would have to be turned to his right.

What makes you believe the bullet was sideways when it struck Connally? Do you believe the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally?

Robert,

I do not have my notes with me as I am busy on another topic. If I remember correctly, the exit wound was just below the right nipple. The exit would was created by two missiles: the bone fragments and the bullet. The image of Connally's short shows the bullet damage to the right of Connally's right nipple. The bullet certainly exited through the wound but it was towards the right edge of the wound --- as demonstrated by the shirt damage.

If your second point is suggesting that JFK and Connally were not wounded at the same time: that is exactly my point.

No Connally did not need to be turned to the right when he was wounded. The angle from the 6th floor west window was sufficient for that trajectory angle.

Robert Shaw made it very clear the bullet was not tumbling: it is in his evidence. The muscles that link and join the ribs were not damage. Robert Shaw stated for that to happen the bullet had to be traveling in a direct line and not to be tumbling. Had these muscles been damaged then that would have indicated the bullet might have been tumbling.

See Robert Shaw's press conference on the Saturday. He states very clearly that the bullet slapped into the rib and did not enter the chest cavity.

James.

Hi Robert,

Long time since I have heard from you. I will have to look out this model. You are looking from the right lateral direction and I believe that is what suggests the path is not moving towards the rib cage - as opposed following along the path of the rib. I believe when viewed from the rear you will see its path is towards the 5th rib - just you correctly suggest it should. If the model does not suggest the bullet is moving towards the 5th rib, then I apologise and agree the model is incorrect.

When I find the model you will see that it is an optical illusion to believe the rib cage extends beyond the Scapula. The rib cage is in its correct position and is proportionally correct.

Now, if you have followed my argument, you will note that I contend that John Connally gained his chest wound at Z 230/31. Therefore he was not turned to his right: he was seated looking forward. In addition I am on record stating that it was indeed the TSBD 6th floor West window where the shot was fired from.

With respect you are in error to suggest the bullet was moving towards the middle of the chest. It did no such thing. Agreed the bullet was indeed traversing towards the 5th rib. However the bullet struck the bullet sideways and continued forwards outside the chest. The collision with the fifth rib seriously damaged the 5th rib and it was those fragments that carried out the damage. The bullet exited outside the rib cage and not inside. The medical record is very clear on that issue.

I described my views in a presentation I made at Canterbury last year. A link to the file is below:-

https://www.transferbigfiles.com/a7348c2d-2d71-4f7b-8db8-f4472a8cfbe4/9aBL86vMToyZMz3S7g7_rg2

Again good to hear from you.

James.

Greg,

I have much of Doug Horne's work. I do not agree with everything he says but I also do not dismiss everything he says.

However here he is wrong. I believe the break light appears to be on because the sun is shining through it. If I remember correctly the procession on Houston street did stop, because every vehicle had to slow down to turn onto elm but everything else slowed.

The idea that the car stopped is focused on the point that Bill Greer was in on the plot. I have never been convinced about that.

I do not deny there are witnesses who state that the car stopped, but I have never found that convincing.

James.

The donate button error has been corrected.

We are aware that aside from issuing a statement very little else has happened. There are a variety of reasons for that. However members should see changes taking place over the next few days.

One item is the Forum's new mission statement or what we refer to as our “Terms of Service.” This statement reflects only what is best practice on a forum such as this.

There will be a donate button added to the forum in the next few days.

In addition we will be attaching an e-mail address so members can contact the management team. Up to now any contact has only been possible through PM's Members need a means to contact either because of an important issue or just to contribute.

And there are many other ideas that we looking into.

Basically we have been very quiet up to now. That is changing and members will become much more aware of us and see changes taking place on this site.

James

It is a fair request Douglas, but we still need - to use that overused phrase - to "get our ducks in a row"

This is a massive undertaking and one that we need to think through and consider very carefully.

I am aware I am visible having made the announcement, but to allow the group time space to work out how to develop this site: to make it even better that it is now and to preserve the investment that has been made in the site - for the moment the group's identity is being reserved.

James.

Fellow members have been aware that there has been the possibility that the Education Forum – and by implication the JFK Assassination Debate forum - might disappear for good. Like many fellow members, a group of us were dismayed by such a thought. The Education Forum, in its entirety, has a rich history and has been a positive resource in the lives of all of us. The inspiration and work that went into building this forum is something we felt obliged see continued.

On Monday the ownership of the entire forum was transferred to our group. We have the necessary funds to guarantee it’s continued existence for the foreseeable future. The history, development and inspiration that led to this forum being created is something that merits being permanently secured.

Taking the forum forward and guaranteeing it such a permanent future will require further thinking in the coming weeks.

However, for now, we would like to state that the Education Forum – and this particular forum – is presently secure and sound.

James Gordon

Kathy,

I believe I can commit to a $100 per year. I agree that we should discuss how to proceed, however maybe we should also re-evaluate the site an think about how to both encourage new members as well as how to give the site an even higher profile.

Are there any members who would be interested in grouping together in both sharing the cost as well as administrating the site? It would be a real pity to see this site go.

Robert,

I have been very busy on another topic and have not been able to respond to this thread.

This thread is at the heart of the SBT. It is essential to the SBT that the Lung is established that it was never compromised. It is clear you intend to demonstrate that is not the case.

There was very clear evidence that the lung was compromised even though in his deposition H6: 10 and in his testimony H3: 370 Perry went on record to deny that it was damaged. However, it is interesting when he stated that the lung was not damaged it was not because he knew it was not damaged: he was simply reporting what he had read in the autopsy report. HSCA1 304

1. Even before Perry had entered Trauma room 1 Charles Carrico had already noted the trachea was deviated to the left. 1HSCA: 268

2. When Perry came to carry out the Tracheotomy he confirmed he also noted that that. H6: 10

3. After cutting the tracheotomy he noted blood in the right mediastinum. H6: 10

4. Doctors Baxter and McClelland concurred with the damage to the trachea and chest. CE 392

5. Perry noted that as well as the blood in the mediastinum, air was bubbling through it. HSCA 7: 303

6. Although not part of the Autopsy report itself, in the supplement report Humes observed that “Sections through the grossly described area of contusion in the right upper lobe exhibit disruption of alveolar walls and recent hemorrhage into alveoli.” CE 391: 2

So there was very sound reason for Perry to instruct that the chest tubes were attached. H6: 10

As you are aware Humes made two calls to Malcolm Perry. The first to establish what had occurred at Parkland. What is not clear is whether Perry informed him about the chest tubes then. The second call, however was why the Chest Tubes had been authorised. H6: 16 Most likely he reported back the reason noted above. However although Malcolm Perry informed Humes exactly why he instructed the chest tubes be attached, as you have pointed out that was not the reason Humes stated as the reason.

The only logical conclusion that can be reached for giving such a spurious reason for using the tubes demonstrates that Humes was aware that had he given the real reasons that would have made clear that the lung was indeed compromised. For political reason Humes decided to cover that up.

James.

Where exactly was the Back Wound of entry?

During an idle moment I was looking at the autopsy image of the back wound. We are informed that the damage to the jacket is 4.5cm right of the spine and it would appear that is where the wound also is: 4.5cm to the right of the spine.

Looking at the autopsy image I began to wonder exactly where are the vertebra’s in relation to that wound.

The body of a vertabra is roughly 33mm. There are variations with the individual vertebra, but essentially T1 to T4 is approximately the figure. Now onto that needs to be added the size of the “Process”, I do not know it’s value – but I have assigned 10mm.

Now the body value is for the whole vertebra, so that the actual value of the right hand side of the vertebra is 16.5mm + 10mm which equals a distance of 26.5mm. In mm the wound’s distance from the spine is 45mm. So the wound is 18.5mm right from the edge of the transverse process.

So my first question was whether a wound in such a position would actually damage T1? If the bullet strikes through flesh and muscle why would it damage T1. It is well away from T1.

Next I began to wonder exactly where is the wound. Humes describes it thus: “Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm, from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.” My emphasis. MD3 P. 3

He specifies that this wound’s position is “above the upper border of the scapula.” I take it by the upper border Humes is referring to “superior border.” The red line is identifying the superior border of the Scapula which is where Humes is stating the area of this wound is above. It is not on that red line it is above it.

The Scapula:-

In the above image you will see above the Scapula the Clavicle R. That is the bone that Dr. Boswell is holding onto to steady the body for Dr. Humes. So effectively Humes is saying that the wound is above the superior edge of the Scapula and below Clavicle R where Dr Boswell has his hand.

Now I am sure some will argue that what we see in the image is that the wound is below the Clavicle R. But Humes had also said it was above the superior border, and that position well above the position of the wound on this autopsy image.

The FOX image makes clear that the autopsy’s description of the position of this wound is just a nonsense.

The yellow arrow has tried to identify the spine. I have taken the wound entry to be 45mm right of center. Having got the horizontal position, where is the vertical position.

The Clavicle is on the same plane as T1. So it is clear the wound is below T1.

The outmost edge of the Scapular Spine is between T4 and T3. And the wound is above that.

It is probably above T3 but below T2. George Buckley’s comment about the position of the wound being at the level of T3 is about right.

The Back image:-

The first point to be made is that this position of the wound is well below the apex of the lung. Had the SBT been a valid theory then the bullet would have to travel through the lung. Humes wants to suggest that the wound is just below the Clavicle. The Fox image makes clear that, wherever the wound is, it is well below the clavicle. The apex of the lung is at the level of the clavicle.

Whatever the authority the autopsy protocol has, it is contradicted by the FOX image. The wound is very close to the edge of the Scapula spine and therefore is well below the apex of the lung. It would seem impossible to argue that position of the wound is not anywhere near T2 and T3 but actually above the superior edge of the Scapula and just below the Clavicle.

There are other problems like the height differential and the angle of climb the bullet would require to make. However they pale when compared to the inescapable fact that the back wound of entry is below the apex of the lung and likely to be between T2 and T3.

James.