David Lifton

Yes, that's true. Mart Felt, an Assistant FBI Director (I think) was Deep Throat. Google "Mark Felt, Deep Throat." There are quite a few stories that were published when --at age 90 plus-- Felt revealed the full story; and it was then confirmed by Woodward. Its really quite amazing that this secret remained hidden for so long. There are also stories about why Felt did what he did, and that concerns his own anger at being passed over for promotion to FBI DIrector (as I recall). DSL

I never believed LeMay was there because, if he had been present, the FBI agents would have noted his presence on the list of individuals they included in their FBI 302 report. IMHO.

No.

Response: It was in one of the documents released in mid-January 1969 —Jan 20, 1969, as I recall - the day the Clark Panel documents were released. Included was a document (or a memo) created when Humes, Boswell, and Finck went to the National Archives to examine the autopsy x-rays and photos. One of the documents included a statement by Surgeon General Edward Kennedy, Surgeon General who, as I recall, wore “another hat” -he was also Chief of Naval Operations (i.e., CNO) of the Navy. One of the documents reported Kenney as having made the statement about the purpose of the autopsy --to determine the use of death. The implication (if true): That Humes had been spcifically instructed,at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy, to determine the cause of death —i.e., and not to concern himself with what may have appened to the body after death. (Sorry for the delay in responding to your query).

Yes, Jim. . . I'm so glad you recognize that I was "insightful." Before you ever got involved in the JFK assassination, and at a time when I was UCLA grad student, I recognized that the President's body was "best evidence" ; Further, that if the autopsy was falsified, that would explain how the Warren Commission --not to mention the FBI -- could be misled. Then came the discovery what when the President's body was removed from the Dallas casket, the two FBI agents reported that it was "apparent" that there had [already] been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Then came additional discoveries that established that, based on anatomic description it was clear that the President's head wound(s) had been altered sometime after the body left Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, and the time it arrived at Bethesda. All of this was laid out in UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler's memo (November 1966) to Chief Justice Earl Warren--and all the other members of the Warren Commission, plus RFK, plus LBJ--that there was evidence in the record-- that was never addressed--that JFK's body (i.e., his wounds) had been altered prior to autopsy. And that, of course, is the focus on Best Evidence, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of Johnson's accession to the Oval Office. So tell me, Jim. . Is there anything you ever did, in real time, that compares with the potential importance of this discovery? What do you think is more important, Jimmy. . .the fact that Clay Shaw may have made some arguable remark about JFK, or the indisputable fact that JFK's body was altered, and the attendant falsification of the basic medico-legal facts about JFK's assassination? Oliver Stone is a smart guy, with a global view, and someone who understands the removal of JFK from office, in Shakespearian terms. I do hope that whatever he is working on now reflects that wider view, and the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War, and not a misplaced focus on Clay Shaw.

Micah, Three questions: (1) I appreciate what Shirley Martin's daughter (Teresa) said --in an email to John kelin (in the year 2000-- that Huber indicated in the year 2000. But isn't it a fact that-- decades earlier-- Vincent Salandria quoted him as saying (or indicating) "left temple"?; and wasn't the source for that an article in the Philadelphia newspaper? (2) If Huber did not believe "left temple," and when saw that he was being quoted --i.e., "mis-quoted" --to that effect, then isn't it reasonable to believe that he would immediately have stepped forward and offered a correction? (3) Wasn't Huber interviewed by William Manchester? (If so, has anyone checked with the Manchester papers --at Weslyian, in Connecticut-- to see what Manchester's notes say? Perhaps most important, imho: Huber's account represents important corroboration for medical report of Dr. Robert McClelland, who wrote--in a medical report dated Friday afternoon, 11/22/63, that JFK died of a "gunshot wound of the left temple." (approx). Consult any book on evidence, and one learns the basic principle: The earliest recorded recollection is the 'best evidence''. (My quotes).

From a brief summary at Wikipedia: Groden sued Random House over a 1993 New York Times advertisement for Gerald Posner's book Case Closed in which Groden was featured along with other conspiracy theorists and declared "guilty of misleading the American public." The U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment and dismissed the case. END QUOTE FYI: I (too) was named in the ad --which accused the Warren Commission critics of "misleading the American public"--and was not happy with it. I consulted a senior attorney at a major law firm, and determined that the ad did not use language that offered adequate grounds for a lawsuit. Groden thought otherwise, and--as noted above-- his lawsuit was dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_of_A_President

Joe: "left" is left. An examining physician does not describe an anatomic location based on his particular "perspective," but rather as defined, anatomically (for example) in Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. (Think about it: were it otherwise, medical reports would be filled with redundant phraseology such as "From my perspective, as I observed the deceased" [or, "as I operated on the victim" etc.] ) The point you might argue is that Dr. McClelland (in this case) did not follow standard procedure, but I find that highly unlikely.

I'm not sure what you mean by writing that your reading of Feinman "comprehends" that he called the judge "corrupt." In any event, I was writing based on (my) recollection, and will defer to the written record. What I do recall is that whatever he wrote (or said, orally, if that is the case) led to his disbarment.

He implied that the judge had Mafia connections. You call that "A passionate advocate for his fellow CTs" I don't think so.

Jeremy B: If Oswald's rifle was placed behind some cartons on the sixth floor (e.g., where it was found) and if three shells from that rifle were found near the sixth floor window, but. . . if a valid autopsy on JFK's body established that President Kennedy was shot from the front (as the Dallas doctors stated was the case), then of course Oswald could not (and would not) be charged with the murder. (You do understand that, don't you?) The geometry would be all wrong, and the President's body--in that hypothetical case--would be the "best evidence" that Oswald was not the assassin. Why don't you understand that the best evidence that the shots came from the rear (and from the so-called "sniper's nest") are the bullet trajectories established at autopsy. How can you fail to see that the only way someone at the sniper's nest could be implicated (if in fact no shots were actually fired from that location --I repeat, if no shots were fired from behind) would be if the autopsy conclusions (re trajectory) were falsified--which means either one of two things: that the doctors issued a false report, or that the evidence they examined (the President's body, i.e., his wounds) were altered. This is as basic as "2 + 3 = 5". How can you claim not to see what is obvious: that the Bethesda autopsy report conclusions about trajectory (based on the wounds on the body) provides the evidential link between the alleged murder weapon (supposedly fired from) the sixth floor window, and the homicide that occurred in the street below? So if there is evidence that the President's body (i.e., his wounds) were altered, that is powerful circumstantial evidence that the basic facts --the medico legal facts --in this case were altered, that the trajectories are fabrications, and that Lee Oswald was framed. You may turn your back on all of the evidence of wound alteration, but then your conclusions about trajectory are nothing more than an act of faith. But this is not about religion, its about science. If you are so blinded by bias that you cannot understand this, there is no hope for any rational discussion. P.S. Your reliance on the late Roger Feinman is laughable. I'm sure that, by now, you know that he was disbarred. But do you know why? Some years ago, I pursued the matter and obtained the relevant records. Roger Feinman was disbarred because in one of the cases he took shortly after he was admitted to the New York Bar, he started yelling at the judge, berating him in open court, and implying (or asserting) that the judge hearing the case had connections with the Mafia. A panel of judges was then convened to consider what to do with this young attorney, who was intolerably offensive, and-- in plain English--behaved like a nut job. Lots of luck, Mr. Bojczuk. if this is the kind of attorney you take seriously, you deserve the outcome.

Thanks for your recollection. But do keep this in mind: using the standard way historians (and/or lawyers) would evaluate the situation (and you can find this laid out in any good book on evidence. . . "McCormack," the typical used back in the mid-60s, or Wigmore, going back to the turn of the century (1900, etc)..the "earliest recollection" is considered the better evidence. (As I recall, Wigmore invokes the example of someone in a hospital bed, who writes on a nearby wall, the details or the accident that caused his injury. . don't hold me to this, but that's my current recollection. . ). So then, what is the "best evidence" --so to speak--of Connally's "earliest recollection?" Here are my thoughts on the matter. First, there is his spontaneous exclamation at the time he was shot. . that should/would be given great weight in any legal or historical inquiry (and for that there are two sources: what he told Manchester, and what he said at the time). Of course, there was no audio recorder inside the limo, so --for the record of "what he said at the time,"--we must rely on (a) what he said in the hallway, at Parkland, when he was being wheeled into OR-2; (And that's why I place great weight on what the words he then spoke, and which were [apparently] telephoned in to the local UPI office, perhaps by Merriman Smith); and then (b), we have, whatever he said--or alleged to have said--inside the OR; and then, and quite important (c), his televised (and nationally broadcast) interview on the afternoon or evening of 11/27/1963; and then, finally (d) his Warren Commission appearance. (Pardon any errors as to date. I should "fact check" all of this against the NY Times. And I will, as soon as time permits). Anyway, one must keep in mind that that TV broadcast preceded his Warren Commission testimony by months. Further: before JC testified, I believe he went to the Oval Office and had a private meeting with Johnson. (Not sure how I "know" this. But I believe it is a matter of record. ) MORE ON TRIP PLANNING: Also (and now changing the subject, or the focus): Connally did not want Kennedy to come to Texas, and particularly to Dallas; and made that clear to JFK (on White House visit in early October, 1963), and even tried to call off the trip (a day or so before it began). But Kennedy wouldn't hear of it. First of all, he believed "courage" was a great virtue; second: he believed in fate. (e.g. "If they're going to get me, they'll even get me in church." (Approx). Another point (not generally known): Kellerman (and Greer, I think) visited Connally at his ranch, and spent quite a bit of time with him there, after his release from the hospital in early December (1963). So there were "private" discussions of what had happened, and no record of those discussions was ever made. I have files on all of this-- from my careful reading of the Austin, Texas newspapers, some decades ago. (I don't want to rely on my present recollection, but I have good files on all of this). Again: As I recall, Kellerman visited and spent some time with Connally at his ranch. STILL MORE (and now on the actual motorcade -- and the matter of Kelleman, pushing certain buttons): Remember: Kellerman was senior S.S. agent on the trip, and was sitting in the front seat of the car when JFK was shot. He was not just "slow" to react; he didn't react at all (!). Further, Gov. JC testified -to the Warren Commission--that he saw Kellerman pushing some buttons on the front dashboard of the limo. What was that all about, one might ask?. Well, I don't think he was operating the radio, looking to tune in a good music station. What's more relevant is the function of one of those buttons. It operated the elevation of the rear seat. During the assassination --and this was discovered by the late Fred Newcomb (and included in their manuscript [and published in their posthumously published book "Murder from Within"] -- the rear seat was raised during the shooting. This is not only established by certain geometric observations, but is supported by some eyewitness accounts of bystanders on the south curb at Elm Street, who reported that JFK was "standing" (or 'stood up') during the shooting. Pursuing the matter, I discovered an entire "hidden history" of how, at about the time of JFK's (1960) election, the Secret Service put in a request for a strong motor to be installed in the trunk of the limo, which would operate the mechanism to lift the rear seat. (In fact, by writing Ford, I obtained actual photographs of the installation). The sinister explanation, of course, is that a motorcade assassination was planned, from the outset, and making Kennedy an "easier target" was the intent --and that's certainly a possibility. The (more) innocent explanation is that it was known that candidate Kennedy loved motorcades (and their attendant crowds) and so the capability to raise the back seat at the touch of a button was done to please the new president-- and then utilized as a factor in his demise. In any event, the brand new Lincoln limousine, with its "seat--raise" feature--was delivered to the White House in June 1961. News of the "seat-raise feature" --by a full 10 inches-- was widely published, along with photos of the ex-Secret Service Chief (Baughman, quite loyal, and quite the innocent, IMHO) riding in the limo, with the seat raised. (At the time, James Rowley, the oh-so-innocent SS Agent who later became SS Chief, was head of the White House Detail). FWIW: There is no record that any Secret Service official ever raising the alarm that installing such a feature, and having Kennedy motoring around with the seat raised, made him a sitting duck for assassination. (But wasn't "security" their job?) Bottom line(s). . and there are two of them: (1) Re Trip Planning (returning to the original discussion, above): There is a backstory to Connally's Warren Commission testimony that I don't believe has her been adequately investigated, much less revealed. (2) Re the seat raise feature of the limo (aka the "death car"): Ditto. . . another "backstory." Similarly. . .not properly investigated.

Sorry Pat, but you're not exactly the gold standard for what's "really out there." That's sort of like saying "Columbus, I know you're saying you discovered America, . ... but now you're expecting us to believe there's a place called South America?.. .As a good flat-earther, I thought I was being mighty generous in believing your alleged discovery of Miami Beach...but now you're claiming we must go "further south," to get the rest of the story?? OMG! What you're proposing strains credulity. Just too far out!" No, Pat Speer. . . there is no tooth fairy, but two persons were shot in Dealey Plaza, and you can rest assured that if there was a medical setup prepared to deal with the President of the United States, that capability included reasonable contingency planning to deal with other unexpected developments. Perhaps it was my training in systems engineering (or just plain common sense), but I completely disagree with the notion (i.e., your notion) that what I am proposing was (or is) "really . . . out there." Rather, that's evidence of an inability (your inability) to properly analyze the situation. I am so glad that you did not go into the field of astronomy. We would never have discovered Pluto*. *FWIW: That planet, too --discovered in 1930 -- is "really really really out there" [your complete quote]. . But its part of our reality.

Ron: I agree that there is a disparity between the two versions. Moreover: there's a research step that could be (and ought to be) pursued: compare the actual transcripts (if not the audio) of both interviews. That would mean obtaining the actual steno transcript of the WC interview; and, in addition, obtaining the actual audio of the Manchester interview. I don't know if either is available, or what such a comparison would show.

I still believe that Connally was talking about himself--not about the automobile (nor about any "entourage"). I think the two "Frames of Mind" you set up needlessly complicates the analysis of what he said. One additional fact, with which most people are not familiar: In connection with his research for writing his book Death of a President, Manchester had 20 or 30 hours of exclusive taped interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy. Apparently relying on Jacqueline Kennedy for certain details as to what happened inside the limousine, he quotes Connally as having had the following spontaneous exclamation when struck: "Oh no no no (etc.). . . . they are going to shoot us both!" Not "all". . . ."both." (And not "kill," but rather "shoot"). P.S. I should add something else that she said, and which was deleted during the editing by Richard Goodwin (but which was revealed years later):: that when Connally was hit, he "squealed like a stuck pig." Being a city boy, I didn't have much experience in hearing such sounds. But, if we now conjoin the two quotes, here's the essence of what she told Manchester, about what she witnessed --and, most notably --heard inside the car: that Connally "squealed like a stuck pig," and cried out (or "exclaimed"): "Oh no no no no. . .they are going to shoot us both." Further, upon reaching the White House that night, she told her personal companion, that (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I thought they were going to shoot me, too!" * *Footnote: This was not just a thought, but something later revealed by Clint Hill: that not only did Jackie attempt to get out of the car in Dealey Plaza, she tried to do it twice again, after the car passed through the Triple Underpass. In one case, the car almost came to a complete stop, and she had to be pushed back inside the car. So, for whatever reason --and however irrational her fears-- she apparently thought that she too was a target during the assassination.

Oh pleez... Connally was talking about his body, not about the automobile. (But I commend you on the originality of your hypothesis).

Here's another point that Bojczuk is either unaware of (or ignores): As Connally was being rushed to the operating room, he was asked by a reporter about the direction from which he was struck. He replied to the reporter, and his response was on the UPI wire (at about 1:07 PM, as I recall). His response; "From behind, I think." "I think?" . . when did that response evolve to the great sense of certainty that JC exhibited some days later?

Quoting Bojzuck: "The important point is that it is possible to make a plausible case that the body was not altered and that it shows evidence of shots from both the front and the rear. If you want to cast doubt on the lone-nut theory, it isn't essential to claim that the body was altered. Other areas of evidence are more than sufficient to indicate that the lone-nut theory is nonsense. The notion of body-alteration is, at best, an optional extra." DSL RESPONSE: Mr. Bojzuck lives in a world where he (apparently) believes that the primary purpose of body alteration was to create the appearance of a "lone assassin." It was much more than that; the deception goes deeper. It was to create the illusion that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon. To accomplish that, "non-Oswald" bullets could not be found (ergo, had to be retrieved, pre-autopsy) and "Oswald ammunition" had to be planted. So it was't "only" a matter of wound geometry ---inferred trajectories -- it was (also) a question of (a) retrieving the genuine bullets (and/or fragments); and then (b) creating false trajectories that would implicate "Oswald as the assassin" and then (c) planting the requisite ammunition that would implicate his rifle (mail ordered in March 1963) as the murder weapon. The challenge facing those who planned this crime was not simply creating the (false) appearance of a "lone assassin." (Yes. that was one facet;. and so the grassy knoll had to be erased as the true source of the shots). But then came the"Part B": That was implicating Lee Oswald --who had lived in the USSR for 2-1/2 (plus) years --as "the assassin." That meant planting ammunition that would be ballistically plausible and "connect" his rifle to the crime, as the murder weapon. I don't understand why Bojzuck has such a problem with this. Logically, body alteration is --practically speaking-- a necessary condition to autopsy falsification, unless one wishes to believe that the autopsy doctors were in on the plot, and agreed to lie. The who planned this crime planned to falsify the autopsy to achieve their goal, and the choice was simple: either falsify the autopsy by getting the examining doctor(s) to lie, or falsify the evidence the were examining --. i.e., President Kennedy's body. Mr. Bojzuck seems to opt for a "designer shooting" (in order to frame Oswald) but in which wounds don't have to be altered and bullets don't have to be retrieved. That's not wishful thinking. That's magic. P.S. Here's another Bojczuk gem: You can have a conspiracy to kill JFK without a conspiracy to alter the wounds on his body. RESPONSE: Of course you can. As long as it is not intended to implicate Oswald's rifle, as the murder weapon, or Oswald as the assassin. In that case, the President's body is sent for autopsy, it is determined that JFK was shot from the front, and the bullets and fragments are retrieved. Now whose rifle was responsible for this dastardly deed? The District Attorney learns that there is this interesting fellow, Oswald, who worked at the TSBD, and who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 (plus) years (And who owned a rifle!) . He calls him in for questioning, only to learn there is no case because (a) Oswald's rifle was not the murder weapon and (b) as to wound geometry, Oswald explains that he was having lunch; and that no, he was not on the grassy knoll, firing any weapon. Why is it so difficult to Jeremy Bojczuk to understand that the President's body was the most important evidence in this case, and that for Oswald to be implicated (if the shots were fired from the front) then the autopsy results had to be falsified. The clear choice: either get the doctors to lie, or alter the body. ("Q.E.D.")

The autopsy would not need to be "controlled" (in the sense that I believe you mean), if the alteration was simply perceived as being the result of legitimate life saving surgery. OTOH: if it was a botched up mess (as was the case at Bethesda), then of course some "story" would be necessary to explain (to the examining pathologist) why the body was in such a messed up condition. That's the situation Commander Humes was faced with (IMHO), and was the reason for the multiple drafts, the burned notes, etc. With all due respect to Josiah Thompson's book, there was another factor involved, and I'm referring here to UCLA Law Professor Liebeler's memorandum of November 8, 1966 -- which spelled out the fact that a UCLA graduate student (me) had discovered an FBI 302 report stating that "surgery" had been discovered on JFK's body prior to autopsy (and had agreed not to focus public attention” on it until a proper investigation was made). So as the months ticked by, LBJ had (at least) two reasons to be concerned that autopsy fraud might be discovered. In January 1967, two months after the Liebeler memo, there was the "Military Review" of the autopsy photos and X-Rays. Josiah Thompson's book wasn't published until fall 1968, but I'm sure that LBJ knew about it considerably earlier. In order to "stay ahead" of events, Johnson very sensibly ordered the very secret Feb/Mar 1968 review by the Clark Panel, BUT.... The "but" is that he kept this little "ace in the hole" safely in his vest pocket until the last day or so before January 20th, 1969, his last day (or partial day) in office. That was when (finally) the news that there had been a Clark Panel was released. Also, and I find this symbolic, when Lyndon Johnson left the Oval Office for the last time, at his side was Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician. Burkley (by that time) held the rank of Vice Admiral, On 11/22, he had been with JFK at Parkland Hospital --and then with his body throughout the Bethesda autopsy. Burkley had handled the delivery of all the key autopsy documents from the Bethesda morgue to the Oval Office. To put it differently, Admiral Burkley was the only physician who saw the President's body both at Parkland, and then --5 hours later--at Bethesda. And so --unless Dr. Burkley was completely unobservant--he had to know the stark difference between the appearance of the President's head wounds at those two locations. Why do I say that? Because Burkley, at Parkland Hospital, had carefully examined the President's wounds. And then, at Bethesda some six hours later, he was present throughout the multi-hour autopsy, which began with Commander Humes statement that there had (already) been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." So of course he had to know. In other words, Burkley had to know that the President's body had been altered (i.e., the head wounds had been altered) prior to autopsy, not to mention the stitching of the throat wound. Now back to January 20th, 1969, the day Johnson left the Oval Office for the last time, with Admiral George Burkely --the man I had attempted to interview, 2 years earlier -- at his side. On January 20th, 1969, I personally watched Johnson leaving the Oval Office (with Burkley), as it was broadcast live, on national TV, and will never forget it. There was Lyndon Johnson leaving the Oval Office for the last time--not accompanied by his wife, or daughters, or with a top political aide, but with Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician. George Burkley, the official who --on November 22, 1963--had handled the autopsy paperwork, delivering to the White House on Sunday night, 11/24/63 the final draft of the autopsy, in which the wound at the front of the throat was now a supposed exit wound and which even included a "Receipt for missile" removed at autopsy, a document not released until about 1969.. That scene --of Lyndon Johnson leaving the White House with Admiral Burkley at his side--was unforgettable and had a personal meaning for me. just two years before (around 1967), I had telephoned Burkley and attempted to interview him. The conversation was brief and intense. Burkley had refused to answer any questions. Not a one. And he was angry that I had somehow figured out how to reach him by phone (as I recall, I may have actually reached him at the White House), and he was practically barking at me. He said words to the effect that he wouldn't answer anything --- not a single question --- because "one question leads to another." I couldn't agree more.

You are correct. Regarding the source of Connally's quote (that the impact "felt like he had been kicked in the ribs"), permit me to go back in time a bit--in fact, quite a bit--and to the year 2005 (approx). What follows is written based on my present recollection; but I have another computer on which all of this is laid out, in detail, in memos I wrote at the time. ** ** ** ** I do not presently recall the exact details, but I came across the Capital Hill Blue item around 2005, and it was a game-changer for me. Based on my own research -- and (perhaps most importantly) my interview with Nurse Doris Nelson (in Dec 1982 [approx]) -- I felt certain that Governor Connally was shot in the chest from the front. Over the years, I kept collecting data to support that thesis-- and made no secret of my views in various discussions on the Internet. So.. . my Doris Nelson interview (12/1982) was (most probably) the beginning. But then, years later, came the Doug Thompson article, and that (as I stated) was a real game-changer. For here was Connally, in his own words, completely contradicting what he had said to the Warren Commission --- that the impact felt like a fist striking him in the back, or back of his shoulder. But in fact, that WC testimony doesn't capture the full extent of his falsehood. Remember: Connally gave a filmed interview from his hospital bed on the day before Thanksgiving (i.e., on11/27/63) in which he made these same statements; an interview which was then front page news on Thursday, 11/28/63. What this meant to me, as a researcher (prior to the Doug Thompson revelations): No matter what my evidence was that Gov JC was shot from the front, I would have to deal with Governor Connally's Warren Commission testimony (Feb 1964), and I saw no way of overturning it. (Or, to use lawyer terminology, of impeaching it). Then (years later) came the Doug Thompson story, and the startling (and brand new) information it contained. I was astounded. Suddenly, the problem --or "the puzzle" [as my literary agent, Peter Shepherd)] used to say) -- "changed its shape." So then the question became: Which version of Connally's account was the most credible? Which was most worthy of belief? Certain additional information weighed heavily in my conclusion that this was a situation in which --contrary to the normal legal practice)-- was a situation in which Connally's "later" version (in the early 1990s) was in fact the truth. But let us first go back to weekend of the assassination. 11/24/63: John and Nellie Connally and the motion picture film Most significantly, I learned that on Sunday night, 11/24 (I'm relying here on memory) a motion picture projector was brought to Governor Connally's room, and he was repeatedly shown the Zapruder film ---and by that, I mean the altered Zapruder film (See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," for my beliefs about the Z film. No time to engage in a "side-debate" about that issue, here. So let me just refer to that as the "Zapruder film.") Anyway, the "Zapruder film" was shown to Gov. and Mrs. Connally, repeatedly, and presented (to them) as the reality of what had occurred just days before. In other words, what they (supposedly) had experienced was a "six second assassination." even though --if the car stopped briefly -- it was closer to 20. (But lets set that aside, for now). Today, looking back at the situation, I would say that Gov. Connally was being gaslighted. (To those readers unfamiliar with the term, or its origin, I refer you to the classic movie "Gaslight," the 1944 film starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman. Do consult the Wikipedia write-up to understand what "gaslighting" means, and the psychological impact it can have. To say Connally was conned does not capture the impact of a "reality fake" of this magnitude). Bottom line: John Connally (thus gaslighted) must have been faced with a choice between his (and Nellie's) vivid recollection(s) of what they remembered, and the reality presented to them in a motion picture film -- a film that (most likely) did not comport with their recollections. In any event, Connally went along with the "I was struck from behind" routine, but I think he always had doubts, serious doubts. He must have thought: "What is going on here? How can I not have remembered the reality of what just happened two days ago?" On this score, a particularly vivid color picture comes to mind--one that was published in the famous LIFE issue in the fall of 1966, when LIFE published, on its cover, a blowup of frame 232, and --basically--came out against the Warren Report and the single bullet theory. In that issue, there's a wonderful color photo of John Connally at the offices of LIFE, holding a high powered magnifier in both hands, and looking at the individual (4 x 5 inch) transparencies of the Zapruder film frames. (I invite a reader of this post to add that picture to this thread). My personal belief: Connally was always puzzled --deeply puzzled -- as to why his recollections of November 22 1963 diverged from what the Zapruder film frames showed. But-- and this is important (because I went through this process myself)-- unless one "takes the next step," and becomes familiar with the world of optical printers -- and the whole art of motion picture film editing (i.e., alteration) -- the puzzle with which Connally may have been grappling would have seemed incomprehensible. I can only speak here for myself: Even with a skeptical mindset and a good technical education (physics, math, etc.), it took me a good six years (and the reality of a careful compilation of the "car-stop" witnesses) to have the realization (circa 1969) that "OMG.. . these films were (i.e., "must have been") altered!" So I have little doubt that, presented with the Zapruder film (and having no particular knowledge about the possibility of film alteration) Connally would have acquiesced to whatever request came from "higher authority" -- i.e., someone like Lyndon Johnson (or one of his trusted S.S. agents). Also, remember what he said was his very first impression: that this was a coup. If Connally truly entertained that idea, he surely must have been concerned with his own personal safety, and that of his wife. (But I digress). What I find interesting (sad, but interesting) about this situation is that so many years later, riding on an airplane next to a young man who he admired (and for whom he had an obvious political affection), and with the years of the Warren Commission (nightmare?) well in the past. . .that when it came to recounting what happened on that day way back in November 1963, John Connally drew on his genuine recollections (finally), and did not bother to provide the false and manufactured story that he told starting on November 27 1963, from his hospital bed; and which he then repeated in February 1964 to the Warren Commission. As Josephine Tey wrote--and I included this in the front matter to a later (paperback) edition of Best Evidence -- "Truth is the daughter of time." Stay tuned. DSL, 4/16/2020 - 12:15 PM PST (revised)

Not sure. That can be argued in more than one way and merits a good discussion. The issue raised by that wound: Was it really there, and was a bullet (or fragment) extracted? Or was it deliberately created (after the fact) etc. Years ago, I collected as many of the "earliest" accounts that I could. Its a murky area.

Pat Speer: You're done a good job --a really excellent job --of collecting a lot of quotes. (I don't think my collection, is as good as yours). But there is more to the story. Stay tuned. DSL

the third shot hit him. I know there are those that disagree but I am absolutely convinced that this is what happened." (CBS interview broadcast in "Who Killed JFK? Facts, Not Fiction" 1992) "To me, it's just inconceivable that the first shot that went through the throat, through the neck, entered my back. I don't believe that. I don't wanna believe that. They can't run enough tests to make me believe that." (Interview in the Discovery Channel program The End of Camelot, broadcast 1993) "I felt like someone hit me in the back with a balled-up fist. It knocked me over. And I looked down and I was covered with blood. And I said 'My God, they're gonna kill us all!" (In History’s Shadow, 1993, co-written with Mickey Herskowitz) “It was almost exactly 12:30 PM, November 22, 1963 when we followed the motorcycle escort onto Houston Street and past the ugly brick building where Lee Harvey Oswald waited with his scrambled egg off a mind. People were still jostling for a better view. The noise of the motorcycles, the clearing of the mechanical lungs, b-r-r-o-o-m, competed with the rising cheers, and at first many people thought what they heard was the backfire of a motorbike. I knew it wasn't. I had been to war, hunted, handled guns all my life. And even if there had been time to wonder, within seconds the evidence was all over us. The first shot struck the President in the neck. His hands flew to his throat, a reflex. I turned, and felt the blow against my back. My body was aligned in such a way that the bullet passed through my chest, shattered my right wrist, and lodged in my thigh. It is remarkable, over the years, how many people have tried to tell me where I was shot, and how. I never argue with them. I only need to consult my scars. I was still conscious when the third shot blew off part of John Kennedy's head...Everything I saw, heard, and felt is consistent with what was visible in the frame-by-frame analysis of the film taken by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas merchant who became an accidental historian: The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat. The second shot was the one that struck me; of this I have no doubt. Nellie had pulled me to her when the third bullet blew across the car a spray of the President's brain." (Final words on the subject) "I happen to support the major findings of the Warren Commission. I believe there were errors, including the so-called “magic bullet.” My ear and my body told me that I was not wounded in three places by a bullet that hit President Kennedy. I remain convinced that he was hit twice, and I once, by three separate shots.”