Robert Prudhomme

I agree with you that the chances of the bullet tumbling upon entering Connally's back are slim to none. So much evidence points to a bullet travelling straight and true, the LN camp has to rely upon a poorly informed public to maintain their fantasy of a tumbling bullet in the SBT.

Has Dr. Shaw, in his handwritten notes, always maintained the orientation of the wound was vertical, as he described it in his testimony to the WC? The reason I ask is that it would seem to me that having an elliptical wound on the vertical axis would be very advantageous to those pushing the SBT, as opposed to a horizontal wound. A horizontal wound would imply, to researchers, a bullet that struck at the extreme outside margin of the thorax, basically where the arm and thorax would touch, if the arm were pressed against the thorax. An entrance wound at this point, and an exit wound medial to the right nipple, would very obviously describe an angling bullet path from right to left. It would make it impossible for a bullet passing through JFK's neck to be the bullet that caused Connally's wounds, unless Connally was turned to the right at the moment he was hit in the back. A vertical wound, OTOH, would imply a bullet that struck on a flat surface of the back, much closer to the scapula (shoulder blade), much reducing the perceived left to right angled path of the bullet. The vertically elliptical wound could then be blamed on either a tumbling bullet or on the downward angle of the path of a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

As Connally does not begin any kind of turn to the right until z237, and JFK is clearly reacting to his wound(s) at z223, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is these men were struck with different bullets.

I cannot comment on how occlusive dressings were applied in 1963, as I was only six years old at the time, but I can give you an insight as to how they are applied today. I am a part time paramedic on our town's ambulance service, and have received extensive training on the treatment of pneumothoraces; open, closed and tension. As I stated earlier, the Asherman Chest Seal is the state of the art method of sealing an open pneumothorax AND providing one way relief of built up air in the pleural cavity. This dressing relies on an adhesive bond, and requires no manual pressure to stay in place. If an ACS is unavailable, we make an occlusive dressing from a small square of polyethylene plastic, applying it over the wound and taping it to the thorax on three sides, leaving one side open (preferably a downhill side for drainage). When the patient inhales, the "sucking" chest wound pulls the poly tight to the chest, sealing the wound and allowing expansion of the lung. When the patient exhales, the poly seal is released, and any built up air volume in the pleural cavity escapes out the untaped side of the poly. Essentially, we make an occlusive dressing that does double duty as a pressure relief valve.

I am a little mystified as to why it was necessary to apply manual pressure to Connally's occlusive dressing. Is it possible the adhesive tapes in 1963 were inadequate to hold a piece of poly in place? Or was polyethylene plastic simply nowhere near as available in 1963 as it is today? Whatever the case, this is the first time I have ever seen or heard of an occlusive dressing on an open pneumothorax requiring direct manual pressure. One would think direct pressure over a lung would impair its inflation, and defeat the purpose of applying the occlusive dressing.

I still don't quite follow you on how the wound went from a vertical orientation to a scar on the horizontal plane. If it were sewn together with no stretching of the wound, would it not return to being the vertical wound Shaw observed? And I apologize for comparing you to members of the LN camp. However, my experiment on my wife's back showed no distortion of her "wound" from vertical to horizontal no matter what position I placed her arm in, and I simply refuse to believe Shaw simply made a mistake in observing the elliptical orientation of Connally's back wound.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible the wound was 1.5x.5cm. on the vertical plane, and it was the .5 cm. dimension Shaw opened up to a dimension of 3 cm., during the exposure of the entire wound track for debridement? Once exposed to that dimension, is it also possible he chose to suture the wound by bringing the upper and lower sections together, thus leaving a 3 cm. horizontal scar?

Hello Gary

Just a couple of minor technical corrections before I get to discussing the entrance wound. First, you correctly described an open pneumothorax or "sucking" chest wound. An occlusive dressing was applied to this wound but there would be no need to apply pressure to this dressing. The idea of the occlusive dressing is merely to seal the opening in the pleural cavity, and allow air to enter the affected lung instead of entering the pleural cavity, and a good adhesive tape is more than adequate for this. A tube was also placed, likely in the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib at the mid-clavicular line, and connected to a water seal bottle. The purpose of the chest tube and water seal bottle was to prevent the open pneumothorax, with the application of the occlusive dressing, from developing into a "tension" pneumothorax. If there had also been a penetrating wound through Connally's right lung, every time Connally inhaled, part of the air would pass through this opening into the pleural cavity. As he exhaled, the partially collapsed lung would seal the hole, and the air would be trapped in the pleural cavity, creating a "closed" pneumothorax which can develop into a "tension" pneumothorax. With each breath, the amount of air grows, eventually creating enough pressure to impair the function of the heart and unaffected lung, and potentially killing the patient. This situation is made worse with assisted ventilation, as air enters the lung at greater than atmospheric pressure. However, with the insertion of the chest tube, air pressure in the pleural cavity escapes, and cannot build to dangerous levels or volumes. The water seal bottle merely prevents air from returning the opposite direction into the wound.

For an example of a modern dressing we use that combines the occlusive dressing with a one way valve that replaces the water seal bottle, try Googling "Asherman Chest Seal". It is a rather ingenious device, utilizing a flattened rubber tube that opens under pressure from within, but immediately seals once pressure is released; maintaining the seal on the pleural cavity.

As Connally had both an occlusive dressing and a chest tube, his condition would have remained at being a closed pneumothorax. He would not, as you said, had a mediastinum (or trachea) shifted towards the unaffected lung, as this is a sign of a tension pneumothorax, and is a result of the inflating of the pleural cavity on the affected side.

"Vertical" and "horizontal" blanket stitches are simply two different methods of suturing wounds, and the names have nothing to do with the orientation of the stitches with the vertical or horizontal planes of the body. The difference between the two stitches is the alignment of the two parallel threads that make up each stitch. In the vertical stitch, one thread is above the other in the wound opening, while in the horizontal stitch, the two threads are side by side.

I put a 1.5x.5 cm. "wound" on my wife in the same location as Connally's back wound, using a felt pen and ruler. Try as I might, I could not find a position for the arm that would transform her "wound" from horizontal to vertical.

I'm afraid I also am doubtful of your argument that an experienced surgeon, such as Dr. Shaw, would confuse the orientation of the wound simply because it was "stretched" out of position. Would he have sewn this wound together in the stretched position? Would that not present some difficulty in aligning tissues? Your argument puts me in mind of the LN argument that PH doctors mistook the location of JFK's gaping head wound, simply because they confused the top of his head with the back of his head, due to the fact JFK was lying down.

The incongruity between Shaw's and Frazier's observations may not be that hard to explain, though. It is not as though Connally's suit coat was painted onto his skin, and we have no idea of the orientation of Connally's back with the material of his coat, allowing an opening in the material and a wound in Connally to be the same size yet elliptical on different axes.

Strangely, the vertical wound described by Shaw would have worked better for the conspirators, as this wound would seem to be further in from the armpit, and diminishes the left to right angle the bullet followed. A horizontal wound would seem to be closer to the fold of the armpit, exaggerating and increasing the angle. Lord only knows what happened, but things like this have always made me believe the coverup was hastily thrown together, almost in a panic, and not nearly as organized as some of us believe.

Okay, who said his name three times?

James and Gary

After reading one of your earlier posts, Gary, I went back and read both of Shaw's testimonies to the WC. As you pointed out, nowhere in either of Shaw's testimonies does he actually state whether the elliptical entry wound is vertical or horizontal. This fact alone seems a bit odd. Is it possible this small item was edited from what was otherwise a very detailed wound description by Shaw?

I think I may have misinterpreted things in more ways than one. Not only did I think you were saying the mislabelling of the entrance wound, by an agent of the SS, was accidental, it also seems that Shaw may have originally drawn the wound as horizontal; only to have it changed to vertical by the SS.

Am I correct in this, and is the official drawing, showing a vertical elliptical wound, not the drawing made (or corrected) by Shaw? Is it also possible the wound was moved, by the SS, closer to the shoulder blade?

I've just found an essay by Russell Kent titled "The Best Evidence Against the SBT". I've only skimmed over it the first time round, and am about to read it over more thoroughly but, he seems to be discussing the same points being made by the both of you.

As usual, I am looking forward to your answers.

Very interesting, Gary, and quite ironic. It would really be something if all the thought and debate over the conflicting reports from Shaw and Frazier could be explained by an SS agent making an honest mistake and drawing an oval in the wrong direction. I assume you have seen the original that Shaw approved plus the later version from the SS?

It would make more sense, though, if the wound was elliptical on the horizontal plane. The angle of the wound path through the body was not all that steep, so as to present an extremely sharp angle to the entrance wound vertically. But, with the bullet striking at the mid axillary line, it would be almost travelling in a parallel line with the thorax as it curves towards the front.

James

Here is further proof of the inward "bowing" of the 5th rib I spoke about. Once again, from Dr. Shaw's WC testimony:

"Also the rib has because of being broken and losing some of its substance, has taken a rather inward position in relation to the fourth and sixth ribs on either side."

If this amount of inward bowing was still visible to Shaw in the OR, I can only imagine how much the 5th rib bowed inward as the bullet was passing through, springing back most of the way once the bullet had passed.

"Mr. Specter - What effect was there, if any, on the upper portion of that rib?

Dr. Shaw - This was not noticed at the time of this examination, Mr. Specter. However, in subsequent examinations we can tell that there was a fracture across the rib at this point due to the rib being struck and bent.

Mr. Specter - When you say this point, will you describe where that point exists on the X-ray?

Dr. Shaw - This is a point approximately 4 centimeters from its connection with the transverse process of the spine.

Mr. Specter - And is the fracture, which is located there, caused by a striking there or the striking at the end of the rib?

Dr. Shaw - It is caused by the striking at the end of the rib."

When Dr. Shaw speaks of "striking at the end of the rib", it may be confusing to some, as we have been essentially discussing a bullet strike that occurred mostly on the side of the ribcage. However, if we look at an anatomical diagram of the anterior ribcage, we can see that the ribs do not connect directly to the sternum (1st - 5th ribs) but, rather, they connect to what are called the "costal cartileges". The costal cartilage of the right 5th rib is quite long, extending to a position just under the right nipple, where it connects to the 5th rib. Considering the bullet path described by Shaw, it may be possible the bullet actually contacted this cartilaginous connection before exiting the front of Connally's chest.

Of course, as cartilaginous tissue is far more flexible than bone, it may be safe to assume the great length of the costal cartilage attached to the anterior end of the 5th rib contributed to the amount of inward flexing the rib did.

Absolutely, James, I am in agreement with you 100% on everything you say in this last post. As you say, z230 is a very likely time for the shot, but it totally excludes the window Oswald allegedly shot from and places the shooter much further west.

My moment of revelation on this matter came when I was reading Dr. Shaw's testimony. When he stated and drew that the bullet had missed the right shoulder blade, but managed to follow the course of the 5th rib to an exit wound medial to the right nipple, I knew at that very moment Connally had not been hit by a bullet that had passed through JFK, or had come from behind him, if Connally had been facing forward when shot (ie. z230). A quick look at a posterior view of a human skeleton will confirm this. Even if the bullet had exited under the right nipple, as you maintain, it had to follow a right to left course across the right front side of Connally's chest. With the shoulder blade blocking the course, the only origin left was, as you found, the open west window.

It goes without saying that my revelation made the already impossible SBT even more impossible, if such a thing were possible. For Connally to be hit in the back and have the bullet follow a right to left course along the right side of his chest by a bullet that passed through JFK, he would have to be turned to his extreme right when hit, much the way Dan Rather reported seeing him hit when Rather viewed the Z film on 25/11/63.

Try to think of the 5th rib, at the mid axillary line, as a fairly soft and elastic structure with a fair amount of give to it. The bullet wants to traverse a straight line, from mid axillary line to anterior axillary line, but there is the outward curve of the 5th rib in the way. It contacts this rib, and strips it out for 10 cm., without penetrating it. It is entirely possible that, while stripping the 5th rib out, the bullet also exerted enough force to momentarily push the rib inwards, straightening it and opening a path for the bullet to exit at a point medial to the right nipple, without entering the pleural cavity. Why else would there have been a stress fracture in the 5th rib at a point so far removed from the area where it was stripped out?

Excellent! Now we are thinking outside of the box.

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

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

Gary

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

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

James

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

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

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

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

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

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

James

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

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

Interesting, so far.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Murr?

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

Well, how about putting it right in front of me and the rest of the forum so we can see it, too.

About SA Robert Frazier, I am unable to cut and paste on this forum and, for that reason, do not like to post many things here. However, I have a thread over at the Deep Politics Forum that deals with Mr. Frazier, titled "FBI Evidence Proves Oswald's Ammunition was not capable of Sufficient Accuracy to kill JFK".

Hello Gary

In all fairness, perhaps I was a bit hasty to begin calling people liars when I was discussing the conflicting reports of SA Frazier and Dr. Shaw, although I believe I have certainly caught Frazier out on a few whoppers regarding CE 399.

It is confusing, though. Frazier reports an elliptical opening in the back of Connally's coat, 1.59 cm. on the longest horizontal diameter, and Shaw reports a corresponding elliptical wound in Connally's back, 1.5 cm. on the longest vertical diameter.

How do we reconcile these two pieces of information with each other?

James

I am not disputing the fact the bullet stayed outside of the thoracic cavity and did not penetrate the pleural lining. Dr. Shaw made this point very clearly in his testimony.

However, Dr. Shaw also testified that the 5th rib, along the 10 cm. section the bullet was in contact with it (from mid axillary line to anterior axillary line) is very soft and spongy at this point. Given this fact, and the fact there was a stress fracture of the 5th rib far away from the contact point, I can only surmise the pressure of the bullet bowed the 5th rib inwards (ultimately causing the distant non-contact fracture), creating a flatter and more direct path to a point medial to the right nipple, without actually penetrating the rib and the pleural lining.

Still mulling that one over, huh?

This is an old thread, and there seems to be a lot of misconception in it.

There were three motorcycles ahead of the limo, not two. The myth of the single motorcycle continuing down Houston St. is unfounded, as this motorcycle can be seen on Elm St. in the Z film. Also, there is a photo of three motorcycles ahead of the limo on the west side of the TUP.

As well as the lead car occupied by Decker and Curry, there was a pilot car, driven by police, out ahead of the three motorcycles. Is it not possible Greer confused this car with the lead car?

In the first post of this thread, it is implied that SS agents were recalled from the rear bumper of the limo moments before the assassination. No photographic evidence supports this.

It is stated that an SS agent on the right rear bumper of the limo would have made it difficult for a shooter to hit JFK. This is doubtful, as photos from other parts of the motorcade, showing Hill on the right rear bumper, clearly show Hill crouched down low onto the bumper and hanging on. Unless the assassin was at street level, and directly behind the limo (oh wait, there was a follow up car in that spot), the SS agent crouching on the rear bumper would have done nothing to impede a shot.

Elm St. runs east and west. Which side would be the west side?

James

"Slightly medial to the right nipple" means the wound was LEFT of the right nipple, not right. The wound was between the right nipple and the centre of the chest.

Lateral, on the chest, means to go away from the centre mid line (sternum). Medial means to go toward the centre mid line of the chest. An exit wound that is medial to the right nipple is between the right nipple and the sternum.

Robert

I can follow your thinking that Connally was shot at z325 by a bullet originating from Zapruder's right rear. However, we should examine this origin of the bullet.

One thing that has always puzzled me about this murder is that the perpetrators chose to kill JFK while he was in a moving vehicle. No matter what the WC supporters say, tracking and killing a moving target is not as easy as it looks. To even attempt to do so tells me that the shooters were very qualified, far beyond anyone I know.

Now, of course, we have to assume Connally was not a target that day, and was only injured as a result of a bullet that missed JFK. If the shot was from behind, JFK would not have to move very much at the moment a shot was fired for the bullet to miss him and go on to hit Connally. But, if the shooter was to the right rear of Zapruder, the limo would be going across the shooter's field of view from left to right. I would expect the shooter to be leading his target (JFK) by aiming just to the right of him but, in order to hit Connally, his lead would be so great, he would almost be aiming at Kellerman.

There is one way your explanation might work, though. I believe Greer made a very hard brake application at almost the same time you believe Connally was shot. If these two events occurred together, our shooter would still be leading his target (JFK), even though the target would have fallen behind. His lead would now put Connally in the crosshairs and, before the shooter could change his mind, he may have pulled the trigger.

Sooo, if there was only one wound, it must be the 2 inch diameter exit wound Dr. Shaw said was just below and slightly medial to the right nipple, hmmm?