Tom Neal

Sandy, I'm not hostile to the "neck to back" trajectory. I'm stating that you and others are dismissing the back to front trajectory by stating evidence that allows EITHER to be true. For example, as I said, no one has come up with a believable path for a wound from back to throat, but you are perfectly content that a track exists in the opposite direction. There are pros and cons for each, so I do not understand why you are immediately accepting a back exit as a revelation. Where did the bullet go if it exited the back? And yes, AFTER your immediate acceptance of the back wound as exit, you asked where the bullet went. Isn't this a considerable weight of evidence AGAINST a back exit?

Hi Cliff, I mentioned this a ways back in this thread. A number of responses were that Bennett "wasn't even looking at JFK" when the shot occurred; I was told to "see 'this'" photo and the Z-film. So I again looked at the indicated photos and as I already knew, GB who is sitting on the right side of the rear seat, is staring into the right rear quadrant EXACTLY as he should be according to all the SS testimony. i.e. That is their operating procedure. Personally I can't tell where he's looking from the Z-film as Zap is attempting to center JFK in the frame. Now if someone will tell me exactly WHEN the back shot was fired relative to these photos I can form an opinion. As I wrote earlier in this thread, GB states that he was looking to the right, heard a shot, immediately looked at the Boss and saw a shot hit him 4" below the shoulder, etc. Now, if he heard the shot that hit in the back and then turned he would have been too late to see it hit. He says the next shot hit him in the head. As many believe there were two shot prior to the head shot, GB could have heard the first shot (which many feel was a miss) and turned his head in time to see the next shot hit him in the back. Additionally, GB states that the back shot came from the rear. So the photo taken of him looking to the rear could have been taken immediately before or immediately after the shot and GB would have been looking right. IMO, this is something to consider when deciding his level of credibility, not something that conclusively proves he was lying. As you say, and I stated earlier, his published notes state they were made at 5:30pm on the 22nd, his testimony wasn't taken until the 23rd. Did GB tell this to anyone prior to the autopsy? We don't know. Of course like everyone else involved he could lying. This makes him no more or less credible than EVERYONE else. IF this statement was vital to "proving" shots from behind, why tell ONLY GB to lie? Why not tell Shift Leader Emory Roberts (who called Rybka and Hill back to the SS car, and is suspected by many to be complicit) who per procedure was SUPPOSED to be looking only in JFK's direction to claim he saw this also? At the moment I rate GB's testimony as reasonable, while I continue to explore the statement that "if the back wound was real, it HAD to have been observed at Parkland." Really? The doctors did NOT have the opportunity to see it, so their lack of confirmation means nothing. The nurses may have had the opportunity to see it, but I've heard no reason as to why they would be looking for additional wounds, and in their Q&A testimony with Specter, the only time it's certain that he specifically asks is in reference to removing JFK from the limo. Margaret Hinchcliffe/Henchcliffe stated in an interview 30 years later, that she observed the back wound. Now due to the time interval this may be questionable, IF it's counter to any statements she previously made. I have yet to find anything in her Q&As where she was specifically asked if she saw any additional wounds when they cleaned blood off the body. This statement is not conclusive, but is evidence favoring the back wound. It shouldn't be totally dismissed as some are doing.

I have come to the same conclusion that it is likely a 30cm ruler. Can you re-state your results as to how far apart the 'bullet hole' in the back (per the photo) and the holes in the jacket and shirt are? IF you are interested in further measurements you MAY find the reference points stated in Boswell's HSCA testimony of interest:

Ron, I agree with all of what you said. The reasons I asked those questions is that a statement was made as a fact that no one looked at the clothes. I was asking Roy how he came to that firm conclusion. From his post I don't think he knows the answer to all of the questions I posed, and should not have turned a guess into a fact. Now if he does know the answer to those questions it lends some weight to what otherwise appears as a guess. Per their own testimony to Arlen Specter, it was Nurses Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe that cut and removed JFK's jacket and shirt. They placed them on a shelf and continued to assist in the efforts to save JFK. According to everyone present, the trauma was packed with people. How many doctors, nurses, staff, Burkley, Greer, etc. MAY have examined them? In the testimony that I've found the nurses were not asked directly if they observed the back wound EXCEPT when JFK was still in the limo. The fact that the doctors didn't see the back wound proves nothing, because they never examined him beyond the head and throat wounds. According to their written reports, the nurses were mostly concerned with wrapping his head wound to stem the blood leakage into the casket. Like the doctors, they weren't looking for additional wounds at any time, so the fact that they don't mention a back wound is not proof that it wasn't there. Consider all the blood clots on JFK's back in the photos. Could they have missed a wound? Now they theoretically washed the blood off the body, but how thoroughly? They believed that the body was on the way to an autopsy, so would they wash 100% of the blood of the body? According to Bowron when JFK was declared dead, she and Hinchcliffe gathered up his clothing and presumably the back brace and placed them in bags. Bowron states that she personally handed them to Greer. Per Vince Palamara, Greer says he gave them to Rybka with instructions to put them in his locker in DC. You'd think that he'd bring them to the autopsy, and possibly he did. They could have been altered at the same time as the body was altered or not. He may have stashed them simply because he knew that the shooting scenario was to be altered, it may have been better to keep the clothes hidden as they MAY give the altered scenario away. Also another reason to make the autopsy appear shoddy to cast doubts on any contrary findings. This is all theory and conjecture with a few PROBABLE facts. There simply are too many answered questions to take that statement as a fact.

WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all. Of course they could. That's the problem with this case. We KNOW they were ordered to lie. We don't KNOW if it's JFK in the photos. We don't KNOW if that's HIS shirt. We don't KNOW when the holes were first observed. We don't KNOW if the holes are fake. We don't KNOW if they line up with the back wound. We don't KNOW if the back wound is real. Do you see the point? All we can do is look at the probabilities of each and rate them accordingly. If the shot entered the throat and passed out the back wound, they would have been able to probe it from either direction. But they couldn't. But of course they could be lying about that, also... If that is the actual path then what about the probable fracture up around C7/T1? It would require an additional shot. One to damage T1 and another to exit at T2 or T3. If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened. Everything about the back wound is a guess. Every theory has several reasons to reject it. If that's your criteria to dismiss a theory then you have to dismiss ALL of the theories regarding this wound... On the closeup photos I'd say, yes. Is it 100%? Of course not. I don't THINK that it's as easy to alter the direction of those holes as you think. Especially if you think they are real, and were made by the passage of a supersonic bullet. Is the evidence that the shot was an exit wound more likely than the evidence that it was an entrance wound?

Roy, How do you know that with such certainty? Do you know who removed his clothes? Do you know what was done with them immediately following removal? Who passed the clothes to Bill Greer and at what point in time?? What did GREER say he did with them? Who refused to show Humes the clothing? Tom

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

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

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

Thank you, John! Tom

John, Thanks for the photo and info. I presume you are referring to the right hand in the approximate center of the photo that is on the steel ruler and touching or almost touching the back of JFK's head. Should I be looking below his "little" finger in the 6 o'clock position of the full photo? The rectangular area outlined in white has been brightened considerably. Is the outline of the drain hole within this rectangle? Slightly to the left of the middle of the rectangle and just above the bottom edge of the photo I see a highlight that MAY be the inner edge of a circular cutout. Is this what you are referring to? Tom

John, Where are the drain holes located in this photo? I can't see them... Also, what is that "structure" adjacent to JFK's right ear and beneath/behind someone's gloved hand? I had assumed that was the autopsy table, but if he's up on his left side what is it? Thanks for any thoughts, Tom

Whoever that is on the table...they sure used a LOT of 'black paint' to hide the big hole in the back of his head! Tom

A Frenchman among the DP cadre has been a persistent rumor. Do you suppose he was there as a "thanks for the help with DeGaulle in 1961" gesture from the French assassins? Tom

Sandy, It's time to get out your tape measure, put on that dress shirt and measure the distance to T3! Tom

DUPLICATE POST

DUPLICATE POST

On the chance that there is still interest as to the purpose and location of the ruler in the 'back wound' photographs... Per the HSCA the "centimeter ruler" which overlies the midline of the back" is placed thusly to facilitate measurements of the wound: FWIW Tom

"We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we". Ronald Reagan... Cyberspace is TOO small to list all the things they've named after him so can we start with Washington Nation airport?

"Doctor" Pat Speer? You did say "Show Me"...

Many years ago I used Photoshop to do something similar, but I had to use cutouts of vertebra, ribs, clavicle and scapula. The up side of this method was that I could make slight adjustments in the angle of each bone to account for posture. The down side was my concern that the sum of my "slight" changes had reduced the overall accuracy of my attempt. My recollection is that the resultant wound location was just low enough to pass below the 3rd rib, which is close to Paul O'Donnor's sketch which depicts a wound exactly between the 3rd and 4th ribs: The Fox photo that I had at the time was quite dark and with such high contrast, I wasn't certain which of the circular 'spots' was the actual wound, and which were blood clots, so I decided to make my composite. At first glance I had thought that the largest spot was NOT the wound because it appeared too high relative to the shoulder. Once I began to overlay the bone structure it was obvious that it was at least very close to T3 as was stated in Burkley's Death Certificate dated 11-23-1963. IMO, the position of JFK's head has fooled many into believing the wound was considerably higher on his back than it actually is. To my eye his head is rotated to the right, tilted quite a bit to the right, and based upon the wrinkling of the flesh on his neck, his head has been elevated as far as was possible. This of course would shorten the distance between the hairline on the back of his neck and the back wound that HAD to be depicted as a "shoulder wound." "They" needed to connect this back wound to the much higher throat wound, so I doubt the manipulation of his head is coincidental. I've stated the above many times over the years without convincing anyone, so I am pleased to see that our efforts have produced the same result. Tom

James, Excellent post! Really great graphic of the skeleton. Did you create that with an anatomy simulation program (or whatever it's actually called)? Is there any chance you could overlay the graphic on the Fox photo so that JFK's body is still visible? Tom

Taking a step back and attempting to look at all of this as a PATTERN... 1. USSS Glen Bennett observed that a shot hit JFK in the location matching the jacket/shirt bullet holes 2. Parkland hospital received an unaltered body direct from the crime scene a. JFK's shirt was cut and removed 1. DID ANYONE INSPECT THE SHIRT OR JACKET FOR BULLET HOLES AT PARKLAND? 2. WHO MEASURED THE LOCATION OF HOLES IN THE JACKET/SHIRT? 3. WHEN & WHERE WAS THIS MEASUREMENT PERFORMED? b. a small round wound presumably of entry was observed in the throat 1. a tracheostomy was performed c. indications of a tension pneumothorax in the right lung were observed by at least 2 doctors 1. chest tubes were ordered inserted d. a large wound was observed in the right rear of the head 1. JFK was declared dead e. The body remained on its back and no doctor looked anywhere below the back of the head for a wound 3. Two nurses and an orderly washed the body a. at that time, apparently no back wound was reported 1. BUT, IF THEY SAW THE WOUND WOULD THEY HAVE REPORTED IT? a. DID THEY KNOW IF THE DOCTORS WERE ALREADY AWARE OF THE BACK WOUND? b. The doctors had departed c. the patient was a corpse no longer in need of treatment d. the body was on its way to autopsy at Parkland. e. no report was required regarding the washing of the body 4. Bill Greer received JFK's clothing at Parkland and carried it with him to Bethesda 5. at 5:30pm on the trip back to DC, Glen Bennett recorded his observations at the crime scene a. Bennett gave testimony on the 23rd stating that he observed a bullet strike JFK's back 6. The autopsy at Bethesda began on an altered body a. therefore the body was altered between Parkland & the start of the official autopsy 7. Surgery to the head area reported aloud by Humes 8. a large gaping throat wound with irregular edges was reported aloud by Humes 9. a shallow back wound was inspected a. according to Humes, this wound did NOT penetrate the pleura b. according to Humes no exit was detected c. a chest x-ray designated #9 was taken by Ebersole with heart/lungs in place to locate a bullet 1. this x-ray was reported by Ebersole to show many specks of dirt (ARRB included the comment that they appeared to be metal but were not)???!!! 2. per ARRB this chest x-ray is no longer at NARA d. the lungs (and other organs) where chopped up in an unsuccessful search for a bullet 10. Humes reports that the chest tube incisions did NOT violate the pleura None of the above information is intended to prove whether the back wound(s) were physically punched into JFK's back or simply relocated by changing their positions within the written reports and oral testimony. It *IS* however, intended to indicate that Humes et al went to great lengths to ERASE all evidence as to whether the lungs or pleura were, or were NOT violated. Tom

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me... Let me re-state my position and question: Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland. Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice? The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body. I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities. Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound. Tom

Sandy, That last left should have been a right... You got me -- but not by much. When I finished correcting my dsylexic response, your response popped up! As far as confusing you and others, basically that is my primary function in the world. Tom