I Rise To Support Fonzi

[Cliff Varnell]

Moved from Charlie Black's "Bugliosi Has Won!" thread...

WHY ? WHY ? WHY ?

Why all the hand-wringing?

On the vitriol scale my discussion with Mark Valenti here is mild.

In answer to your question, "why?"...

From the thread "Gaeton Fonzi & Update on Bugliosi Book, From

Bernard McCormick," McCormick wrote (I cleaned the spelling up):

Emphasis mine:

As for Bugliosi's assertion that Fonzi came to his investigative work

with a bias, I rise to support Fonzi. I was there that day in Wildwood, N.J.,

when the two of us, while working on a light piece (the title was "The

Working Man's Riviera") were diverted to meet a Philadelphia lawyer

who was insisting the Warren Commission was a cover up. Vincent Salandria

was unusual at that time in that he had actually studied the 26 volumes of

evidence. Neither Fonzi nor I had even read the official report, a summary

which had been praised by the New York Times. But no one at the Times

had read the 26 volumes of evidence, because they had not yet been

released. Such endorsements made the commission's work accepted by

the public, including Fonzi and me. We did not know enough to have any bias.

Salandria wanted to meet Fonzi because of his reputation as an investigative

reporter. Fonzi invited me along for the fun. Both of us expected to meet a

a man unnervingly intense. gaunt, obsessive. But when he began running us

through the evidence. we were startled at the blatant contradictions. Keep

in mind, this was just the initial physical stuff - the position of the holes in

JFK's shirt, the wounds, the pristine "single bullet" that had to wound both

Kennedy and Gov. John Connolly to limit the deed to a single shooter.

40 years ago, in the initial stages of the JFK research community,

people like Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi needed no more

proof to establish the fact of conspiracy than point out the bullet

holes in JFK clothes.

And that's what they did -- Fonzi regarded the clothing holes as

the strongest evidence in the case for conspiracy.

Others have come along and made the same assertion -- Jim Marrs,

Noel Twyman, Robert Groden (who refered to the clothing evidence

as "uncontested.")

As noted in the Griffith article I posted above, excellent analyses

of the clothing evidence have also come from Harold Weisberg,

Josiah Thompson, and Jim Moore.

Now, can anybody tell me what the following have in common:

The Warren Report

Bugliosi's new book

The 2005 "Cracking the Case" Conference in Bethesda

The 2003 Wecht Conference on the SBT

None of the above -- two LN entities, two CT -- ever addressed the

issue of the significant discrepancy between in the bullet holes in the

clothes and the wound location required by the Single Bullet Theory.

The evidence that Salandria and Fonzi put forth first 40 years ago,

prima facie evidence of at least four shots, has been relegated to

very minor status by today's JFK research community.

And thus we get statements like this:

Charlie Black:

Do some of you always misdirect what I consider some very intelligent discussions, that attempt to deal with the BASIS of what is currently occurring and effecting the JFK assassination study, and the current forces which are impacting it, into a RE-RE-RE-RE- REDUNDENCY of subjects, that have been probably hashed over and discussed some 33,000 times, and that are now, nor will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution.

If you wish to discuss items such as the fold or bunching of JFK's clothing, why don't you reopen one of the 33,000 posts on the subject OR begin a new 33,001 ?

This is why this investigation has stalled !

No, that's not why.

We have well-meaning people, like Charlie and Mark and Pat Speer, demoting

or denigrating the most powerful, irrefutable evidence in the case.

We have conferences advertised as Cracking the Case that argue the

fact of conspiracy on highly technical grounds, while ignoring the simple

physical evidence that readily establishes at least four shots.

I swear, I left the Cracking the Case Conference with the sense that,

in order to understand the JFK assassination, one had to have an advanced

degree in acoustic science, metallurgy and cranial anatomy -- and memorize

a couple of miles of Weisberg's FBI files.

CTs appear content to ignore the clothing evidence in order to delve

into arcane areas searching for their Holy Grail -- the answer to the

"Question of Conspiracy."

The LNers are more happy to ignore the clothing evidence.

LNers rejoice when a CT declares of the clothing evidence -- "that are now, nor

will probably NEVER, be determineable of resolution."

Music to an LNers ears!

This attitude that the clothing evidence is some big mystery that will never

be resolved lets the LNers off the hook.

All they do is repeat non sequiturs until the cows come home, point

to every fold in fabric as consistent with their case.

But that intellectually dishonest rhetorical dodge is enough for many CTs to

throw up their hands and declare the issue unresolvable.

Which is utter and complete nonsense.

1600 pages of "Reclaiming History" and Bugliosi ignores the incompatability

of the SBT with the physical evidence -- and not one CT calls him on it.

Why don't some of you clear your minds and ATTEMPT something NEW...such as A FRESH THOUGHT that might perhaps be "all your own". Or if you want to have personal discussions use the EMAIL.

Not a threat but a warning. This type of schoolyard ridiculousness has already caused some very knowledgeable researchers to no longer participate as they once did. Persons with even a modicum of intelligence very quickly tire of these "Go Nowhere" discussions/foolish arguments.

Spare me, Charlie.

I rise to support Fonzi.

[Miles Scull]

Moved from Charlie Black's "Bugliosi Has Won!" thread...

I rise to support Fonzi.

Cliff,

Thanks for a separate thread here. (Go Gaeton!)

If you have a second, I might ask a question that has probably been answered. Sorry.

On the bunched fabric issue, does the bunching when slight, but then increasing as to size or quantity of fabric involved, carry the potential effect that at some point the bunching creates a resulting "folding'' of the fabric over upon itself, such that a some point the fabric must be layered over itself?

Reason for query:

If a bullet were to penetrate, through & through, a layered fabric, then would there not be different places of puncture damage in the fabric, in contradistinction to only one place of damage in the case of a fabric being unlayered or unfolded, or flat?

If yes, then is this of any relevance to the general bunching question? Thx

Miles

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Thanks for a separate thread here. (Go Gaeton!)

If you have a second, I might ask a question that has probably been answered. Sorry.

On the bunched fabric issue, does the bunching when slight, but then increasing as to size or quantity of fabric involved, carry the potential effect that at some point the bunching creates a resulting "folding'' of the fabric over upon itself, such that a some point the fabric must be layered over itself?

Yep. Fonzi points this out in his rebuttal to Bugliosi. (my emphasis)

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...piracy_Believer

Fonzi:

However, actual photographs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt which were not in the Warren Commission Report but released as supplemental evidence by the FBI indicate exactly where the bullet entered his back. The holes in both the jacket and shirt were almost six inches from the top of the collars, and well below the so-called exit wound in Kennedy’s throat.

Specter attempted to explain this discrepancy by pointing out that Kennedy was waving to the crowd when he was hit and that gesture led both the jacket and shirt to ride up his back and double over. I pointed out that both Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were tailored tightly and, if they both became rolled up by his waving, wouldn’t they each have two bullet holes in them?

Reason for query:

If a bullet were to penetrate, through & through, a layered fabric, then would there not be different places of puncture damage in the fabric, in contradistinction to only one place of damage in the case of a fabric being unlayered or unfolded, or flat?

If yes, then is this of any relevance to the general bunching question? Thx

Miles

Absolutely!

The fabric of both the jacket and the shirt had to elevated ENTIRELY above the SBT

base-of-the-neck wound WITHOUT doubling over and WITHOUT pushing up on the

jacket collar.

But tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of

available slack -- especially the slender Euro cut JFK briefly popularized.

The motorcade photos show the jacket dropping.

I would challenge the intellectual honesty of anyone who would

contend that the BLUE LINE in the following points to anything

other than JFK's shirt collar.

[CLICK TO FULL VIEW]

[Miles Scull]

Cliff,

Thanks for a separate thread here. (Go Gaeton!)

If you have a second, I might ask a question that has probably been answered. Sorry.

On the bunched fabric issue, does the bunching when slight, but then increasing as to size or quantity of fabric involved, carry the potential effect that at some point the bunching creates a resulting "folding'' of the fabric over upon itself, such that a some point the fabric must be layered over itself?

Yep. Fonzi points this out in his rebuttal to Bugliosi. (my emphasis)

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...piracy_Believer

Fonzi:

However, actual photographs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt which were not in the Warren Commission Report but released as supplemental evidence by the FBI indicate exactly where the bullet entered his back. The holes in both the jacket and shirt were almost six inches from the top of the collars, and well below the so-called exit wound in Kennedy’s throat.

Specter attempted to explain this discrepancy by pointing out that Kennedy was waving to the crowd when he was hit and that gesture led both the jacket and shirt to ride up his back and double over. I pointed out that both Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were tailored tightly and, if they both became rolled up by his waving, wouldn't’t they each have two bullet holes in them?

Reason for query:

If a bullet were to penetrate, through & through, a layered fabric, then would there not be different places of puncture damage in the fabric, in contradistinction to only one place of damage in the case of a fabric being unlayered or unfolded, or flat?

If yes, then is this of any relevance to the general bunching question? Thx

Miles

Absolutely!

The fabric of both the jacket and the shirt had to elevated ENTIRELY above the SBT

base-of-the-neck wound WITHOUT doubling over and WITHOUT pushing up on the

jacket collar.

But tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of

available slack -- especially the slender Euro cut JFK briefly popularized.

The motorcade photos show the jacket dropping.

I would challenge the intellectual honesty of anyone who would

contend that the BLUE LINE in the following points to anything

other than JFK's shirt collar.

[CLICK TO FULL VIEW]

Specter attempted to explain this discrepancy by pointing out that Kennedy was waving to the crowd when he was hit and that gesture led both the jacket and shirt to ride up his back and double over. I pointed out that both Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were tailored tightly and, if they both became rolled up by his waving, wouldn't’t they each have two bullet holes in them?

At that point, Specter became uncharacteristically nervous and began to stammer a bit. Suddenly he jumped from his chair behind his desk and quickly came behind me, grabbed my arm and began waving it. See, he said, see how your jacket rides up? See... well, it doesn't’t do it much in your case but it normally it does.

Not familiar with the complete range of evidence here (photographic, eye-witness, etc.), but is there any evidence that JFK's shirt collar moved from its normal position at the neck? The collar was fastened by a button & cinctured by a tie, wasn't it? If the collar remained in its normal position, then would the back wound of a lower neck bullet penetration cause damage to the collar at the rear? If the bullet missed the collar, then it would have either struck above the collar or below the collar. So, if the collar showed no damage then it must have moved up or down along the neck. If it had remained in its normal position & not have moved it must have been damaged. Was it?

The question becomes: how far could the collar have moved up (or down) the neck so as to remain undamaged by a neck bullet penetration?

If the collar rose up, then where in the shirt fabric below the collar would a hole be found? Well, if the collar rose up the neck 6 inches (how long was the neck?), then a neck bullet penetration would create a hole in the shirt 6 inches below the collar top if the fabric remained flat against the skin.

If the the collar rose up along the neck 1 inch only (for argument example), then the fabric must have bunched up & come away from the skin. If the collar is 2 inches in width (up & down) at the collar rear, then at least 8 inches of shirt fabric below the collar must have bunch up & have risen away from the skin. Considered two dimensionally, the "bunched-up" shirt fabric might have resembled a bell curve. The bullet penetrates at the apex of the bell curve & does not contact the bell curve slopes on either side of the apex. The bullet penetrates just below the collar & into the neck (lower neck), but the actual bullet hole is located 4 inches below the collar's base. For the bullet to create such a hole at such a shirt locus & still penetrate the neck, a bell curve of fabric must have been created with 4 inch side slopes, 4 up & 4 down. [This is called the magic slope theory.] Otherwise, more damage to the shirt than a single hole would have been been found in the fabric because of the fabric layering or folding which must have occurred sans the bell curve model.

Cliff

Is this analysis correct?

Miles

Edited June 22, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Thanks for a separate thread here. (Go Gaeton!)

If you have a second, I might ask a question that has probably been answered. Sorry.

On the bunched fabric issue, does the bunching when slight, but then increasing as to size or quantity of fabric involved, carry the potential effect that at some point the bunching creates a resulting "folding'' of the fabric over upon itself, such that a some point the fabric must be layered over itself?

Yep. Fonzi points this out in his rebuttal to Bugliosi. (my emphasis)

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...piracy_Believer

Fonzi:

However, actual photographs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt which were not in the Warren Commission Report but released as supplemental evidence by the FBI indicate exactly where the bullet entered his back. The holes in both the jacket and shirt were almost six inches from the top of the collars, and well below the so-called exit wound in Kennedy’s throat.

Specter attempted to explain this discrepancy by pointing out that Kennedy was waving to the crowd when he was hit and that gesture led both the jacket and shirt to ride up his back and double over. I pointed out that both Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were tailored tightly and, if they both became rolled up by his waving, wouldn't’t they each have two bullet holes in them?

Reason for query:

If a bullet were to penetrate, through & through, a layered fabric, then would there not be different places of puncture damage in the fabric, in contradistinction to only one place of damage in the case of a fabric being unlayered or unfolded, or flat?

If yes, then is this of any relevance to the general bunching question? Thx

Miles

Absolutely!

The fabric of both the jacket and the shirt had to elevated ENTIRELY above the SBT

base-of-the-neck wound WITHOUT doubling over and WITHOUT pushing up on the

jacket collar.

But tucked-in custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of

available slack -- especially the slender Euro cut JFK briefly popularized.

The motorcade photos show the jacket dropping.

I would challenge the intellectual honesty of anyone who would

contend that the BLUE LINE in the following points to anything

other than JFK's shirt collar.

[CLICK TO FULL VIEW]

Specter attempted to explain this discrepancy by pointing out that Kennedy was waving to the crowd when he was hit and that gesture led both the jacket and shirt to ride up his back and double over. I pointed out that both Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were tailored tightly and, if they both became rolled up by his waving, wouldn't’t they each have two bullet holes in them?

At that point, Specter became uncharacteristically nervous and began to stammer a bit. Suddenly he jumped from his chair behind his desk and quickly came behind me, grabbed my arm and began waving it. See, he said, see how your jacket rides up? See... well, it doesn't’t do it much in your case but it normally it does.

Not familiar with the complete range of evidence here (photographic, eye-witness, etc.), but is there any evidence that JFK's shirt collar moved from its normal position at the neck? The collar was fastened by a button & cinctured by a tie, wasn't it? If the collar remained in its normal position, then would the back wound of a lower neck bullet penetration cause damage to the collar at the rear? If the bullet missed the collar, then it would have either struck above the collar or below the collar. So, if the collar showed no damage then it must have moved up or down along the neck. If it had remained in its normal position & not have moved it must have been damaged. Was it?

The question becomes: how far could the collar have moved up (or down) the neck so as to remain undamaged by a neck bullet penetration?

If the collar rose up, then where in the shirt fabric below the collar would a hole be found? Well, if the collar rose up rose up the neck 6 inches (how long was the neck?), then a neck bullet penetration would create a hole in the shirt 6 inches below the collar top if the fabric remained flat against the skin.

If the the collar rose up along the neck 1 inch only (for argument example), then the fabric must have bunched up & come away from the skin. If the collar is 2 inches in width (up & down), then at least 8 inches of shirt fabric below the collar must have bunch up & have risen away from the skin. Considered two dimensionally, the "bunched-up" shirt fabric might have resembled a bell curve. The bullet penetrates at the apex of the bell curve & does not contact the bell curve slopes on either side of the apex. The bullet penetrates just below the collar & into the neck (lower neck), but the actual bullet hole is located 4 inches below the collar's base. For the bullet to create such a hole at such a shirt locus & still penetrate the neck, a bell curve of fabric must have been created with 4 inch side slopes, 4 up & 4 down. [This is called the magic slope theory.] Otherwise, more damage to the shirt than a single hole would have been been found in the fabric because of the fabric layering or folding which must have occurred sans the bell curve model.

Cliff

Is this analysis correct?

Miles

Miles, excellent post. Worthy of reflection and study. I'm slammed right

now but I'll get back to you tomorrow...

[Miles Scull]

Not familiar with the complete range of evidence here (photographic, eye-witness, etc.), but is there any evidence that JFK's shirt collar moved from its normal position at the neck? The collar was fastened by a button & cinctured by a tie, wasn't it? If the collar remained in its normal position, then would the back wound of a lower neck bullet penetration cause damage to the collar at the rear? If the bullet missed the collar, then it would have either struck above the collar or below the collar. So, if the collar showed no damage then it must have moved up or down along the neck. If it had remained in its normal position & not have moved it must have been damaged. Was it?

The question becomes: how far could the collar have moved up (or down) the neck so as to remain undamaged by a neck bullet penetration?

If the collar rose up, then where in the shirt fabric below the collar would a hole be found? Well, if the collar rose up rose up the neck 6 inches (how long was the neck?), then a neck bullet penetration would create a hole in the shirt 6 inches below the collar top if the fabric remained flat against the skin.

If the the collar rose up along the neck 1 inch only (for argument example), then the fabric must have bunched up & come away from the contour of the skin. If the collar is 2 inches in width (up & down) at the collar rear, then at least 8 inches of shirt fabric below the collar must have bunch up & have risen away from the skin. Considered two dimensionally, the "bunched-up" shirt fabric might have resembled a bell curve. The bullet penetrates at the apex of the bell curve & does not contact the bell curve slopes on either side of the apex. The bullet penetrates just below the collar & into the neck (lower neck), but the actual bullet hole is located 4 inches below the collar's base. For the bullet to create such a hole at such a shirt locus & still penetrate the neck, a bell curve of fabric must have been created with 4 inch side slopes, 4 up & 4 down. [This is called the magic slope theory.] Otherwise, more damage to the shirt than a single hole would have been been found in the fabric because of the fabric layering or folding which must have occurred sans the bell curve model.

Cliff

Is this analysis correct?

Miles

Miles, excellent post. Worthy of reflection and study. I'm slammed right

now but I'll get back to you tomorrow...

Good. As you can see, if this analysis is correct, then the bulge must have been 4 inches in height at a slant from the skin surface, not counting any coat overlay addition to the bulge or "bunch" height. 4 inches seems big.

Any evidence of such a phenomenon?

Edited June 24, 2007 by Miles Scull

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Fonzi regarded the clothing holes as

the strongest evidence in the case for conspiracy.

Others have come along and made the same assertion -- Jim Marrs,

Noel Twyman, Robert Groden (who refered to the clothing evidence

as "uncontested.")

As noted in the Griffith article I posted above, excellent analyses

of the clothing evidence have also come from Harold Weisberg,

Josiah Thompson, and Jim Moore.

Cliff: Thank you for highlighting this issue.

Has anyone ever done a detailed analysis of the chain of custody of JFK's shirt and jacket from the time the nurses removed them at Parkland hospital until they were entered into evidence?

[Charles Drago]

While we're at it:

The shirt and jacket seem to present blood stains that are inconsistent with each other.

My first guess is that mine is a misperception caused by poor photographic reproductions (I have not personally examined the clothing) and/or differences in fabrics and colors. But the shirt seems to be stained in a wider and longer pattern than the jacket.

One supposes that the jacket's lining, which is not visible in any views I've seen, may have absorbed the blood before it could saturate the outer layer. And why, for that matter, would we expect overlaying stain patterns in the first place?

Charles

[John Dolva]

Upon contact with air, blood coagulates quickly. It does not 'dry'. When absorbed into fibre, the surface area exposed to air is increased. This coagualtion normally happens in matter of tens of seconds, or at most within a minute and a half. Once the heart has stopped pumping blood, the blood that has left the body, will tend to remain where it has been absorbed.

There is the blood that flowed from the pre head shot. During this time, the heart continued beating, and there was a continued flow that was directed by folds in clothing and kept from the body by the undershirt tight brace and brace wrapping.

As they massaged Kennedys heart at Parkland and applied blood transfusion a 'massive flow of blood from the head wound' was observed. This means that the major blood vessels that led to the brain had been opened by the shot (which are not inconsiderable in size and spread of secondaries and capillaries, and also located in the area of the reported wound).

The knitting of the shallow back wound had likely been successfully been effected as he was still alive at this point. Therefore, for this reason, plus that within a closed system that has been compromised, increased pressure within that system will seek the path of lest resistance. IOW, arguably little extra blood would have been further expelled from the back wound.

(The Coat as presented by the HSCA 'looks' like it has far less blood than it actually does. Shifting hue saturation and gammas will reveal this.)

While Kennedy was sitting more or less upright the blood flowed down and to the side. Then he slumped with a dramatically lowered blood pressure. Much of the blood pooling at this time was above his shoulders. He remained in this position for many minutes until his body was removed onto the Parkland gurnsey (?word), then he was taken to emergency where his clothing was cut open in standard format by nurses which essentially reveals the body, but because of the need for speed, the back of the shirt, coat, wrapping, etc remains undisturbed under the body until the end of the doctors ministrations.

After this, at some point, the clothing is removed from under the body and so on. My understamding is that at this point it was bundled and passed on to the SS. So, from the time of the first shot until the clothing was removed an hour or so passed, during which time an opportunity for the clothes to shift dramatically were few. And by the time of the most likely dramatic shift, when he was shifted out of the Limo, the coagulation and the process that occurs around wounds that knit and contracts the coagualtion would tend to bind the fibrous material in contact with it.

The shirt is presented in photos stretched out and even then one can see the contraction that has occurred due to this coagualtion, binding, contraction which is a natural protective process evolved to seal woundings and start the healing process.

(Also, Jackies Pillbox hat (which has since disappeared) lay on top of Kennedy as he was wheeled to emergency. Wher is it today?)

Edited June 24, 2007 by John Dolva

[Charles Drago]

John,

Nicely elucidated. Thanks.

The word, by the way, is gurney. (As opposed to Guernsey -- if you excuse my utterance.)

"The Coat as presented by the HSCA 'looks' like it has far less blood than it actually does. Shifting hue saturation and gammas will reveal this."

Agreed. Your clarification is most appreciated.

Charles

Edited June 24, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Christopher Hall]

If I recall correctly, it is Fonzi who unearths a serious instance of evidence tampering by the CIA when he was reviewing some of the medical evidence.

I forget what it was, but it was quite egregious and reminded me of what Sandy Berger got caught doing at the National Archives.

At this advanced age, my memory sometimes fails me, and the fact that I read about 10 JFK assassination books in a row makes them kind of run together in my mind.

But, it was a serious instance of evidence tampering that I don't read much about on this forum, kind of like Mark Lane's deposition (more like evisceration) of EHH.

[Bill Miller]

The 'George Jefferies film' shows the coat really well IMO.

Bill Miller

[Guest Mark Valenti]

(Also, Jackies Pillbox hat (which has since disappeared) lay on top of Kennedy as he was wheeled to emergency. Wher is it today?)

This from Margaret Shannon of Washington Historical Research:

"Mrs. John F. Kennedy was wearing a pink boucle double-breasted suit (two pieces), navy blouse, handbag when her husband was killed in Dallas on

November 22, 1963. Actually it was a raspberry colour with a navy blue or blueberry color wide lapel. I was a White House intern that summer and had

seen her wear it just weeks earlier at the White House when she hid with her son John, Jr. behind some bushes to let him watch an official event.

There was a matching pillbox hat (with a small band of blueberry) that was lost from her head when she crawled out onto the back of the presidential

limousine to reach for Clint Hill, her Secret Service agent. The whereabouts of the pillbox hat are not known."

Another report said that Boots Miller of the baggage detail was in the AF1 staff cabin holding a paper bag containing Jacqueline Kennedy's ruined pillbox hat.

And in Pictures of the Pain one of Jackie's assistant is photographed holding the hat as they leave Parkland Hospital.

[John Dolva]

(Also, Jackies Pillbox hat (which has since disappeared) lay on top of Kennedy as he was wheeled to emergency. Wher is it today?)

This from Margaret Shannon of Washington Historical Research:

"Mrs. John F. Kennedy was wearing a pink boucle double-breasted suit (two pieces), navy blouse, handbag when her husband was killed in Dallas on

November 22, 1963. Actually it was a raspberry colour with a navy blue or blueberry color wide lapel. I was a White House intern that summer and had

seen her wear it just weeks earlier at the White House when she hid with her son John, Jr. behind some bushes to let him watch an official event.

There was a matching pillbox hat (with a small band of blueberry) that was lost from her head when she crawled out onto the back of the presidential

limousine to reach for Clint Hill, her Secret Service agent. The whereabouts of the pillbox hat are not known."

Another report said that Boots Miller of the baggage detail was in the AF1 staff cabin holding a paper bag containing Jacqueline Kennedy's ruined pillbox hat.

And in Pictures of the Pain one of Jackie's assistant is photographed holding the hat as they leave Parkland Hospital.

Good to see someone's on the case.

There are good reasons to consider this overlooked this possibly essential 'crime scene' that because of it's size and mobility has disappeared. Why?

Similarly all photo's of Jackie after the event show her left side, and then at a distance and in b/w.

"Boots Miller of the baggage detail was in the AF1 staff cabin holding a paper bag containing Jacqueline Kennedy's ruined pillbox hat" AFAIK, that's as far as it's been tracked so far.

[Cliff Varnell]

Not familiar with the complete range of evidence here (photographic, eye-witness, etc.), but is there any evidence that JFK's shirt collar moved from its normal position at the neck? The collar was fastened by a button & cinctured by a tie, wasn't it? If the collar remained in its normal position, then would the back wound of a lower neck bullet penetration cause damage to the collar at the rear? If the bullet missed the collar, then it would have either struck above the collar or below the collar. So, if the collar showed no damage then it must have moved up or down along the neck. If it had remained in its normal position & not have moved it must have been damaged. Was it?

Miles,

The bullet missed the shirt collar by 4 inches.

Shirt collars don't move much, due to being buttoned up and cinched

with a tie, as you noted.

According to Dr. Charles Carrico the throat wound was just above the tie

and just below the adams apple -- indicating that the shirt collar was in its

normal position below the adams apple.

If the shirt collar moved, it was a matter of a few millimeters.

We can see the same thing by comparing the back of the shirt

collar with the hairline.

Here's JFK at Love Field.

The distance from the lower margin of his jacket collar to the upper

margin is 1 & 1/4". The distance from the lower margin of the shirt

collar to its upper margin is 1 & 3/4".

From the top of the jacket collar to the top of the shirt collar is 1/2"

(or a millimeter or two less because his head was tilted back a little.)

I think it is reasonable to estimate the distance from the top of the

shirt collar to JFK's hairline as roughly 1" give or take a few millimeters.

Here's JFK in the motorcade:

The top of his clothing collars were about an inch below the hairline.

The question becomes: how far could the collar have moved up (or down) the neck so as to remain undamaged by a neck bullet penetration?

If the collar rose up, then where in the shirt fabric below the collar would a hole be found? Well, if the collar rose up the neck 6 inches (how long was the neck?), then a neck bullet penetration would create a hole in the shirt 6 inches below the collar top if the fabric remained flat against the skin.

If the the collar rose up along the neck 1 inch only (for argument example), then the fabric must have bunched up & come away from the skin. If the collar is 2 inches in width (up & down) at the collar rear, then at least 8 inches of shirt fabric below the collar must have bunch up & have risen away from the skin. Considered two dimensionally, the "bunched-up" shirt fabric might have resembled a bell curve. The bullet penetrates at the apex of the bell curve & does not contact the bell curve slopes on either side of the apex. The bullet penetrates just below the collar & into the neck (lower neck), but the actual bullet hole is located 4 inches below the collar's base. For the bullet to create such a hole at such a shirt locus & still penetrate the neck, a bell curve of fabric must have been created with 4 inch side slopes, 4 up & 4 down. [This is called the magic slope theory.] Otherwise, more damage to the shirt than a single hole would have been been found in the fabric because of the fabric layering or folding which must have occurred sans the bell curve model.

Cliff

Is this analysis correct?

The bullet had to penetrate below the "bell curve" of the fabric, and, as you astutely

point out, it had to be entirely below the slope of the curve.

This factor of the "magic slope" makes it even more difficult for Bunch Fallacists

to replicate their 2" - 3" simultaneous tailored-shirt/jacket "bunch up."

The movement of JFK's clothing required by the "high back wound" crowd has

never been replicated by any member of said crowd.

They just keep repeating their non sequiturs over and over: clothing moves,

therefore JFK's shirt and jacket moved up in tandem 2" to 3".

I'll give it to Bugliosi -- instead of repeating a Bunch Non Sequitur, he absolutely

ignored the problem the SBT has with the bullet holes in the clothes.

He simply pretends the multi-inch discrepancy doesn't exist.

So far, only Gaeton Fonzi has called Bugliosi on this.

Bugliosi only "wins" if people don't call him on this glaring omission.