Robert Prudhomme Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie. Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie. Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. So when did this bullet strike JFK and cause a fragment to exit his throat? He reacted to throat trauma 6 seconds before he suffered a wound in his throat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. This idea has already gone through my head also, so I'll state the objections I gave myself during its journey through my head... The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric.Are you positing that the tip rotated along a 1/2" arc while not moving forward along its velocity vector? IIRC you are an engineer so you are familiar with this terminology... The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out.FWIW, the nick is on the side of the necktie knot - not on the back. After it was untied and retied the nick has moved away from the side and toward the front of the knot. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot.I agree with you there. Because:1. Despite what has been alleged, the transcript records that it is Dulles that says the wound is above the knot, NOT Carrico. Carrico attempts to respond and Dulles cuts him off. In WC testimony Carrico clearly states as I and Ashton have posted that HE himself unbuttoned JFK's shirt and (then) observed the neck wound. The phrasing clearly indicates that this is the first time he has seen it. Whether he or Dulles states that the wound was above or below the collar, Carrico himself clearly states that he did NOT see the wound until after JFK's clothes were removed. So either way Carrico is estimating. 2. Nurse Henchliffe saw it prior to the tracheostomy, but gives no indication as to whether she first observed it before or after clothing removal. I have requested a transcript from Wallace Milam (a BIG thank you to Jim DiEugenio for supplying the contact info!) of his interview with her in the hope that it will resolve this issue as well as the scalpel v. scissors debate. 3. Nurse Bowron stated in her WC testimony that she did not observe the throat wound until after the trach tube was removed. However, in a 1993 interview with Harrison Livingstone she states that she observed it while in JFK's limo. It has been suggested that her testimony was alterred in 1964. IMO it's more likely that her 30 year old memory is faulty. The WC wants the throat wound low enough to connect with the back wound, so they had a motive to alter this. However, she also mentions observing the back wound in 1993, but did see "any other wounds" meaning other than head/throat in 1964. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot.Which caused the bone fragment to create the slit and the nick... One of the many issues I have with any theory of a bone creating the slit is that the slit is absolutely vertical. If created by a scalpel this is EXACTLY what we would expect. But isn't this one hell of a coincidence if done by a bone fragment? No matter how the slit was created, why are the two slits so different in appearance? Pardon me for throwing rocks at your theory, but I have run out of reasonable explanations that fit the evidence: bullet fragment - no spectrographic evidence on shirt slit and tie bone fragment - gyrations required for bone fragment to exit a 1/5" round hole, yet cut a 1/2" VERTICAL slit through 2-3 layers of fabric that is touching this wound at the time shirt slit - all the characteristics of a scalpel cut, but considering Carrico's statement that the tie was pulled away from the patients neck and then cut with a scalpel, how do we reconcile a slit cut through 2-3 layers of shirt with a short-bladed scalpel? no vertical incision in JFK's throat - To pull the shirt away from his throat you MUST first unbutton the shirt collar. Carrico is clear that only the tie was pulled away and cut. Then he unbuttoned the shirt himself. After cutting away the tie, a slit through JFK's shirt does nothing to assist its removal AND would have created a vertical incision in JFK's throat, which does not exist I am REALLY hoping that the evidence I am awaiting helps, because I have no reasonable scenario here at all... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) DUPE! Edited January 28, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) JT: What I was getting at, Tom, is that none of the "stuff" in the JFK matter has ever been admitted into evidence by a trial court. Admitting into evidence is done by a trial judge according to a dense body of rules. He is wrong anyway Tom. In 1969, Jim Garrison had much of the medical and ballistics evidence admitted at the trial of Clay Shaw. This was over the strenuous objections of the defense. His cross examination of Finck literally blew up the medical evidence. To the point that the Justice Department and Harry Connick admitted that Finck was "screwing everything up" and they flew Boswell into town to discredit Finck! I kid you not. They actually rented a hotel room for him. And Connick left him a note. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pgs 299-306) They thought better of it though because Finck was actually a more accredited pathologist than Boswell. Jon, if you read some good books on this case you would not have to assume so much that is wrong. Hi Jim, I responded to his post earlier, but for some reason it seems to have disappeared! In the last response that is still extant, I was sticking within the boundaries he cited. I wanted him to respond to that first, and then I would step on his toe by pointing out the Garrison trial. I don't know where that post has gone, but you 'stomped" him better that I did, so I'm glad it was my post that vanished instead of yours! I'm sure he doesn't care, but I'm 'one more irrelevant post' away from putting him on ignore... Tom Edited January 28, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie. Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. This idea has already gone through my head also.... Great minds think alike... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie. Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. This idea has already gone through my head also.... Great minds think alike... Sandy, After my comments, do you still think the bone scenario works? To reiterate, I don't have a theory that works... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. This idea has already gone through my head also, so I'll state the objections I gave myself during its journey through my head... The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. Are you positing that the tip rotated along a 1/2" arc while not moving forward along its velocity vector? IIRC you are an engineer so you are familiar with this terminology... Yes. The lagging end of the bone fragment got caught on the inner layer of fabric (the smaller slit) and this acted as a pivot point, though not a perfect one. Linear momentum was converted to rotational momentum because of this pivot. The other (leading) end rotated and sliced through the outer fabric layer. Something along those lines. Probably a lot more complicated. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. FWIW, the nick is on the side of the necktie knot - not on the back. After it was untied and retied the nick has moved away from the side and toward the front of the knot. How do you know the nick was on the side of the knot (before the knot was untied)? Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot.I agree with you there. Because:1. Despite what has been alleged, the transcript records that it is Dulles that says the wound is above the knot, NOT Carrico. Carrico attempts to respond and Dulles cuts him off. In WC testimony Carrico clearly states as I and Ashton have posted that HE himself unbuttoned JFK's shirt and (then) observed the neck wound. The phrasing clearly indicates that this is the first time he has seen it. Whether he or Dulles states that the wound was above or below the collar, Carrico himself clearly states that he did NOT see the wound until after JFK's clothes were removed. So either way Carrico is estimating. 2. Nurse Henchliffe saw it prior to the tracheostomy, but gives no indication as to whether she first observed it before or after clothing removal. I have requested a transcript from Wallace Milam (a BIG thank you to Jim DiEugenio for supplying the contact info!) of his interview with her in the hope that it will resolve this issue as well as the scalpel v. scissors debate. Good luck with that! Hope you share it with us. 3. Nurse Bowron stated in her WC testimony that she did not observe the throat wound until after the trach tube was removed. However, in a 1993 interview with Harrison Livingstone she states that she observed it while in JFK's limo. It has been suggested that her testimony was alterred in 1964. IMO it's more likely that her 30 year old memory is faulty. The WC wants the throat wound low enough to connect with the back wound, so they had a motive to alter this. However, she also mentions observing the back wound in 1993, but did see "any other wounds" meaning other than head/throat in 1964. It surprises me that someone could have so easily made out the wound after the tracheostomy was performed. Which caused the bone fragment to create the slit and the nick... One of the many issues I have with any theory of a bone creating the slit is that the slit is absolutely vertical. If created by a scalpel this is EXACTLY what we would expect. But isn't this one hell of a coincidence if done by a bone fragment? No matter how the slit was created, why are the two slits so different in appearance? Inner Slit = Pivot Outer Slit = Path of Rotation (which would tend to be straight) Other than that, just pure luck. The only alternative, the cut being made with a scalpel, just doesn't make any sense. Unless it was done intentionally to fool people. (I'll need to get some sleep before considering that possibility.) Pardon me for throwing rocks at your theory, but I have run out of reasonable explanations that fit the evidence: bullet fragment - no spectrographic evidence on shirt slit and tie bone fragment - gyrations required for bone fragment to exit a 1/5" round hole, yet cut a 1/2" VERTICAL slit through 2-3 layers of fabric that is touching this wound at the time It WASN'T touching the wound at the time. Because the force of the fragment on the shirt pulled it away from the skin. (That's what I would expect, anyway.) And since most of the fragment had, at that time, passed through the inner layer of fabric, the shirt didn't need to be pulled very far from the skin to leave it untouched.) shirt slit - all the characteristics of a scalpel cut, but considering Carrico's statement that the tie was pulled away from the patients neck and then cut with a scalpel, how do we reconcile a slit cut through 2-3 layers of shirt with a short-bladed scalpel? no vertical incision in JFK's throat - To pull the shirt away from his throat you MUST first unbutton the shirt collar. Carrico is clear that only the tie was pulled away and cut. Then he unbuttoned the shirt himself. After cutting away the tie, a slit through JFK's shirt does nothing to assist its removal AND would have created a vertical incision in JFK's throat, which does not exist I am REALLY hoping that the evidence I am awaiting helps, because I have no reasonable scenario here at all...Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Tom, One more thought before I go to bed. My mom was a seamstress. I remember at times she would make a small cut on the edge of some piece of fabric, and then tear it by hand. The tear would always come out perfectly straight and perfectly in line with the threads. Apparently that was the path of least resistance. That sort of phenomenon may have been at play when the bone fragment made that perfectly straight, vertical cut. I'm going with that till somebody comes up with a better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 My mom was a seamstress. I remember at times she would make a small cut on the edge of some piece of fabric, and then tear it by hand. The tear would always come out perfectly straight and perfectly in line with the threads. Apparently that was the path of least resistance. That sort of phenomenon may have been at play when the bone fragment made that perfectly straight, vertical cut. "Tear it by hand" forces would be very different than the forces at work in this situation. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Here's another scenario. I think this one works. A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip. The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it. By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out. Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie. Pretty much what I was thinking, Sandy. This idea has already gone through my head also.... Great minds think alike... "Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted January 28, 2016 Author Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) FWIW, the nick is on the side of the necktie knot - not on the back. After it was untied and retied the nick has moved away from the side and toward the front of the knot. I have used this image from the National Archives, which I have rotated 90 degrees clockwise: I have done a painstaking job of "wrapping" it to the best of my ability on the knot of the tie in the large image taken on 22 November 1963 of JFK at Love Field in Dallas. Based on the pattern, I have wrapped it in the only available logical placement on the knot—unless the nick is around behind the visible knot on the anatomical left side (image's right side). I have made an animated gif of it so everyone can see how I aligned the pattern in my best good-faith attempt to show the location of the nick and the stain: Personally, I consider it impossible for a projectile of any description to have made that nick, and then also to have made the slits in the shirt and the hole in the throat—all of which are directly behind the tie. (I hope I don't need to also say that I consider it impossible going the other way: throat hole—>shirt slits—>tie nick. But I just did anyway.) I also consider it prima facie that the nick in the tie, and the slits in the shirt—another post to follow—were made by some item with sharp blade-like properties. Let the nick-picking begin. Ashton Edited January 29, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted January 28, 2016 Author Share Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) I've used the FBI post-assassination photo of JFK's shirt, and have applied basic image enhancement to it to bring out details. In doing so, I've concluded to my satisfaction that the slits/holes in the shirt are almost exactly the same size and shape, contrary to other conclusions. Here is the enhanced image, enlarged and cropped: A thread running upward from the hole on the anatomical left (image right) creates an illusion of a longer slit/hole, but it seems clear in the enhanced image that it is a thread, not a further slit. In this animated gif below, I have done the best I can to move the two sides of the shirt together in an APPROXIMATION of the way the two sides would be placed when worn with a tie. It is utterly impossible to "mold" the rigid photo of the fabric the way it would have fallen or bunched with a man lying in a trauma room, and I make no apologies for not trying, but I have marked the location of the holes/slits in the shirt for these purposes: I believe that even with the limitations of this photo, it proves beyond any reasonable doubt by any reasonably prudent person that some item made both holes in the shirt, and whatever that item was also made the hole in the throat. The location of the holes/slits in the shirt, and the hole in the throat, were directly behind the knot in the tie at the exact level where the nick in the tie is. Count the "stripes" on the shirt collar. Ashton Edited January 29, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I have done a painstaking job of "wrapping" it to the best of my ability on the knot of the tie in the large image taken on 22 November 1963 of JFK at Love Field in Dallas. Based on the pattern, I have wrapped it in the only available logical placement on the knotunless the nick is around behind the visible knot on the anatomical left side (image's right side). I have made an animated gif of it so everyone can how I aligned the pattern in my best good-faith attempt to show the location of the nick and the stain: Ashton, Nicely done! Photoshop for the wrap? This shows the position of the "nick" - sort of... Could they possibly have made it more difficult to determine the location of the nick? Whether this is before it was unknotted and reknotted they don't say. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 I've used FBI photo of JFK's post-assassination shirt, and have applied basic image enhancement to it to bring out details. In doing so, I've concluded to my satisfaction that the slits are almost exactly the same size and shape, contrary to other conclusions. Here is the enhanced image, enlarged and cropped: A thread running upward from the hole on the anatomical left (image right) creates an illusion of a longer slit/hole, but it seems clear in the enhanced image that it is a thread, not a further slit. At last someone besides me sees this loose thread! As I posted earlier it may even be two threads on top of the collar flap... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now