Help with the back wound please

[Antti Hynonen]

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Mr. H,

Looking at Croft 3 what do you imagine the forward lean angle of JFK is? I think if we consider this, and analyze the size of said wound, we might be very close to resolving when that shot was fired.

(i)=impact angle

4/6 -1sin=(i)

34*=(i)

Consider this in relation to Croft3, and then from that point let Pythagorean theorem be your guide.

This would be for hole #1

Now if you do the same for hole #2, then its a whole new ball game.

My best to you Sir,

Mike

[Pat Speer]

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Antti, you're scaring me. Have you been reading single-assassin theorist propaganda, LOL? The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound. This would put hole #2 quite a bit below this wound, at the level of the sternum.

Please don't tell me you're with the lone-nutters, and really think hole #1 is above the throat wound, and in line with a shot coming from the TSBD... My brain's still hurting from Mike's siding with Baden on the break-up of the bullet...

[Antti Hynonen]

Pat,

No, I'm not concluding what the HSCA concluded. I am hypothesizing. What if the wound described as the bullet wound under the Adam's apple was in fact the other of a through and through wound and the lower of the two back wounds discussed in this thread (no2) being the other.

If this were to be the case, what would we need to conclude about the path and likely origin of that bullet?

Considering the necessary angle, if it were coming from the 6th floor of the TSBD, the one marked as 2 would likely not be an entrance would it? Additionally that bullet would be on a right to left trajectory, would it not?

If it is a through and through wound, the other side being the under the adam's apple and the other being no. 2.

At any rate, many have concluded this no2 was no bullet hole, so whatever.....

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Antti, you're scaring me. Have you been reading single-assassin theorist propaganda, LOL? The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound. This would put hole #2 quite a bit below this wound, at the level of the sternum.

Please don't tell me you're with the lone-nutters, and really think hole #1 is above the throat wound, and in line with a shot coming from the TSBD... My brain's still hurting from Mike's siding with Baden on the break-up of the bullet...

[Martin Hinrichs]

double

Edited March 26, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

[Martin Hinrichs]

Hi Pat, is that a centimeter ruler?

Thank you forward

Martin

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Antti, you're scaring me. Have you been reading single-assassin theorist propaganda, LOL? The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound. This would put hole #2 quite a bit below this wound, at the level of the sternum.

Please don't tell me you're with the lone-nutters, and really think hole #1 is above the throat wound, and in line with a shot coming from the TSBD... My brain's still hurting from Mike's siding with Baden on the break-up of the bullet...

Pat

"The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound."

What's the citation for that?

Thanks.

Todd

[Mike Williams]

Thought:

The back wound marked here as no. 2 would line up nicely with the throat wound just below the Adam's apple on the other side. Not only is it vertically in line with it, but also matches the size fairly nicely....

...too bad "it's not a bullet hole".

Hmmm.....

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Antti, you're scaring me. Have you been reading single-assassin theorist propaganda, LOL? The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound. This would put hole #2 quite a bit below this wound, at the level of the sternum.

Please don't tell me you're with the lone-nutters, and really think hole #1 is above the throat wound, and in line with a shot coming from the TSBD... My brain's still hurting from Mike's siding with Baden on the break-up of the bullet...

Pat

"The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound."

What's the citation for that?

Thanks.

Todd

Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?

Thanks,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?

Thanks,

Mike

Kennedy was in an upright sitting postion when he was struck, was he not?

Martin,

Looking at croft 3 I would not think so.

And pleasure to meet you Sir

Best,

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Would this be 1cm below if Kennedy were in an upright sitting position, or in the position he was in when struck?

Thanks,

Mike

Kennedy was in an upright sitting postion when he was struck, was he not?

Martin,

Looking at croft 3 I would not think so.

And pleasure to meet you Sir

Best,

Mike

Mike,

It's a peasure to meet you too.

Ok, I just took another look at Croft 3 and he appears to be sitting upright to me. Relaxed but upright.

Martin,

Lemee see if I can whip something up for ya here.

He does appear to be upright, however the lines do not indicate a 90* striking surface to the horizontal plane at all.

This is pretty critical when all things are considered.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Lemee see if I can whip something up for ya here.

He does appear to be upright, however the lines do not indicate a 90* striking surface to the horizontal plane at all.

This is pretty critical when all things are considered.

Mike

Hey Mike,

Well, nobody's back is ever a flat 90 degrees surface but I think I see what you're getting at. The unasked question is "was Kennedy leaning forward enough to allow for the SBT?" And I thnk we can safely say the answer to that is no.

The diagram prepared for the HSCA pathology panel (http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm) shows the amount of forward lean necessary and there's nothing like that in Croft 3. Turning an upward pathway through the back/neck into a 17 degrees downward one would require more than a little curvature of the back! Rather than relying on lines drawn on 2D images, as many tend to do, I think the best thing to do is conduct a real life experiment using a stand-in. I've done this myself (Pat Speer has too and you can see it on his website). Just use the HSCA's work and the autopsy photo as a guide and plot the wounds on your stand-in. Have them sit in the approximate postion JFK was sitting in and have a look at the trajectory - and you will immediately demolish the single bullet theory.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

I look at the SBT kind of like eating an elephant. One bite at a time, and with the realization that some bites are sure gonna taste better than others. However the real issue here is could the shape of the wound and its impact angle implications match a shooting location?

If we know an angle and we know an elevation we can then determine distance. Vice Verse. If we know a distance and an angle we can determine elevation. ETC.

So if:

(i)=impact angle

then

4/7-1sin=(i)

(i)= 34*

This would mean the rifle had to be pointing down at an angle of 34* assuming that the target plane was 90* to the horizontal.

As an example.

If the target were leaning forward 34* and the rifle were pointed down 34* then the rifle is 90* to the target surface, and should inflict a circular wound that would be a symmetrical circle. However as the target leans forward (or back) this wound becomes ovial in nature as the impact angle increases. This my friend opens up a whole new can o' worms.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Mike, what's your opinion on the remarkable condition of CE399? The common Warren supporter explanation for CE399's condition is yet another theory - what John Hunt calls the "Diminishing Velocity Theory." According to this theory, the bullet was significantly slowed down by its passage through JFK's back/neck so that it did not suffer distotion when it struck bone. Ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan testified before the HSCA that a Carcano bullet would deform at 1400 feet per second (fps) if striking nose-on or 1000 fps if striking sideways (1HSCA396). According to tests performed at Edgewood Arsenel for the Warren commission, the average muzzle velocity of "Oswald's" Carcano rifle was 2165 fps (3H400). The bullet would have lost some of its velocity as it travelled from the muzzle to President Kennedy's back. Dr Olivier testified before the WC that the average striking velocity for Oswald's rifle at 60 yards or 180 feet was 1904 fps (5H77) - the presumed moment of impact for the SBT is usually frame 224 of the Z film which is roughly 175 feet from the TSBD so the figure of 1904 fps is pretty much spot-on. Sturdivan testified that “this bullet if only encountering a few inches of soft tissue [in traversing Kennedy’s neck] would go through losing almost no velocity, 100 feet per second or thereabouts.” (1HSCA407) This would give us an exit velocity of around 1804 fps.

Martin,

I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.

Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).

What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.

Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.

The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)

The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)

The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 15mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 23* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)

If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)

Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.

Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?

Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.

If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!

Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.

We are left to wonder.

Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 23* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 120ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.

One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Edited March 28, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.

Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).

What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.

Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.

The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)

The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)

The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 150mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 2* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)

If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)

Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.

Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?

Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.

If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!

Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.

We are left to wonder.

Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 2* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 150ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.

One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Mike,

Interesting stuff, I'm not sure we'll ever truly get to the bottom of it all now though.

Regarding Connally's back wound, was the bullet tumbling when it struck? A couple of the experts testifying for the Warren Commission were unconvinced:

Dr Frederick Light, wounds ballistics expert from Edgewood Arsenal:

Mr. SPECTER: Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?

Dr. LIGHT: No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.

Mr. SPECTER: And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?

Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said.

Mr. DULLES: What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?

Dr. LIGHT: For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person or object first. (5H95)

And then again a couple pages on:

Dr. LIGHT: Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. (5H97)

And Dr Robert Shaw, one of Connally's attending surgeons:

Dr. SHAW: The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.

Mr. SPECTER: So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.

Dr. SHAW: Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry. (6H95)

Interestingly, the size and shape of Connally's back wound is the same as the entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and nobody has ever claimed that that bullet was tumbling. From the autopsy report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to theright and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is alacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

Cheers!

Martin

Absolutely! I believe I posted something about this very characteristic just a bit ago. It does leave one wondering.

[Pat Speer]

Martin,

I would tell you that given the sectional density and ballistic coefficient of the bullet we KNOW that the projectile, unhampered by bone, loses 30ft-lbs of energy for every inch of tissue it perforates. This can be used to precisely calculate velocity loss. It works rather like the angles we discussed previously.

Example. If the projectile only penetrated 2" then we know it struck with 60 ft-lbs of force. We can then know that it struck with a velocity of 409 feet per second. (We can calculate this based on a 161 grain bullet and the numbers for SD BC). We can then determine that it left the muzzle at 436fps. (If we have a know distance to target).

What I am getting at with all my yammering, is that is it possible to calculate these things. To be honest I have not calculated this for myself, but may at some point give their numbers the once over.

Before I even get into deformation of the bullet I want to explain my basic issue.

The bullet enters JFK at an alleged 21*, fine (except that the evidence, wound size, do not bear this out but lets overlook that for now)

The bullet then exits JFK at the neck leaving a circular 4-6mm wound. (indicating as we have discussed that the projectile was nose first)

The bullet then strikes JBC and makes a 150mmx6mm wound. (This indicates a 2* impact angle which means the long axis of the bullet is almost parallel to the stricken surface.)

If that projectile left JFK stable, as a 4-6mm circular hole would represent, then what in Hades happened to it to make it start to tumble before hitting JBC? (bear in mind in diminished velocity the projectile was still very fast and obviously stable at that speed.)

Are we to believe that this projectile lost stability to such an extent that it flipped 90* in the distance between JFK and JBC? What caused this instability, it surely was NOT loss of velocity.

Ok so the obvious question at this point is could that bullet have been tumbling through JFK and just by pure luck exit nose first on its twirling path to JBC?

Yes it could have. Well that wraps it up then right? Not even close.

If that projectile had been tumbling through JFK it would have left an ENORMOUS primary wound path, heck that bullet was 1 1/8" long!

Why were the multiple probe attempts during autopsy unsuccessful? It should have been a piece of cake with a wound channel like that.

We are left to wonder.

Something I would further like to add is the the calculated loss of 30ft-lbs is based on a nose first projectile, if that bullet were tumbling it would lose velocity at a much higher rate as the resistance area would never be less than -30ft-lbs per inch,and would at its parallel be as much as 5 times greater. Simply put the long axis of that bullet is about 5 times its diameter. Striking a target at 2* (nearly parallel) would change out energy loss to 150ft-lbs per inch. I am not convinced this was taken into account in the diminished velocity theory.

One can only wonder if this may be scientific enough for Mr. Burnham.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Mike,

Interesting stuff, I'm not sure we'll ever truly get to the bottom of it all now though.

Regarding Connally's back wound, was the bullet tumbling when it struck? A couple of the experts testifying for the Warren Commission were unconvinced:

Dr Frederick Light, wounds ballistics expert from Edgewood Arsenal:

Mr. SPECTER: Do you have anything to add by way of any detail to the findings reported by Dr. Olivier in his testimony here earlier today?

Dr. LIGHT: No; I think he covered it very thoroughly.

Mr. SPECTER: And as to the conclusions and opinions which he expressed, do you agree or disagree, to some extent, on his conclusions?

Dr. LIGHT. I agree in general at least. I am not quite so certain about some of the things, but generally I certainly agree with what he said.

Mr. DULLES: What are the things on which you are not quite so certain?

Dr. LIGHT: For example, I am not quite as sure in my mind as I believe he is that the bullet that struck the Governor was almost certainly one which had hit something else first. I believe it could have produced that wound even though it hadn't hit the President or any other person or object first. (5H95)

And then again a couple pages on:

Dr. LIGHT: Yes; I don't feel too certain that it was yawing. The measurements were not particularly precise as far as I could tell. You wouldn't expect them to be in an operating room. So I think it is difficult to be sure there that the missile wasn't presenting nose on. It undoubtedly struck not at normal instance, that is to say it was a certain obliquity, just in the nature of the way the shoulder is built. (5H97)

And Dr Robert Shaw, one of Connally's attending surgeons:

Dr. SHAW: The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance.

Mr. SPECTER: So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.

Dr. SHAW: Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry. (6H95)

Interestingly, the size and shape of Connally's back wound is the same as the entrance wound in the back of JFK's head and nobody has ever claimed that that bullet was tumbling. From the autopsy report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to theright and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is alacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."

Cheers!

Martin

I discuss the significance of Connally's back wound in in chapter 11 at patspeer.com:

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

Despite the problems presented by Connally's wounds discussed above, the Warren Commission, in its report, cited the size of Connally's back wound as possible evidence the bullet had first struck Kennedy. This was clearly spin, however. On page 92, the report claims "Because of the small size and clean-cut edges of the wound on the Governor's back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was an entry wound." Then, on page 109 it claimed "the large wound on the Governor's back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking." The report failed to note that the expert stating that the back wound was large and that the bullet may have been yawing, Dr. Olivier, did so under the impression the back wound was 3cm in its largest dimension, and that the doctor claiming the back wound was small and a tangential strike, Dr. Shaw, testified that this 3cm measure was not the actual measurement of the wound, but the measurement made after he'd cut away the damaged skin along its edge.

By the time of the HSCA, unfortunately, the Warren Commission's use of the back wound size as possible evidence had ballooned into its use as conclusive evidence. The HSCA's Dr. Baden, almost certainly under the influence of a November 1974 article by Dr. Lattimer in Medical Times, cited the shape of Connally's back wound as clear-cut evidence for the single-bullet theory. In his testimony before the committee, Dr. Baden testified that "the panel concluded, based on the enlarged nature of the entrance perforation in the Governor's back, that the bullet was wobbling when it struck him and had to have struck something before striking the Governor." The HSCA's Final Assassinations Report further relates that when concluding that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds were "consistent with the possibility that one bullet entered the upper right back of President Kennedy, and, after emerging from the front of the neck, caused all the Governor's wounds...A factor that influenced the panel significantly was the ovoid shape of the wound in the Governor's back, indicating that the bullet had begun to tumble or yaw before entering" because "An ovoid wound is characteristic of one caused by a bullet that has passed through or glanced off an intervening object."

The problem with this is that Dr. Baden misled the Committee about the significance of this ovoid wound. As previously mentioned, and as discussed in Milicent Cranor's excellent online article, Trajectory of a Lie, Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's doctor, testified before the Warren Commission in 1964 that Connally's back wound was about 1.5 x 5/8 centimeters (4H104), but that he later removed the damaged skin around this entrance and enlarged it to about 3 cm (6H188). By 1974, Dr. Lattimer, noticing that 3 cm was the same size as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher/Carcano bullet traveling sideways, seized upon this second measurement and started claiming in his articles that this was the actual size of the wound. Not surprisingly, he asserted that the size of Connally's wound demonstrated the bullet was traveling sideways and not merely at an angle to Connally's back, as testified to by Shaw. As demonstrated by Cranor, Lattimer let out a big smelly lie in the process.

This, of course, would have been the word of but one sloppy researcher/zealot had Baden and others not fallen under Lattimer's smell/spell. Not only did Dr. Baden oversell the significance of this ovoid shape to the HSCA, he produced a smelly lie of his own in his 1989 book Unnatural Death. While an HSCA report written by Baden records the length of Connally's back scar as 1 1/8 inches (or 2.9 cm), Baden told Unnatural Death's readers the back wound scar was 2 inches long (or 5 cm).

The impact of Lattimer's and Baden's fibs upon the single-assassin theory has been palpable. In 1992, in the mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association and televised on Court TV, Dr. Martin Fackler, testifying for the prosecution, repeated the 3 cm lie, and made matters worse by incorrectly testifying, when it was pointed out to him that Dr. Shaw had told the HSCA that the wound was really 1.5 cm, that Dr. Shaw had only changed his recollection "later on." (Dr. Shaw had, in fact, insisted since first asked that the bullet hole was 1.5 cm long, and that the 3 cm measurement on his report reflected not the size of the bullet hole, but the size of the wound after skin had been removed.) Since then, "researchers" (more like single-bullet theory aficionados or Lattimerites) such as Gus Russo and Dale Myers have also misrepresented the back wound as 3 cm or more in their work. Myers, on his website, actually links to an HSCA report to support that the wound was 3 cm, failing to tell his readers that just below the statement by Shaw in this report is another statement, in which Shaw clarifies his earlier statements, and insists the 3 cm measurement was the measurement of the wound after he'd cut away some of Connally's skin.

Not only do these theorists misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound to sell their theory, they miss that the hole on Connally's jacket and shirt were, according to the HSCA, 1.7 x 1.2 cm and 1.3 x .8 cm, respectively, an impossibility if the wound was truly 3 cm wide, as they propose.

While acknowledging this 1.7 cm tear, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths, argues that a 1.5-1.7 cm entrance is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something--such as a President--before striking Connally. He, as Baden before him, fails to acknowledge that the HSCA determined the defect in Kennedy's jacket was even more ovoid (1 by 1.5 cm) than Connally's jacket (1.7 x 1.2 cm) and that the defect in Kennedy's shirt was also an ovoid .8 x 1.2 cm (to Connally's 1.3 x .8 cm). He also overlooks that the entrance on Kennedy's back was originally measured at an ovoid .7 x .4 cm and that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was measured at an absolutely ovoid 1.5 x .6 cm. While the ovoid nature of these entrances could indicate that the bullets were tumbling, they more probably indicate that the bullets entered at an angle, exactly as proposed by Dr. Shaw way back in 1964.

Still, there's another possibility. Papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981) found that a bullet wound of abnormal length or width can be taken as an indication that the weapon firing the projectile was equipped with a silencer. This assertion has been repeated, furthermore, in books such as 1997's Ballistic Trauma, by South African forensic pathologists Jeanine Vellema and Hendrik Johannes Scholtz.

Just a little something to think about.

As is this... When the Discovery Channel attempted to replicate Kennedy's and Connally's wounds for their 2004 program Beyond the Magic Bullet, the wound on the Connally torso's back created by the tumbling bullet in the program was not ovoid at all, but "keyhole" shaped, and measured 50 x 45 mm.

Ovoid? Oy Vey!

[Pat Speer]

Pat

"The HSCA pathology panel concluded that wound #1 was a cm below the vertical level of the throat wound."

What's the citation for that?

Thanks.

Todd

It's right there in Baden's testimony, and in the report. The back wound was below the throat wound. They measured the throat wound as 4 cm below the should line, and the back wound as 5 cm below the shoulder line.

PLEASE PLEASE don't tell me you're one of those LNers who actually believes the Artwohl nonsense about the back wound being far above the throat wound...