The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[James R Gordon]

You would have to ask Gary that question, though I doubt he will answer you. The answer is at the heart of his other study. He has spent years researching the ammunition of the 50's and 60's and I know he is prouder of this work than the Connally trilogy. Having much of the Connally trilogy and knowing the quality of the research therein I really look forward to the time when he does release it.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I am beginning to change my view about where the bullet exited on John Connally’s chest. I have been looking at Robert Frazier’s drawing and he states that from the mid point of the waist to the centre of the hole in the shirt was 6.5 inches. That probably takes the wound to the left of the right nipple. Still have problems conceiving how that allowed the bullet to remain outside the thoracic cavity.

Why I feel that Connally was wounded at Z 230:-

For a long time I agreed with Gary that Connally was wounded post 313. The frame I worked from was 325. At some point I watched Nellie Connally’s 2003 View interview. Two points she made had an impact on me.

First she said that after the first shot she turned and saw JFK clutching for his throat. You can see that at 238.

Second she said that once she realised Connally was wounded she attempted to get him out of danger. Initially I felt the critical moment was 281, however I was wrong it was around 291. The best description of what I mean can be seen in this excerpt from a presentation I made last year. There are many aspects of the assassination I have changed my mind about, but that this moment shows Nellie rescuing an injured John Connally I have never changed my mind about. The video extract below is the best description of what I mean.

Link to Nellie Rescuce Video:-

http://vid1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/NelliesRescue_zps968e6981.mp4

Having isolated - at least to my mind - the latest point John Connally was wounded it was a matter of working back. My favourite moment was 238. However the swelling of Connally’s cheeks suggests his lung has collapsed. That does not happen immediately so I looked further back. I needed up choosing 230 - John Connally’s moment. In the frames thereafter, we see Connally suddenly moving forward as well as looking downwards - both points he has often stated as a consequence of being hit.

There is no way the Oswald window can accomplish the wound from that position. The pointer - on the model you are so critical of - indicated it was the West window. I placed the Connally model in the car as he was positioned at 230 and extended the pointer backwards. It went right through the open west window.

I was always curious what the TSBD 6th floor was like - especially behind the 6th floor south wall. Graciously Gary gave me a image of that situation. I was astonished that essentially between the east and West windows there was a corridor. Since Connally’s wounds emanated from the west window has always suggested to me that there was more than one gunman firing from the TSBD that day. The layout of 6th floor - and especially that corridor - allowed communication and collaboration.

The South Wall Corridor:-

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

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

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

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

Edited October 4, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Chris Davidson]

6th Floor West Window.

http://s140.photobucket.com/user/123steamn/media/WestWindow.png.html

chris

P.S. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3449

Edited October 4, 2014 by Chris Davidson

[James R Gordon]

Thanks Chris.

Gary has always reminded me to remember the acute angle of Connally's wound.

Looking at this image lets you see how such an angle is possible.

James.

[Larry Hancock]

Its a bit off topic but in one of the photos of the people looking at the suspected bullet track in the grass on the far side of Elm, one of the men is pointing back at what he appears to have belt the origin of the shot was and its pretty clearly the far west side of the TSBD. At one point I talked with the son of the couple who were there and also observed - and reported - the apparent track through the grass and he was certainly adamant that they felt there was a track and a bullet or piece of one was picked up in that area.

[Gary Murr]

Gentlemen et al:

Since the discussion has continued regarding the thoracic wound site/5th rib issue, I will use this opportunity and spot on the forum to continue my narrative on this same subject matter, but in particular the dichotomy between the physical appearance of the roughly elliptical shaped entrance aperture on the back of John Connally's suit jacket [horizontal orientation] and that as represented diagrammatically by Dr. Robert Shaw on the anatomical face sheet, posterior view [an elliptical wound incorporating a vertical orientation]. I will preface this the second part of my narrative of explanation with a few remarks germane to the issue at hand. In my unpublished trilogy on the Connally wounding I have argued that one of the most important witnesses to the events of Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, indeed potentially the most important witness, was an individual who was not even in the plaza at the time of the event - Dr. Robert Shaw. And I make so bold a statement because in my opinion the work of Dr. Shaw and his colleagues, in particular Dr. Charles Gregory, left us with a detailed medical record that when examined closely does little to support the central thesis of the work of the Warren Commission, the single bullet theory [sBT]. Of equal importance are the rough notes that these physicians left behind and their sessions of deposition and testimony before and with the theoretical "father" of the SBT, Arlen Specter, an individual who did not invent the SBT, though along with a cadre of fellow commissioners defended this same theory to the end. And I use the word "invent" intentionally because that in truth is what it was and is - an invention of necessity based initially upon a combination of the use of the film of Abraham Zapruder as an accurate time clock of the assassination event and the discovery of the physical restraints of mechanical operation placed upon the/any assassin with the alleged weapon of the crimes, a Mannlicher Carcano weapon constructed in 1941. [NOTE: In the narrative that follows, unless indicated otherwise all of the bracketed citations utilized refer to the Hearings and Exhibits of the Warren Commission]

Dr. Robert Shaw was a consummate medical practitioner and a highly skilled surgeon. As he indicated to Arlen Specter, by the time of the killing of John Kennedy and the wounding of John Connally, he, Shaw, had been involved in approximately 1,000 medical procedures that involved bullet wounds and thoracic injuries.[6H85; 4H102] If you carefully dissect and follow Dr. Shaw's dictated account of his repairs to the Governor's thoracic wound site, and compare the procedures he followed with those found in medical texts and the voluminous papers on this subject matter, you will find that Shaw followed procedure to the letter and indeed as the driving force behind the repair of this specific wound site was unquestionable responsible for extending the Governor's life. If, therefore, researchers such as myself [and others] contend that the missile/bullet responsible for this specific wound was not tumbling upon entry into the Governor's "back," how do we reconcile the appearance of the wound as drawn by Dr. Shaw? The answer to this question is to be found within the Governor's surviving medical record, specifically what transpired in OR # 5 beginning just after 1:30 p.m. CST, November 22, 1963.

Dr. Shaw was initially confronted with the first of two sets of anatomical drawings on which all of the wound sites of John Connally were indicated during his late afternoon deposition session [6 p.m. CST] with Arlen Specter, held at Parkland Memorial Hospital, March 23, 1963. Early into this deposition session Shaw was presented with a drawing - an anatomical "face" sheet - that had been previously designated as Gregory Exhibit Number 1/Diagram Number 1. This designation had been affixed to this diagram and others as a result of their introduction to Dr. Shaw's colleague, Dr. Charles Gregory, during the Gregory deposition session with Specter that had taken place earlier in the afternoon on the same date, March 23, 1964, prior to the Specter - Shaw session. And though Shaw was thereafter asked a number of questions concerning all of the markings on this same diagram, we will concern ourselves only with the mark of interest being outlined in this thread - the entrance wound on the posterior/back view diagrammatically representative of John Connally as viewed from behind. Upon introduction of this diagram to Dr. Shaw he was asked two and only two questions concerning the "mark" on the diagram that was said to represent the point of entry of the bullet responsible for the thoracic wound: [1] Was the position ["point"] of entry as marked on the diagram "on the right shoulder of Governor Connally" rendered on this diagram accurately, a question that elicited a positive response of "yes" from Dr. Shaw, in his opinion, "quite accurate",and: [2] Was "the size and dimension of the hole accurate on scale..." or would the doctor care to adjust/modify the "characterization" of this hole, a question the construct of which alone leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Dr. Shaw and Specter have discussed this same diagram prior to going on the record with the deposition session. This question produced a negative answer from Dr. Shaw with the doctor informing Specter that the wound as drawn to "scale" was "larger than the actual wound or the depicting of the wound should be." As a result of this answer Specter asked Shaw to draw to the best he could "recollect what the wound of entry..." looked like ["appeared" when the doctor "first observed it". Shaw obliged Specter's instructions, re-drew the wound on the face sheet "above the shoulder" and initialed this same correction beside his, Shaw's, drawing. [6H86] Approximately one month later, on April 21, 1964, in his testimony session conducted again by Arlen Specter and before members of the Warren Commission, Dr. Shaw was forced to make corrections to a theoretical "new" set of diagrams but in truth they were duplications of the diagrams shown to Shaw and his colleagues a month earlier in Dallas at Parkland Hospital during their deposition sessions. In Washington and before the Commission the diagrams were re-labelled with the body diagram representative of John Connally now carrying a designation of Commission Exhibit 679. What is not known by most is that these diagrams, though theoretically representative of markings placed on them originally in January, 1964 by these same medical personnel, were not actually the ones presented to Shaw, Gregory and Shires in March and April of 1964. Rather they were re-drawn/traced by a member of the Secret Service after he and others visited Parkland Hospital medical personnel in early January. Upon leaving Parkland in January this same SS agent took blank anatomical face sheets with him and re-traced the Shaw, Gregory and Shires January markings onto them, obviously not very accurately as it turns out.

I will close out this part of the narrative with an important point. Of all the questions asked of Dr. Shaw on the part of Arlen Specter, particularly as they related to the diagrammatic representation of the wound of entry on the Governor's back, there was one question that Specter never asked: Had Dr. Shaw accurately depicted the orientation of this elliptical wound of entry? To this most crucial omission we shall return.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 5, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

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

[Gary Murr]

Robert:

I am afraid you have misinterpreted my meaning when you indicate that a SS agent made an "honest mistake" - drawing "the oval in the wrong direction." Because you have indicated that you have been studying, of late, the wounding of John Connally I am assuming that this same study has involved a reading [or re-reading?] of the deposition and testimony sessions of the Parkland Memorial doctors who treated the Governor's various wound sites. If so then you know that Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory had to correct more than one "mistake" of transposition with these multiple drawings utilized and introduced as evidence by Arlen Specter. I find it interesting that Specter presents these same drawings as official representations constructed and, in your words, "approved" by among others, Dr. Shaw. However, this simply is not true and at no time does Specter inform members of the Commission that these same exhibits had been put together by SS Roger C. Warner. And though Dr. Shaw had to correct the size of the wound of entry, the positioning of the right nipple and wound of exit, and the angle of inclination of the theoretical pathway through the Governor - again something constructed by SS Roger C. Warner - on various versions of these drawings, there was one other transposition error of potentially even greater importance. On his original marking of the anatomical face sheet for Warner and the SS, Dr. Shaw had also placed the point of entry of the "back" wound when he placed and drew the exit wound on the anterior/facing image. This mark by Dr. Shaw was not traced onto the "new" versions created by the SS but indeed was excised from this same drawing in all versions. It is a valuable point of reference when one is attempting to study the degree of "right to left" pathway the wounding bullet created. There is a reason why Dr. Shaw drew the elliptical wound of entry oriented as he did - but it has nothing to do with any mistake, honest or otherwise, on the part of the SS, in this instance specifically SS SA Roger C. Warner.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I agree with Gary about these charts. What I found to be comical is the reason these charts were requested in the first place. The Commission already had John Connally's medical file. However it was in "medical speak" and not one member of the Commission understood what they were reading. The Secret Service were assigned to getting a “layman's account". The fact they requested such a document speaks volumes. That was why Roger Warner was requested to return to Parkland and created a document that would make the medical information easier to understand.

What Rodger Warner did when he re-drew these charts was deliberate. Nor is it likely he did so on his own initiative, I suspect someone authorised him making these changes. You could argue that maybe, just maybe, he omitted the reference to the back entry because he did not see that as relevant. You might argue that the size references that were also incorporated might also have been felt to be unnecessary. I would disagree, but I could see how one might make such a case. However the incorrectly labelling the wrist entry and exit points can be interpreted in no other way than a deliberate act to mislead. As I would argue were the other changes.

As Gary has pointed out the original chart created on the 28th of January 1964, was never presented to either the doctors or to the Commission. A point that Gary has already made bears repetition. Again lets suggest all these changes - including the wrist labelling were just acts of careless mislabelling. When the doctors were deposed in March they were shown this Warner document and the doctors corrected it. However, when the doctors arrived in April for their testimony they were not given the document they had corrected in March, no they were given a fresh copy of the Warner adjustments.

In my mind there is no other interpretation than this was a deliberate act to deceive and alter the evidence. As luck would have it, Spector was faced with formidable doctors who were not easily intimidated.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James and Gary

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

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

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

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

As usual, I am looking forward to your answers.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Pat Speer]

Gentlemen et al:

Since the discussion has continued regarding the thoracic wound site/5th rib issue, I will use this opportunity and spot on the forum to continue my narrative on this same subject matter, but in particular the dichotomy between the physical appearance of the roughly elliptical shaped entrance aperture on the back of John Connally's suit jacket [horizontal orientation] and that as represented diagrammatically by Dr. Robert Shaw on the anatomical face sheet, posterior view [an elliptical wound incorporating a vertical orientation]. I will preface this the second part of my narrative of explanation with a few remarks germane to the issue at hand. In my unpublished trilogy on the Connally wounding I have argued that one of the most important witnesses to the events of Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, indeed potentially the most important witness, was an individual who was not even in the plaza at the time of the event - Dr. Robert Shaw. And I make so bold a statement because in my opinion the work of Dr. Shaw and his colleagues, in particular Dr. Charles Gregory, left us with a detailed medical record that when examined closely does little to support the central thesis of the work of the Warren Commission, the single bullet theory [sBT]. Of equal importance are the rough notes that these physicians left behind and their sessions of deposition and testimony before and with the theoretical "father" of the SBT, Arlen Specter, an individual who did not invent the SBT, though along with a cadre of fellow commissioners defended this same theory to the end. And I use the word "invent" intentionally because that in truth is what it was and is - an invention of necessity based initially upon a combination of the use of the film of Abraham Zapruder as an accurate time clock of the assassination event and the discovery of the physical restraints of mechanical operation placed upon the/any assassin with the alleged weapon of the crimes, a Mannlicher Carcano weapon constructed in 1941. [NOTE: In the narrative that follows, unless indicated otherwise all of the bracketed citations utilized refer to the Hearings and Exhibits of the Warren Commission]

Dr. Robert Shaw was a consummate medical practitioner and a highly skilled surgeon. As he indicated to Arlen Specter, by the time of the killing of John Kennedy and the wounding of John Connally, he, Shaw, had been involved in approximately 1,000 medical procedures that involved bullet wounds and thoracic injuries.[6H85; 4H102] If you carefully dissect and follow Dr. Shaw's dictated account of his repairs to the Governor's thoracic wound site, and compare the procedures he followed with those found in medical texts and the voluminous papers on this subject matter, you will find that Shaw followed procedure to the letter and indeed as the driving force behind the repair of this specific wound site was unquestionable responsible for extending the Governor's life. If, therefore, researchers such as myself [and others] contend that the missile/bullet responsible for this specific wound was not tumbling upon entry into the Governor's "back," how do we reconcile the appearance of the wound as drawn by Dr. Shaw? The answer to this question is to be found within the Governor's surviving medical record, specifically what transpired in OR # 5 beginning just after 1:30 p.m. CST, November 22, 1963.

Dr. Shaw was initially confronted with the first of two sets of anatomical drawings on which all of the wound sites of John Connally were indicated during his late afternoon deposition session [6 p.m. CST] with Arlen Specter, held at Parkland Memorial Hospital, March 23, 1963. Early into this deposition session Shaw was presented with a drawing - an anatomical "face" sheet - that had been previously designated as Gregory Exhibit Number 1/Diagram Number 1. This designation had been affixed to this diagram and others as a result of their introduction to Dr. Shaw's colleague, Dr. Charles Gregory, during the Gregory deposition session with Specter that had taken place earlier in the afternoon on the same date, March 23, 1964, prior to the Specter - Shaw session. And though Shaw was thereafter asked a number of questions concerning all of the markings on this same diagram, we will concern ourselves only with the mark of interest being outlined in this thread - the entrance wound on the posterior/back view diagrammatically representative of John Connally as viewed from behind. Upon introduction of this diagram to Dr. Shaw he was asked two and only two questions concerning the "mark" on the diagram that was said to represent the point of entry of the bullet responsible for the thoracic wound: [1] Was the position ["point"] of entry as marked on the diagram "on the right shoulder of Governor Connally" rendered on this diagram accurately, a question that elicited a positive response of "yes" from Dr. Shaw, in his opinion, "quite accurate",and: [2] Was "the size and dimension of the hole accurate on scale..." or would the doctor care to adjust/modify the "characterization" of this hole, a question the construct of which alone leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Dr. Shaw and Specter have discussed this same diagram prior to going on the record with the deposition session. This question produced a negative answer from Dr. Shaw with the doctor informing Specter that the wound as drawn to "scale" was "larger than the actual wound or the depicting of the wound should be." As a result of this answer Specter asked Shaw to draw to the best he could "recollect what the wound of entry..." looked like ["appeared" when the doctor "first observed it". Shaw obliged Specter's instructions, re-drew the wound on the face sheet "above the shoulder" and initialed this same correction beside his, Shaw's, drawing. [6H86] Approximately one month later, on April 21, 1964, in his testimony session conducted again by Arlen Specter and before members of the Warren Commission, Dr. Shaw was forced to make corrections to a theoretical "new" set of diagrams but in truth they were duplications of the diagrams shown to Shaw and his colleagues a month earlier in Dallas at Parkland Hospital during their deposition sessions. In Washington and before the Commission the diagrams were re-labelled with the body diagram representative of John Connally now carrying a designation of Commission Exhibit 679. What is not known by most is that these diagrams, though theoretically representative of markings placed on them originally in January, 1964 by these same medical personnel, were not actually the ones presented to Shaw, Gregory and Shires in March and April of 1964. Rather they were re-drawn/traced by a member of the Secret Service after he and others visited Parkland Hospital medical personnel in early January. Upon leaving Parkland in January this same SS agent took blank anatomical face sheets with him and re-traced the Shaw, Gregory and Shires January markings onto them, obviously not very accurately as it turns out.

I will close out this part of the narrative with an important point. Of all the questions asked of Dr. Shaw on the part of Arlen Specter, particularly as they related to the diagrammatic representation of the wound of entry on the Governor's back, there was one question that Specter never asked: Had Dr. Shaw accurately depicted the orientation of this elliptical wound of entry? To this most crucial omission we shall return.

We're once again plowing the same field, Gary. This was part of my presentation in Bethesda, albeit a part that I was forced to cut out when my time was cut down to 45 minutes. Dr. Lattimer later used the fact that Shaw corrected the location of the exit wound on 4-21-64, but did not correct the size of the entrance wound, as an indication he'd approved it, which was ludicrous. Shaw was never asked about the size of the wound on 4-21-64, and he undoubtedly stood by his correction of it from the previous month.

[Pat Speer]

James and Gary

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

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

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

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

As usual, I am looking forward to your answers.

Shaw depicted the wound on Gregory Exhibit 1, and then again for the HSCA. He remembered it as being an elliptical wound, 1 1/2 cm long, straight up and down. He was obviously wrong about this. Dr. Baden inspected the scar in 1978 and reported it as being a 1 1/8 inch horizontal scar. This was in keeping with the holes on the clothing, which were also horizontal.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Thomas Graves]

James and Gary

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

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

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

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

As usual, I am looking forward to your answers.

Shaw depicted the wound on Gregory Exhibit 1, and then again for the HSCA. He remembered it as being an elliptical wound, 1 1/2 cm long, straight up and down. He was obviously wrong about this. Dr. Baden inspected the scar in 1978 and reported it as being a 1 1/8 inch horizontal scar. This was in keeping with the holes on the clothing, which were also horizontal.

Pat, Robert, James, Gary--

It's refreshing to see four highly intelligent and well informed researchers debate an issue on this forum in such a well written and polite manner.

Just thought I'd throw that in and try to grab a little bit of the limelight. I'm so desperate I'm even thinking about submitting a new profile picture of me wearing a bright red shirt.

Carry on,

--Tommy

Edited October 6, 2014 by Thomas Graves