The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

I believe we are interpreting the medical evidence given by Dr. Shaw in two completely different ways. I know you are having difficulty understanding how the bullet could have entered Connally's back and exited just to the left of his right nipple, without passing through the pleural cavity, but the answer to this riddle is all in Shaw's testimony to the WC.

Shaw tells us some very important things about the 5th rib. The first is that the rib is quite spongy and thin at this lateral point, and would offer little resistance to pressure or fracturing.

Shaw then tells the WC that the 5th rib, as he observed during the operation, had a rather inward position in relation to the 4th and 6th rib on either side of it, due to the rib being broken and losing some of its substance.

Shaw then reveals a very important piece of evidence. While the bullet first contacted the 5th rib at the mid axillary line, he testifies that, because the rib was struck and bent, there was also a fracture of the rib only 4 cm. from where the rib attaches to the transverse process of the spine. Following, here is the most misunderstood part of Shaw's testimony regarding this additional fracture :

"Mr. Specter - And is the fracture, which is located there [4 cm. from the transverse process], caused by a striking there or by the striking at the end of the rib?

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

As this bullet exited Connally's chest long before it got anywhere near the sternum, it is difficult to understand what Shaw meant by "at the end of the rib". What is not well known is that the 5th rib does not actually connect directly to the sternum. Rather, the 5th rib connects to the 5th costal cartilage (roughly 7 cm. long) which bridges the gap between the end of the 5th rib and the sternum. The right 5th rib actually ends at almost the same position, just medial or left of the right nipple, as the exit point of the bullet. This is what Shaw means by saying the bullet struck the end of the rib, as the rib ends well before it reaches the sternum.

If we assume a great degree of elasticity in the rib cage, and in the anterior portion of the 5th rib in particular, we can picture the bullet striking a glancing blow to the 5th rib that did two things to it. It stripped it out for a 10 cm. section AND bent it inwards. What Shaw saw as an inward positioning of the 5th rib was likely nowhere near as far as the bullet pushed the rib inwards as it was passing through. The evidence of this is it was bent far enough to actually fracture the rib just out from where it joined the spine.

I do not believe Dr. Shaw made an error when he testified the 5 cm. exit wound was medial to and just below the right nipple. I believe there was a bullet track that travelled from right to left across the right front of Connally's rib cage, depressing the 5th rib along the way and allowing it to travel a straight line from the mid axillary line to just left of the right nipple.

Such a bullet path, if Connally was facing forward as he was at z223/4, would require the bullet to originate at a point west of the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. A bullet fired from the SE corner might have hit the lateral portion of the 5th rib but there is a very good chance the shoulder blade would have been hiding the 5th rib entirely, and if the bullet had missed the right shoulder blade, which it did, it would have passed only through the muscle tissue under the armpit.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

Where before I was somewhat puzzled, I am not so puzzled now. The conversation you are having with Gary is making a great deal of sense.

Your point that had Connally been facing forward - at 223/4 - then the source of the shot would have been west of the Oswald window. From what I can see the source of the bullet would be East of the Oswald window - somewhere between the TSBD and the Daltex. This conclusion is based the small rotation of Connally's body from his real present position at 223/4 to this theoretical position.

This really has little to contribute to your conversation with Gary. If anything it is just another comment on the SBT. The rotation of the Connally body to source a shot West of the Oswald window - at 223/4 - would I believe have to have him rotated to facing forward and then rotated slightly to his left.

James.

[Gary Murr]

Now, I haven't seen the drawings of JBC's back wound.

But here's a thought regarding vertical vs. horizontal:

With Connally in a sitting position, let's say the wound actually WAS a horizontal opening. When Connally was on the table in the ER and the OR, CONNALLY himself was horizontal, and when viewed from a standing position, the wound would appear vertical in relation to the plane of those surgeons standing on the floor of the ER and the OR. So at the time the wound was sutured, it could be described as vertical as well. Later, when examining Connally in a sitting position, the scar would then be horizontal.

Yeah, I know that's probably a bit more simplistic an explanation than anyone wants to hear. But perhaps that may be the way Shaw meant his answers. Maybe it's not nearly as convoluted an answer than the one we've been seeking.

And maybe what's been argued here is actually no argument at all.

Hello Mark:

An interesting conceptual take on this discussion of horizontal vs vertical orientation and one I must admit that had not really crossed my mind. One factor that could possibly play into your scenario is the fact that as per normal operating procedures the areas surrounding the wounds being examined and repaired were draped leaving only the apertures visible for examination and repair via openings in this same drapery at the wound sites. However, given the fixed anatomical landmarks that Shaw et al utilized in their narrative descriptions - i.e. the scapula and its borders as one example - I find it hard to believe that individuals of their experience would have misinterpreted horizontal vs vertical - but yours is not a nuance that one should readily dismiss without further investigation.

Thanks,

Gary Murr

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

Do you think Connally was turned to his right at z223/4 and, if so, by how many degrees do you think he was turned?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

Zapruder makes it very clear that at 223/4 John Connally was indeed turned to his right. I do not have my notes with me, but I remember using Dale Myers calculation. I seem to remember that he had calculated Connally to be turned 27 degrees to his right from a forward position.

It appeared then and now to be a reasonable value. Myers may be out by a degree or so, but I consider he is in the ball park.

[David Andrews]

See 19:34 - 19:58 in the video linked to at bottom, a clip from Connally's press interview post-WC. Connally claims he "turn[ed] in one direction and attempt[ed] to turn in the other" just before he was first hit.

Looking at Zapruder countless times, I cannot see how Connally was hit earlier than c.290 in the extant Z-film, which is later than some have suggested in this thread. However many times Connally was hit afterward, I don't see him being wounded before this point.

In the clip, Connally also says that he turned because he "heard" a shot that hit JFK, a shot ascribed to the "Single Bullet" that the WC claimed wounded both men. This is consistent with Connally's reaction at 225, where he raises his hat reflexively to swat at a bullet that he clearly also felt pass him on his left, as if that bullet had been a buzzing insect. Kennedy's elbows rise at the same instant.

I can't see how Connally could have made that turn, or performed that telling, natural motion with his hat, if he had been wounded in the torso earlier, and we don't see any wrist damage at this point. The hat motion betrays surprise, and if wounded earlier Connally would be beyond surprise by 225, and it would be entirely likely that he could not, or would not, have turned to examine JFK's condition.

My feeling is that a man who has been shot does not like to hear others tell him when he was shot, even if he might also be concealing guilty knowledge, or might be confused about other hits after the first one, or confused or worse about when or how many times another man was wounded. Life is made of such hypocrisies.

http://www.darkjournalist.com/documentaries.php

Edited October 16, 2014 by David Andrews

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

Dale Myers says a lot of things, which doesn't necessarily make them true. I would be very interested in seeing how he arrived at a figure of 27° for Connally's turn to the right at z223/4.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Brad Milch]

Just trying out the posting mechanism. This issue (when was JBC shot?) gets really complicated when one factors in what the closest eyewitnesses said about the shooting. The Newmans both claimed they heard two shots before the JFK before JFK's touring car passed them & when it did pass them JBC was holding his stomach. Mary Moorman has never changed her remembrance that she snapped her photo at the instant of the 1st shot and heard 2 more in quick succession.

[James R Gordon]

I believe I made an error. Myers may have felt the angle was nearer 24º. Looking at Zapruder, I believe Dale Myers is not far out. In the end I believe I used 25º as my measurement. I did not spend a lot of time on 223/4 because the "twin trajectories" made it clear to me that Connally was never wounded at that point.

I agree that Dale Myers played fast and loose with much of his data, however I found a lot of useful information in his description of how he put his model together.

[Robert Prudhomme]

But how did he determine the angle?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

You will find how he came to angles on his web site where he describes the construction of his 3D model.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

That is not what I am asking. I am asking if you can explain how he arrived at an angle of 27°. You say Dale is "not far out". Is this a guess on your part, and are you accepting Dale Myers estimation of Connally's shoulder angle on blind faith, or can you tell me how the angle measurement was made?

P.S. It is hard to accept anything Dale says, when his cartoon of the limo shows Connally sitting on JFK's lap.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I’m sorry I was wrong about the angle. Myers appears to say that Connally was turned around 13º to the right of forward. It was the bullet that traveled through his body at an angle of 24º right to left. With reference to Zapruder it would appear to me that Connally is turned more to the right than 13º.

Unlike, with his acoustic work, Myers does not give reasons for his judgement. So the answer to your question is that he does not give reasons for his decision on his positioning of Connally in the car.

On the quality of Myers animation we will have to agree to differ. I am still in awe at the quality of his work. I stated earlier - and I stand by that statement - that Myers played fast and loose with his manipulation of his data objects. For example the angle by the bullet passed through Connally’s body. In his animation it is clear - irrespective what his disciples say - that the only way Myers has been able to get his SBT to work is have the bullet exit close to Connally’s heart.

However with regard to his model, I can find very few errors. You comment about his car. Myers car is absolutely correct. Unlike me who purchased a commercial version and adjusted it to comply with the correct dimensions: he built his car from scratch and from a copy of the actual plans of the car. I know about the accusations regarding the positioning within the car - however when you measure the objects in the car against - seats etc and distances between - these models appear correctly positioned. Robert Harris has accused him of adjusting positions and sizes to suit his purpose. I do not see that. From what I can see he has the relative heights of each model correct. Yes, if you interchange the JFK model and Connally model it appears there is a serious error there. This is because it appears Myers is more concerned with the accuracy of the height of each head of each model as opposed to their size.

Myers construction of the Plaza is just quite breathtaking. And that was in the 1990’s when he built it. It is common for critics to describe Dale Myers animation work as a cartoon. Such critics have no idea what they are talking about. His 3D model - in my opinion - is light years ahead anyone else’s work: including mine.

Has he manipulated and made adjustments in places, I suspect he has. I suspect that is the reason Dale Myers has never released the model - as he is on record saying that he would. I am sure had Myers released his model critics would have checked every measurement and found errors but not significant errors. So, as I say, with regards to his 3D model we will have to agree to disagree.

Now how Myers used that model to carry out his experiments is a different matter. He used cones that allowed him a massive error margin. I use trajectory lines. He uses closed models which prevented verification of his descriptions. And yes I believe his description of the wounds and trajectories is wildly wrong. But we cannot verify that because they are closed models. I understand that his positioning of the car on Elm street is inaccurate but the correct position does not suit his argument. He documentation as to the wound description - as described on his web site - is highly selective and ignores many important medical facts. And the list goes on.

But whereas Myers has played fast and loose with the manipulation of his model to get the outcomes he wants I believe Dale Myers 3D model is still an astonishing piece of work.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The right to left angle of 24° for the bullet travelling through the front of Connally's chest, did you calculate that with the bullet exiting just below Connally's right nipple, or did you calculate that angle with the bullet exiting just below AND medial (closer to the sternum) to his right nipple, as Dr. Shaw testified to the WC in his second appearance before them?

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I approached the problem differently. Robert Shaw stated that the bullet traveled along the fifth rib and difference between entrance and exit was approx 25 degrees.

So I placed my pointer along the 5th rib and ensured the angle of decline was around 25 to 30 degrees. I tried to use 27 degrees as my angle. The entrance was just to the right of the scapula and so I placed the entrance there. I did not move the rib inwards - as the X-ray shows happened to it. Therefore the exit would have been wrong. However when I placed the pointer I did so without the muscle structures in place. That was an error.

So rather than apply the data values you ask about I created the model as described above. I then rotated the model so that it was positioned as shown in Zapruder. I then projected the pointer back to see where it originated.

My thinking was if I have placed the pointer correctly - and I am no longer convinced my positioning of the pointer was absolutely correct - that might give me a better result. The position of the human ribs is a standardised location point. If I had Connally's height within the car correct and I had his rotational position correct then the pointer ought to return a valid result.

I am due to return to my model in a few weeks time. There are many changes I intend to make and the positioning of the Connally pointer is one. However I will still use a pointer. Myers use of cones allowed invalid assumptions to be generated. Myers acknowledged that his cone suggested that the Daltex was a possibile source - just like the TSBD a - which he ignored in favour of the TSBD. With the pointer it either it either hits the target or it misses.