The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Pat Speer]

Hi Pat:

I am glad to see you included the information you have shared with us at the Bethesda Conference/Presentations. For those that have not done so, and even for those who may have read it in the past, interested parties should read John Hunt's excellent essay on CE-399 and the concept of breakability and diminished velocities, a copy of which can be found on the History Matters website, among other places. I exchanged e-mails on this subject with Larry Sturdivan after the releases of his book in 2005. In addition, one of the other subject matters, "conclusion" pushed by the WC and its defenders, is the concept that because Connally's thorax was theoretically "thicker" than that of a goat, the wounding missile would have suffered less loss in velocity in traversing Connally than that shown in the goat. However, I acquired a copy of the goat autopsy and as I show in volume 3 of Controlling The Past, the 6.5mm bullet that struck the goat in a manner deemed most "similar" to that wounding suffered by Connally actually passed through more tissue than the missile that passed through Connally's chest cavity wall. There really is no argument of "thick vs thicker" in this instance, due in no small part to the excellent autopsy conducted on the goat wounded at Edgewood Arsenal.

Gary

Excellent information, Gary. The bullet lost 265 fps while going through the goat in a manner similar to the bullet's going through Connally. Dziemian then testified that Connally was bigger and that he thought it would lose 400 fps while traveling through Connally. Specter then asked Olivier if a bullet striking Kennedy first would lose more than 400 fps, and Olivier said more, but he couldn't say how much more. The WR, presumably written by Specter, then claimed it would lose "substantially more." This proves that someone (almost certainly Specter) had done the math and realized that for the SBT to make sense, the bullet would have to have lost 1,500 fps or so in the chest, and not the 400 fps suggested by the tests performed by Olivier.

There was a HUGE problem with this, however. The bullet that lost 265 fps in the goat was slightly more damaged than CE 399. If CE 399 had, in fact, lost 1,500 fps or so while traveling through Connally's chest, as suggested in the WR (and then later by Sturdivan) it would quite obviously have been more damaged than the goat bullet, and not less. And now Gary tells us the damage to the goat was more extensive as well.

P.S. John Hunt did some ground-breaking work. Have you heard from John lately? Is he still looking to publish something? Does he still have his image collection?

Edited October 28, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Gary Murr]

Thanks, Pat; just a quick response for now on the questions you asked, and I don't think John will mind my answering in generalities. I was last in communication with John in late January of this year [2014] in conjunction with some papers on bullet work-ups done on CE 399. I can't state with a certainty that he is "looking to publish something" but hey, aren't we all at some point! He did indicate to me that his extensive work on the RFK assassination was near completion, but would require his making a trip to California archives at some point in 2014. And yes, John still has an invaluable image collection, literally gigabytes of scanned images he accumulated as a result of numerous trips to NARA in Washington.

Gary

[Pat Speer]

Hey, Gary. You wrote that you got the autopsy report on the goat. Does that mean you got access to Olivier's hard data? I'd long assumed that was unavailable.

If you did get access to his hard data, can you tell us if there's a breakdown on each skull shot, as to where they impacted and the subsequent size of the defects?

That information could be incredibly important, IMO...

[Gary Murr]

Hey, Gary. You wrote that you got the autopsy report on the goat. Does that mean you got access to Olivier's hard data? I'd long assumed that was unavailable.

If you did get access to his hard data, can you tell us if there's a breakdown on each skull shot, as to where they impacted and the subsequent size of the defects?

That information could be incredibly important, IMO...

Hey Pat:

Actually I acquired this documentation from John Hunt in 2006. The autopsy was completed by Dr. Robert Schwebel. At the time of this goat autopsy, Schwebel was nearing the end of a two year stint as a Captain in the U. S. Army, Veterinary Corps, working in pathology research at Edgewood Arsenal. His wife, Patricia, indicated in an oral history given to the Texas State Archives that Dr. Frederick Light was her husband's "civilian boss" and there is indication that Schwebel was involved in some of the other test procedures conducted at Edgewood that eventually resulted in the construct of the report CRDLR 3264. The autopsy can be found at NARA, RG 335 - Records of the U. S. Army; Army Ballistics Tests, Chemical Research and Development Labs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Box 1. As far as Olivier's "hard data" is concerned, I will check on this for you. I assume you have checked out the photographs of the skull shots in CRDLR 3264.

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Does no one care to address that the entrance wound, as shown on the WC's diagram, makes it impossible for the bullet to have caused Connally's chest wound? If he was facing forward, the bullet might have caused a tangential wound at the very outside of his rib cage, but it would not have been able to travel right to left and exit medial to his right nipple. If Connally was rotated to his right, the posterior of the 5th rib would now be aligned with the entrance wound, and the bullet would have struck the 5th rib squarely and entered the right lung.

I will also repeat that I believe it impossible for the bullet to run alongside the outside of the 5th rib, depressing the rib inward, without the bullet being deflected at least 5-10° from its original trajectory.

Comments?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

Over at jfkfacts.org, I have been in discussion there with another member who goes by the name of Photon. Just recently, he has claimed that he is a physician and has cared for hundreds of ICU patients, plus dealing with many open pneumothoraces.

This is somewhat laughable, as another member was very quick to point out that, only last year, Photon had claimed to possess medical knowledge, but was not a physician.

Anyways, Photon firmly believes Gov. Connally suffered a "through and through" bullet wound of the chest, and not the tangential bullet strike that followed the outside of Connally's 5th rib. When pressed on this matter, Photon claims the "operative report" clearly states Connally's chest wound was through and through.

By operative report, I can only assume he is referring to the report filed by Dr. Shaw in regards to the operation he performed on Connally, and that if anyone had studied such a report closely, it would be you.

Is this the report Photon is referring to, and is there any portion of it that would indicate Shaw claimed there was a through and through wound? Is it possible to view this report on line?

[Gary Murr]

Hello Robert:

Irrespective of "Photon's" claims, I know of no documentation generated by Robert Shaw wherein he indicated that Connally had suffered a "through and through" [bullet] wound of his chest, the inference being that this missile struck the rib in such a manner that it literally passed "through" the rib and on into the Governor's internal organs. As you are well aware, nothing of the sort occurred; had the bullet done so, the chances are good the Connally would potentially not have survived such a bullet strike. The only concept of "through and through" that Shaw referred to was that of the passage through the Governor's chest wall and chest wall only - a wound tract that we have discussed he, Shaw, referred to an possessing elements of a tunneling affect through the chest wall and along the outer edge of the fifth rib with, as you have pointed out I believe on the Deep Politics Forum, the main area of eventual contact occurring along the mid-axillary line of the fifth rib. Again, as I indicated elsewhere, Shaw referred to this impact as generating a "slapping" affect along/on the rib at this point, exerting enough pressure at impact to fracture/shatter approximately 10 cms of the rib and pushing the rib inward at impact which resulted in the small fracture near the point where the fifth rib joined the spinal column.

And while we are discussing this point, to get back to your previous posting, one of the concepts that all three of Connally's surgeons passed along to SS Agent Roger Warner during his interviews of them on January 20, 1964, was the concept of parallelism - regarding their interpretation of the wound tract of the thorax. They felt that the Governor's ride thorax/chest side had to be turned such that it was positioned basically parallel to the flight of the wounding missile. Their thought process at this point in time in January of 1964 was that Connally had to be turned to his right in order for this degree of "parallel" to occur. However, in discussing this matter with Shaw he did agree with me that Connally could just have easily have been "turned" far to his left to the point where his right thoracic side/rib cage was equally parallel to the bullet as it inflicted its wounding impact. If Connally were sitting basically erect, or for that matter even turned marginally to his right at wounding impact, the shallowness of the tunneling wound track through the chest wall would not have occurred - at least not if the shot originated from the 6th floor SE corner window of the TSBD. And just as an aside, there is no doubt in my mind that the missile responsible for the wound to Connally's right distal radius did not go "through [and through]" Connally's right "wrist" - a misnomer because none of the bones that actually made up the Governor's true wrist were ever damaged.

And unless Photon has access to John Connally's complete medical history, and thus the rough work notes of Shaw, Gregory, Shires, Duke, et al, the only "operative report" he can be referring to is the one available to all in the Warren Report, Appendix 8, or as the Commission designated it, "CR87".

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

Thank you for responding to my questions. It's probably just laziness on my part but, I am grateful for you pointing me towards CR87. Finding anything in the WCR can be very challenging and, unless one is an "old hand" such as yourself, it is difficult to know where to even begin looking.

I didn't really believe there was anything to "Dr." Photon's claim but it is good that I will be able to read CR87, that I may speak from an informed perspective. It is amazing how much these disinfo agents rely on bluff, likely because so few people possess the knowledge to call them on their bluffs.

[Gary Murr]

No problem, Robert; actually I constructed the previous posting to your question basically from memory while at work. The actual "operative report" citation from within the Warren Report is to be found at WR531-532, from within Appendix VIII. This version, as printed in the Commission's report, has extraneous markings found on the original, including the designation of "CR87" that exists on the original in red ink, removed. And I would agree that "disinfo agents," as you are want to call them, more often than not do rely on bluff rather than substance and documented evidence.

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Gary

I just finished reading Dr. Shaw's post-operative report. Something tells me you knew that I would find an oddity there, and said nothing, to not spoil the surprise. (and to see if I would actually track the report down and read it LOL)

Well, I am most definitely puzzled by one of the things Shaw reported. On Page 531, I read the following:

"The wound of entrance was approximately three cm. on its longest diameter....."

Was this a mistake on Shaw's part?

P.S.

You were right, Shaw makes absolutely no mention of Connally suffering a through and through wound of the chest in the post-operative report. "Dr." Photon is still batting .000 this season.

[Pat Speer]

Robert, the 3 cm notation was explained by Shaw in his testimony to Specter a few months later. He said that it was 3 cm after he cut the damaged skin from the wound, but that it was 1 1/2 cm before he'd begun cutting.

SBT believers don't believe him on this, of course, and quite often lie about it. For them, the 3 cm measurement--the length of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet--is just too convenient. And so they use this measurement to suggest the bullet was traveling sideways upon impact. Some then claim Shaw "changed his mind" about the size of the entrance wound at a later date, rather than admit the truth. That Shaw insisted from the first time he was asked about it that the wound as first observed was 1 1/2 cm.

Here's what he told Specter:

“When Governor Connally was examined, it was found that there was a SMALL wound of entrance, roughly elliptical in shape, and approximately a cm. and a half in its longest diameter...The skin surrounding the wound was removed in an elliptical fashion, enlarging the incision to approximately 3 cm...the wound... was not a single puncture wound, it was long enough so that there might have been some tumbling...it was not a spherical puncture wound...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.”

Bugliosi, in his book, took the last bit about the wound not having the appearance of a wound caused by a bullet that had not struck anything else, and pretended it meant Shaw initially believed the bullet had struck Kennedy. He cut off the last bit by Shaw, in which he said it was also consistent with a bullet entering at a tangent, and also avoided Shaw's earliest statements in which he repeatedly described a three shots/three hits scenario.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Pat Speer

[Gary Murr]

You are of course correct with all of this, Pat. In addition, in 1978 Shaw indicated to Andrew Purdy, HSCA, that, "The rear entrance wound was not 3 cm as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination (i.e. not at a right angle). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 cm. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm." [7HSCA325] I might add that the emphasis on the word "not" was/is in the original document. Equally important, when Shaw drew for HSCA Forensic Panel member, Dr. Charles Petty, the respective sizes of the thoracic wounds of entry and exit to scale, something done during Shaw's November 9, 1977 deposition session with Petty and others, he drew the wound of entrance such that it measured 1.5 cm X 0.8 cm. And you make the important point that those believers of the SBT need the rear entrance wound to be 3 cms in "length" for reasons that you have stated above.

Gary

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary and Pat

Is it just me, or is there something decidedly odd about the fact Dr. Shaw, in all of his testimonies, interviews, reports and statements, does not once mention whether the elliptical entrance wound was vertical or horizontal?

P.S.

Did Dr. Shaw happen to mention how the entrance wound came to be described as 3 cm. in his post operative report? Surely, some researcher must have asked him this question.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Did I ask the wrong question?

[Pat Speer]

Hello Gary and Pat

Is it just me, or is there something decidedly odd about the fact Dr. Shaw, in all of his testimonies, interviews, reports and statements, does not once mention whether the elliptical entrance wound was vertical or horizontal?

P.S.

Did Dr. Shaw happen to mention how the entrance wound came to be described as 3 cm. in his post operative report? Surely, some researcher must have asked him this question.

Dr. Shaw drew the wound for both the WC and HSCA, and depicted it as a vertical wound. The scar, according to Baden, was horizontal.

Dr. Shaw also told the WC and HSCA that the wound as first observed was 1.5 cm, but that he'd expanded the wound to 3 cm in order to remove the damaged tissue.

Those having a problem with his describing the wound with a measurement made after he'd expanded the wound miss something, I believe. He was a surgeon, used to dealing with living patients, and not a forensic pathologist. The size of the skin wound as first observed was irrelevant to Connally's treatment and recovery, so he paid it little mind, and didn't even write it down. That's my take, anyhow.