The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert

Coincidentally, I have been doing a fairly intensive study lately of Connally's wounds, as part of my research to establish what kind of bullets were used in the assassination. As I said before, I am reluctant to post on this forum, as I am unable to copy & paste, and I am much better able to express myself with the use of diagrams.

Right off the bat, let me say that for many years I have believed Connally was shot after z313. I do not, though, believe it was the force of the bullet only that knocked him over, nor was it Nellie. I believe the sudden braking of the limo mainly knocked this couple over, just as it bent Kellerman to the dashboard and Greer into the steering wheel.

My research of JFK's and JBC's wounds has convinced me that it was definitely not full metal jacket bullets used that day, nor were the bullets soft tipped hunting bullets or hollow point bullets. I can't go too deeply into details here but, suffice it to say, I believe a very special bullet known as a "frangible" bullet was used that day. For the full story, complete with diagrams, I recommend reading the thread "Inexplicable Wounds made by Special Bullets" at the Deep Politics Forum.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I assume the diagrams you refer to are those I used in post number 18. If they are not those I have no idea what you are talking about.

I prefer to use Robert Shaw’s statement to the press on the 23rd when he says the bullet did not enter the thorax. That said this comment from his deposition will suffice.

“the bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib.” 6H86

The diagram that you complain so bitterly about is an attempt to explain the route of the bullet through John Connally’s body.

The salient point is that the bullet did not enter chest cavity but passed along the “slanting direction of the fifth rib.” 10cm’s is equivalent to 4 inches. Though I do not have the data beside me that purple rectangle is exactly 4 inches in length ratioed from the know heights of the 5th rib. Maybe the rectangle should be a little further forward, but unlikely too far.

Now why the rectangle is in the position it is in. It was based on where the trajectory pointer would impact the rib based on the wound’s point of entry. The position of the rectangle is not based on Robert Shaw’s statement, but where from the point of entry a straight line would impact with the 5th rib.

Now you complain that this impact point should be further forward. One thing that is very clear in Robert Shaw’s deposition as well as his testimony is that the bullet traveled along the direction of the rib. Placing that rectangle any further forward would seriously impact on the bullet’s point of entry.

A further point to suggest that the bullet was to the right edge of the exit wound was the description of the damage done to the 5th rib. “The bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential way pushing it out causing a fracture at a point further up the rib (like a tree limb breaking from pressure exerted near its end)” 1HSCA272; 274-275

Pushing the rib out of place - which can be seen on the x-rays - ensures the bullet is traveling in a direction outside the chest cavity.

Other evidence that the bullet did not enter the chest cavity is the comments that Robert Shaw made about the intercostal muscles.

“It was found that the fourth and fifth intercostal muscle bundles were almost completely intact where the rib had been stripped out.” 4H105 and CE392

“The fact that the muscle bundles on either side of the fifth rib were not damaged meant that the missile, to strip away 10 centimeters of the rib had to follow this rib pretty much

along its line of inclination.” 4H112

“The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of

the bullet.” 6H86

Therefore if the bullet did not enter the chest cavity - as Robert Shaw is explicit that it did not - then the bullet cannot have exited anywhere near the right nipple. The position of the right nipple is well within the boundaries of the chest cavity.

You appear to have some medical experience. So get a diagram of the body and place the right nipple on the chart. You will see it is within the chest cavity area. The bullet - therefore - could not have exited there. The bullet had to exit at a point outside the chest cavity. So what did exit through that point in the body was not the bullet but the fragments of the 5th rib. As I have pointed out you can see the damage on the shirt created by these bone fragments.

Gary mentioned the H shape on the shirt. That shape is where the exit wound would have been on the shirt. However, in this area - aside from the vertical columns of the H and the horrizontal bar - there is no damage to this area of the shirt aside from the two bullet holes. Something was pressed against that part of the shirt and prevented the bone fragments penetrating the shirt. However if you look elsewhere on the shirt you will see the diagonal line of fragment damage.

What is interesting about this angle of damage is that it replicates the angle of damage that was caused to the to the middle lobe of the right lung 6H88 It is a quite extraordinary line of damage to the shirt. However at the exit point, there is no damage to the shirt aside from the two bullet holes.

It is my conclusion that this 2 inch exit hole in the chest was created by a combination of the bullet’s exit along with the exit of fragments of the fifth rib. Where each exited within that hole is not clear. All that seems certain is that the bullet exited from outside the chest cavity.

James.

[James R Gordon]

I note that Gary has commented that he and I diverged on a number of issues. That is true and one of these areas is his belief that chest wound took place after Z 313. For a while I agreed with Gary that the wound was post 313. The incredible movement by John Connally after 313 seemed to confirm that.

Two points made me change my mind.

1. Discovery that from Z 290 to Z 325 we see Nellie getting John Connally out of danger. Which confirmed that he had already been injured.
2. the second was the source of any trajectory after Z 325.

What those proponents appear to ignore is not could John Connally’s body be impacted by a shot around 325 and after: when John Connally is lying on Nellie’s lap. There is no doubt that a bullet would indeed be able to strike him.

However this bullet has to enter exactly where it did on John Connally’s body. It must follow the exact angle of inclination and it must exit where the bullet exited. That is very different form just saying could a bullet strike him at this point. I know that Gary is aware of this difference. Because - at this point John Connally is lying down - the trajectory angle is moving away from the North Plaza and towards the South. Depending on what moment you choose - and therefore the position of the car on Elm Street at that point - will determine how far South the source is.

What is absolutely unarguable is that once John Connally is lying down it is impossible for the source to be either the TSBD or the Daltex.

James

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

Are you telling us Dr. Shaw was mistaken in observing the two inch exit wound was medial to (inside of) the right nipple? If the bone fragments had exited medial to the nipple, and the bullet lateral to the nipple, don't you think Dr. Shaw would have commented on the oddity of two exit wounds?

[James R Gordon]

Really Robert are you being serious??

There were not two different wounds. There was one wound slightly under two inches in diameter. However it was created by two different missiles: bone fragments from the 5th rib and the exiting bullet.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Sooo, if there was only one wound, it must be the 2 inch diameter exit wound Dr. Shaw said was just below and slightly medial to the right nipple, hmmm?

[James R Gordon]

Was there a point you were trying to make there Robert.

Because the wound was "slightly medial" that means it was slightly right of the right nipple. How far right it is now impossible to say.

My point is that the bullet exited through the wound from outside the thoracic cavity. I understand the wound was more oval than round. However from what I can see, a 1 inch radius takes you outside the thoracic cavity. This of course is further emphasised because the wound was not centred below the right nipple but slightly medial to it. Clearly wherever the wound was positioned, it was in a position to allow the bullet to exit the body from outside the chest cavity.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

"Slightly medial to the right nipple" means the wound was LEFT of the right nipple, not right. The wound was between the right nipple and the centre of the chest.

Lateral, on the chest, means to go away from the centre mid line (sternum). Medial means to go toward the centre mid line of the chest. An exit wound that is medial to the right nipple is between the right nipple and the sternum.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Still mulling that one over, huh?

[Gary Murr]

Hello Robert:

Obviously I cannot speak for James in this regard, and you are correct when indicating that "slightly medial to the right nipple" would infer a "wound"/exit point toward the central line of the body. However, in following the entirety of this thread perhaps the only way one could interpret this same wound/exit point as "right' of the right nipple is if one were looking at both the standard anatomical drawing sheets utilized by the WC in this regard, and for that matter the FBI photographs of the Governor's clothing, "face on." If so, as you view the points of exit on the drawings and the photographs these same points of exit are to your viewing right. But again, any wound, entrance or exit, that carries the nomenclature of "medial" definitely represents one situated "toward" the midline of the body. I did have occasion to speak with Robert Shaw twice before his death and in discussing this particular point of exit he did reinforce that it was ever so slightly medial, beneath and away from the Governor's right nipple, toward the centre of the body.

I have been following, with some interest and as my time allows, your thread over on the Deep Politics Forum, that deals with the "inexplicable wounds made by special bullets." I am intrigued by your comment that in attempting to rationalize the congruity between the orientation of the elliptical wound of entrance on the Governor's back - laterally according to Dr. Shaw and vertically according to SA Robert Frazier as a result of his examination of the Governor's clothing - that you feel one or the other of them is potentially lying regarding this matter. You may be interested to know that they are both actually telling the truth. And I do not believe that the impacting missile that caused this wound of entry was tumbling or for that matter terribly yawed.

Gary Murr

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I am very busy at the moment which is one reason I have not replied sooner. The other is a contradiction I can't quite get my head around. Robert Shaw was quite catagoric that the bullet never entered the chest cavity. It ran down the outside of the 5th rib. Now the problem is that if the bullet exited below the right nipple that would take it inside the chest cavity. As I understand it the position of the nipple is inside the area of the cage.

The press conference on the 23rd Robert Shaw was explicit the bullet was outside the thoracic cage. I have always believed Robert Shaw, but on the other hand I cannot explain how the bullet did not enter the thoracic cage and yet the position of the exit wound suggests it might have.

I simply cannot explain that contradiction and I do not - at present - have the time to work on it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

I am not disputing the fact the bullet stayed outside of the thoracic cavity and did not penetrate the pleural lining. Dr. Shaw made this point very clearly in his testimony.

However, Dr. Shaw also testified that the 5th rib, along the 10 cm. section the bullet was in contact with it (from mid axillary line to anterior axillary line) is very soft and spongy at this point. Given this fact, and the fact there was a stress fracture of the 5th rib far away from the contact point, I can only surmise the pressure of the bullet bowed the 5th rib inwards (ultimately causing the distant non-contact fracture), creating a flatter and more direct path to a point medial to the right nipple, without actually penetrating the rib and the pleural lining.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

In all fairness, perhaps I was a bit hasty to begin calling people liars when I was discussing the conflicting reports of SA Frazier and Dr. Shaw, although I believe I have certainly caught Frazier out on a few whoppers regarding CE 399.

It is confusing, though. Frazier reports an elliptical opening in the back of Connally's coat, 1.59 cm. on the longest horizontal diameter, and Shaw reports a corresponding elliptical wound in Connally's back, 1.5 cm. on the longest vertical diameter.

How do we reconcile these two pieces of information with each other?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

"How do we reconcile these two pieces of information with each other?"

A good and logical question and one that I am sure has gone through the minds of countless researchers who have tread this pathway you currently follow. Don't get me wrong - you are on the right trail. As far as the question goes, it only took me over 15 years to figure it out, and once I had done so I quickly realized that both Robert Shaw and Robert Frazier were correct with their descriptions of the "holes" they saw, be they in cloth or in skin. In truth, it was to a certain extent the old "can't see the forest for the trees syndrome"... it was right in front of me all along.

I am curious as to the "whoppers" you attribute to Robert Frazier regarding CE 399. Can you enlighten me?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Well, how about putting it right in front of me and the rest of the forum so we can see it, too.

About SA Robert Frazier, I am unable to cut and paste on this forum and, for that reason, do not like to post many things here. However, I have a thread over at the Deep Politics Forum that deals with Mr. Frazier, titled "FBI Evidence Proves Oswald's Ammunition was not capable of Sufficient Accuracy to kill JFK".