The Connally Memory and Verifiable Established Fact

[Chris Davidson]

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.

Hi James,

84.1ft high @25 degree angle (Shaw) will give you a slant distance of 199ft matching CE884's entry for frame Z235.

West End Rooftop

chris

[Gary Murr]

Robert, et al:

I believe you will find the answers to the questions posed in your latest post in this my third and final narrative post on the subject matter we have examined over the past few days. We therefore return to one of the true conundrums facing any researcher interested in not only the wounding of John Connally, and particularly the more severe wound of the thorax but also those who question and test the validity of the SBT. And though I openly admit that this was one area of the Governor's wounding that confounded me for many years, my search for the eventual answer had, as it turns out, its genesis is a simplistic question posed to Dr. Robert Shaw during his March 23, 1964 deposition session in Dallas at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Followers of this thread should remember that in my second posting I examined Shaw's answer's to questions posed of him during his March, 1964 deposition session by Commission Counsel, Arlen Specter. I indicated that during this same deposition session Shaw was confronted with a series of exhibits previously introduced into evidence earlier on that same date, March 23rd, exhibits that bore the name of "Dr. Gregory." I further took a brief look at the exchange between Specter and Shaw when Shaw was shown Gregory Exhibit/ Drawing Number One. The first error that Shaw pointed out to Specter on this particular exhibit was the doctor's opinion that the wound of entry as shown on the exhibit was, to "scale larger than the actual wound..." or diagrammatically depicted in this instance in this manner on this specific exhibit. As a result of this Shaw statement, Specter asked Shaw to in essence rectify the error of "scale"/size by drawing, in his own hand and above the right shoulder on the anatomical face sheet, how the wound of entry had actually appeared to Dr. Shaw at the time he first observed it. As the Commission's published record thereafter stated, "The witness, Dr. Shaw, complied with the request of Counsel Specter," and the rest, as we are want to say, is history. In his compliance Dr. Shaw did draw the roughly elliptical/ovoid shaped wound of entry in the vertical plane, an exercise he was to repeat more than once during his lifetime. But it was the Specter request that Shaw draw this same wound as it "appeared" to the good doctor at the time he first saw this same wound site that is the key.

Just when did Robert Shaw first see the entry wound on John Connally's right, rear back/shoulder area? It is probably safe to assume that most would have thought that this occurred when Dr. Shaw first saw John Connally, which was in Trauma Room Number 2 in the Emergency entrance area of Parkland Hospital, in the words of Dr. Shaw at about 12:45 p.m., CST or roughly 15 minutes after the Governor's wounding. And while it is true that Shaw did see and briefly introduce himself to Connally at this time, he did not see the entry wound on Connally's back. As he indicated to Arlen Specter during their March 23, 1964 deposition session, when he, Shaw, arrived in the trauma room he "found Governor Connally lying on a stretcher..." in this same trauma room. And though it is not specifically stated as such by Shaw, there would appear no doubt that the Governor was lying prone on his back. The only wound site that Dr. Shaw ever mentioned in answering questions concerning his first meeting with Connally was that wound of exit on the Governor's chest, a wound that had been appropriately covered with an occlusive "heavy dressing" to which manual pressure was being applied. Beyond this and the noting of an anteriorly positioned drainage tube hooked to a bottle, another emergency measure that had been introduced in an effort to aid the Governor's breathing through the partial re-expansion of the collapsed right lung, Shaw made no comments concerning the rear wound of entry - for the simple matter that he did not observe this wound site at this time.[6H84] And in truth, Shaw did not see the actual wound of exit, only the dressing covering this same location. As he was to phrase it one month later during his testimony session in Washington before members of the Commission, when directly asked by Specter what wounds he, Shaw, had observed on Connally when he first saw him, Shaw replied, "I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time."[4H103] And as his answer to this same question continued, Shaw revealed that it wasn't until his second meeting with Connally in the operating room - OR # 5 - that he finally observed all of the physical attributes of the wound sites.

The key to why Robert Shaw drew the entry wound on the Governor's "back" as he did, in the words of Arlen Specter, at the first time Shaw observed this same wound, is the position the Governor was in on the operating table at the time Shaw first saw the wound. Not being an individual possessed of any acute medical knowledge prior to my beginning the lengthy study of the Governor's wounding I undertook, and having in turn never witnessed a thoracotomy of any nature, I had assumed that the Governor was lying approximately face down at the time the observation and eventual repair of this entrance wound site occurred. However, as I was to learn, nothing could be further from the truth. I do not want to annoy the reader with intense medical terminology in this narrative but the wounding of John Connally generated the creation of an open pneumothorax, the result of a penetrating wound of the chest that created a communication between the pleural space and the open environment. Because the size of the defect produced exceeded two-thirds the size of the Governor's tracheal diameter, air passed preferentially through the lower resistance injury [wound] tract rather than through the normal airways. The Governor's thoracic wound site also exhibited what the doctors repeatedly referred to as a "sucking wound" of the chest wall which resulted [classically and in textbook fashion] with the lung on the affected

side of the Governor exposed to atmospheric pressure, which resulted in a collapsed lung and a shift in the mediastinum toward the unaffected side. Dr. Shaw and his colleagues therefore undertook to repair this wound site and the related others. However before any scalpel penetrated the Governor's skin he was "manipulated" - the word used by Dr. Shaw - into the proper operating position. And what is that position?

It was best described by Dr. Giesecke in his report to Parkland Memorial Hospital Administrator, J. C. Price, a document dated November 25, 1963, a report in turn that was dictated at 8:45 a.m on that same date. To wit and after the Governor had succumbed to sleep via the administration of 800 cc of cyclopropane per minute accompanied by 2 liters of oxygen per minute, "The Governor was placed in a semi-lateral position with the wounded side up. The right arm was supported in a sling over his chest from the operating table. The skin incision was made at 1335, 55 minutes after arrival in the Emergency Room."[20H6] Dr. Giesecke's use of the term "semi-lateral" for the Governor's position, importantly with the wounded side up so that it would face any surgeon looking down at the patient on the operating table, is in keeping with the recommended technique of having the patients body placed at roughly an angle of 60 degrees in relation to the operating table surface. The key point of course is the observation noted that the Governor's right arm was positioned such that it was supported over and above his chest away from not only the operating table but obviously out of the way of Dr. Shaw as he began the serious endeavor to repair the most severe of the Governor's wounds, that of his right lung, etc. What this re-positioning/stretching of the Governor's arm did was to effectively change the appearance [not position] of the wound of entry near the right scapula, pulling the skin of and surrounding the actual horizontal ellipse of entry upward to the point that it was no longer appeared oriented horizontally but rather visually presented an aperture possessing a vertical orientation. One must keep in mind that this aperture of entry was relatively small, in Dr. Shaw's words approximately 1.5 cm in length. And one must also remember that Dr. Shaw did not physically see this wound, which he correctly assessed as the lesser of the two thoracic concerns, until the Governor had been "manipulated" into his semi-lateral position with his right arm extended up and away from his chest, effectively "over" his head. Therefore when he was asked to draw the wound at the time he first observed it, he faithfully drew what he saw. An ellipse possessing a longest diameter of 1.5 cms.

Though I tested this hypothesis on the thorax of friends, by drawing a small horizontal ellipse of approximately 1.5 cms on males roughly 6 feet tall and weighing 200+ pounds and then proceeding to position them as described not only by Dr. Giesecke but as illustrated in various medical texts that dealt with the process of surgical thorocotamy, and noted the change in the appearance of the shape of the ellipse, I sought further "proof" if you will of what was my interpretation of the physical evidence and documented record of the Governor's operative procedures. And I found it within the records of the HSCA. When I read Dr. Shaw's original handwritten notes of his operation on the thorax of Governor Connally, the notes from which he dictated the final typed version that survives as Warren Commission CE 392, I was initially puzzled by his description of the procedure of closure that he used for the rear thoracic wound of entry. In this report he indicated that he closed the surface skin "with interrupted vertical mattress sutures of black silk." Why if I was correct would a surgeon close a horizontal aperture that had been surgically enlarged to roughly twice its original size with vertical sutures? Was this not indicative of a vertical aperture of entrance? The answer, as any surgeon would know, was of course no. Surgeons can and do close horizontal apertures with "vertical" sutures and in truth the physical process of suturing, vertical or horizontal, is in many instances strictly the preferred choice of the surgeon who does the operation. A close reading of Dr. Shaw's operating procedures reveals that he clearly preferred the vertical suturing process. But as I read and re-read all that I could about Dr. Shaw and his surgical procedure, documentation that ranged from his multiple handwritten notes that are part of the Governor's complete medical history to his sessions of deposition and testimony with the Warren Commission and the HSCA, I was surprised to learn that at no point in any of this documentation was there a record that described the scar tissue left behind as a result of this same operation and closure of the rear wound of entry. But it did exist and it is in the records of the HSCA, a point noted above.

On September 6, 1978, Dr. Michael Baden, head of the HSCA's medical panel, met with John Connally in room 772 of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D. C. And though the Governor indicated that he and his wife and other members of his entourage had to rush to catch a plane, he was cooperative and in a meeting that lasted approximately 20 minutes the Governor removed his shirt and allowed Baden to physically examine the Governor's various scars left as a result of his wounding and surgical procedures of November 22, 1963. Dr. Baden's description of the wound of entry on the Governor's back is revealing: " On removing his [the Governor's] shirt, it was readily apparent that at the site of gunshot perforation of the upper right back there is now a 1-1/8-inch long horizontal pale well healed scar that is up to 3/8 inch wide centrally, with a lateral border slightly lower than the medial border (about 5 degrees)". Therefore if the wound of entry on the Governor's back had been oriented vertically, and this same original vertical aperture that measured initially 1.5 cms was further enlarged during surgery to the point that it became approximately 3 cms in "vertical" height, would the surviving scar tissue not present itself to any interested observer as a 1 and 1/8 inch long vertical pale well healed scar? An inch and an eight - 1-1/8" - converts to 2.8125 cms, a value that is extremely close to Dr. Shaw's estimate of the length of the excised wound of entry on the Governor's back; it was after all, an estimation, based upon 1000+ thoracic surgeries Shaw had been part of that involved gunshot wounds. And there would be no doubt that the scar tissue would have shrunk slightly after the passage of 15 years of time since the repair at this wound site was completed.

In summation; I contend that the original bullet wound of entry that was present on the "back" of John Connally was an aperture situated in a horizontal plane, not a vertical plane, and offer as "proof" documentation that is part and parcel in the Governor's surviving medical history.

[James R Gordon]

Thanks Gary,

That is an extremely detailed and informative piece of writing. I understand your position much better after reading this.

Up till now I would have returned to my belief that Connally had to be upright when injured. You have given me reason to challenge that.

I am going to have to seriously reflect on all you have said.

James.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

Just a couple of minor technical corrections before I get to discussing the entrance wound. First, you correctly described an open pneumothorax or "sucking" chest wound. An occlusive dressing was applied to this wound but there would be no need to apply pressure to this dressing. The idea of the occlusive dressing is merely to seal the opening in the pleural cavity, and allow air to enter the affected lung instead of entering the pleural cavity, and a good adhesive tape is more than adequate for this. A tube was also placed, likely in the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib at the mid-clavicular line, and connected to a water seal bottle. The purpose of the chest tube and water seal bottle was to prevent the open pneumothorax, with the application of the occlusive dressing, from developing into a "tension" pneumothorax. If there had also been a penetrating wound through Connally's right lung, every time Connally inhaled, part of the air would pass through this opening into the pleural cavity. As he exhaled, the partially collapsed lung would seal the hole, and the air would be trapped in the pleural cavity, creating a "closed" pneumothorax which can develop into a "tension" pneumothorax. With each breath, the amount of air grows, eventually creating enough pressure to impair the function of the heart and unaffected lung, and potentially killing the patient. This situation is made worse with assisted ventilation, as air enters the lung at greater than atmospheric pressure. However, with the insertion of the chest tube, air pressure in the pleural cavity escapes, and cannot build to dangerous levels or volumes. The water seal bottle merely prevents air from returning the opposite direction into the wound.

For an example of a modern dressing we use that combines the occlusive dressing with a one way valve that replaces the water seal bottle, try Googling "Asherman Chest Seal". It is a rather ingenious device, utilizing a flattened rubber tube that opens under pressure from within, but immediately seals once pressure is released; maintaining the seal on the pleural cavity.

As Connally had both an occlusive dressing and a chest tube, his condition would have remained at being a closed pneumothorax. He would not, as you said, had a mediastinum (or trachea) shifted towards the unaffected lung, as this is a sign of a tension pneumothorax, and is a result of the inflating of the pleural cavity on the affected side.

"Vertical" and "horizontal" blanket stitches are simply two different methods of suturing wounds, and the names have nothing to do with the orientation of the stitches with the vertical or horizontal planes of the body. The difference between the two stitches is the alignment of the two parallel threads that make up each stitch. In the vertical stitch, one thread is above the other in the wound opening, while in the horizontal stitch, the two threads are side by side.

I put a 1.5x.5 cm. "wound" on my wife in the same location as Connally's back wound, using a felt pen and ruler. Try as I might, I could not find a position for the arm that would transform her "wound" from horizontal to vertical.

I'm afraid I also am doubtful of your argument that an experienced surgeon, such as Dr. Shaw, would confuse the orientation of the wound simply because it was "stretched" out of position. Would he have sewn this wound together in the stretched position? Would that not present some difficulty in aligning tissues? Your argument puts me in mind of the LN argument that PH doctors mistook the location of JFK's gaping head wound, simply because they confused the top of his head with the back of his head, due to the fact JFK was lying down.

The incongruity between Shaw's and Frazier's observations may not be that hard to explain, though. It is not as though Connally's suit coat was painted onto his skin, and we have no idea of the orientation of Connally's back with the material of his coat, allowing an opening in the material and a wound in Connally to be the same size yet elliptical on different axes.

Strangely, the vertical wound described by Shaw would have worked better for the conspirators, as this wound would seem to be further in from the armpit, and diminishes the left to right angle the bullet followed. A horizontal wound would seem to be closer to the fold of the armpit, exaggerating and increasing the angle. Lord only knows what happened, but things like this have always made me believe the coverup was hastily thrown together, almost in a panic, and not nearly as organized as some of us believe.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

Hello Robert:

I currently am not in a position to access my files on John Connally, but will briefly answer your "corrections" on my previous posting on this topic. Well it is all well and good to reiterate nomenclature from medical texts which define or outline "classic" or "normal" definitions of an open pneumothorax wound, and treatment therein, I am afraid in this specific instance I will rely upon the two individuals most familiar with the pneumothorax injury suffered by John Connally - doctors James "Red" Duke and Robert Shaw. As you should be aware, it was Red Duke who initially dealt with Connally and began the procedures both you and I have described previously in this thread. And as you should also be aware, Dr. Duke was never deposed or given the opportunity to offer testimony before any officially sanctioned body given the task of unravelling what happened on November 22, 1963. This was indeed unfortunate for as his multiple pages of handwritten notes clearly indicate, no one spent more time with John Connally during his recuperative stay at Parkland Hospital than James Duke. Nonetheless, to your first point of correction; from the November 22nd dictated report of Dr. Robert Shaw [and I also possess this sentence in Shaw's own handwriting in his post-operative notes from which his report was dictated]; "In the EOR a sucking wound of the right chest was partially controlled by an occlusive dressing supported by manual pressure." I specifically discussed this point with both doctors Duke and Shaw when I spoke to them in 1991-1992 and Dr. Duke in particular reiterated that pressure was applied to this dressing, beginning in the Emergency OR and maintained during the elevator ride to the OR theaters, in this specific instance OR # 5. I will not discuss any further your accurate descriptions of the purpose and location of among other things the "stab" wounds, and there were more than one, utilized to insert chest tubes which in turn were linked up to water seal bottles. Suffice to say that I spent a considerable amount of time over the years of research I put into the Connally wounding studying all of these related medical procedures, be they pre-op, immediate post-op, and the various procedures and follow-up examinations that occurred during the fourteen days the Governor was at Parkland, leading up to his release on the morning of December 5, 1963. Again if one is to understand all of this, in totality, the 30+ pages of handwritten notes generated by Shaw, Gregory, Shires, Duke and all of the doctors, nurses and orderlies who attended to John Connally are invaluable.

I am very aware of the difference between the procedures of "vertical" and "horizontal" mattress suturing and again this is something that I specifically discussed with Dr. Shaw. And in essence you have got it "right" when you asked if a surgeon of such consummate skill as Robert Shaw would have applied the stitching to the entrance aperture with the skin "stretched" in the vertical plane - because he did not. And that is the whole point of the explanation for the appearance and orientation of the scar tissue left behind as a result of the doctor's suturing, something that occurred after the Governor's arm was manipulated back to a near supine position in preparation for the surgery of Dr. Gregory - a scar oriented in a horizontal plane rather than a vertical ovoid/ellipse as the doctor drew, a faithful and accurate reproduction of the appearance of the wound site when he first observed it. And on a personal level, I am basically insulted that you would throw me into the camp of the LN's simply because I have proffered an explanation for the incongruity of the appearance of the Governor's rear wound of entry because, I suspect, that it does not agree with your as yet to be offered explanation. Don't get me wrong, as I am not naïve enough to believe that there possibly are, and have been offered, other reasons for this same incongruity of appearance, and the precise positioning of all of the Governor's clothing is but one of these possibilities. The problem confronting us, of course, is that we do not know precisely how the clothing was situated at the time of thoracic wounding impact. All we do have is the fact that the apertures as they exist now on the clothing, and existed 50+ years ago and as they relate to the "entrance" wound, are aligned horizontally, not vertically.

FWIW

[Robert Prudhomme]

I cannot comment on how occlusive dressings were applied in 1963, as I was only six years old at the time, but I can give you an insight as to how they are applied today. I am a part time paramedic on our town's ambulance service, and have received extensive training on the treatment of pneumothoraces; open, closed and tension. As I stated earlier, the Asherman Chest Seal is the state of the art method of sealing an open pneumothorax AND providing one way relief of built up air in the pleural cavity. This dressing relies on an adhesive bond, and requires no manual pressure to stay in place. If an ACS is unavailable, we make an occlusive dressing from a small square of polyethylene plastic, applying it over the wound and taping it to the thorax on three sides, leaving one side open (preferably a downhill side for drainage). When the patient inhales, the "sucking" chest wound pulls the poly tight to the chest, sealing the wound and allowing expansion of the lung. When the patient exhales, the poly seal is released, and any built up air volume in the pleural cavity escapes out the untaped side of the poly. Essentially, we make an occlusive dressing that does double duty as a pressure relief valve.

I am a little mystified as to why it was necessary to apply manual pressure to Connally's occlusive dressing. Is it possible the adhesive tapes in 1963 were inadequate to hold a piece of poly in place? Or was polyethylene plastic simply nowhere near as available in 1963 as it is today? Whatever the case, this is the first time I have ever seen or heard of an occlusive dressing on an open pneumothorax requiring direct manual pressure. One would think direct pressure over a lung would impair its inflation, and defeat the purpose of applying the occlusive dressing.

I still don't quite follow you on how the wound went from a vertical orientation to a scar on the horizontal plane. If it were sewn together with no stretching of the wound, would it not return to being the vertical wound Shaw observed? And I apologize for comparing you to members of the LN camp. However, my experiment on my wife's back showed no distortion of her "wound" from vertical to horizontal no matter what position I placed her arm in, and I simply refuse to believe Shaw simply made a mistake in observing the elliptical orientation of Connally's back wound.

Just out of curiosity, is it possible the wound was 1.5x.5cm. on the vertical plane, and it was the .5 cm. dimension Shaw opened up to a dimension of 3 cm., during the exposure of the entire wound track for debridement? Once exposed to that dimension, is it also possible he chose to suture the wound by bringing the upper and lower sections together, thus leaving a 3 cm. horizontal scar?

Edited October 13, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

Hey Robert:

You raise a very good point regarding Shaw's closure of the rear wound site and I will have to go back and dig out my notes from my interviews with him. Unfortunately we had a fire in the apartment we were living in at the time and my old cassette tape of my Shaw and Duke interviews, among others, basically got melted. Fortunately I had my version of "shorthand" notes which I had compiled at the time and though they suffered some water damage, I was able to salvage them! I also agree that the passage of some 50 odd years since this event has seen some changes in the way that occlusive dressings are applied etc. Again, I will look at the handwritten notes of the Parkland personnel. In the final analysis I just don't buy an argument that whatever the makeup was of the entering bullet that it was tumbling upon impact and this is the sole reason for the vertical nature of the Shaw drawing. And yes, it seems highly, highly unlikely that a surgeon of Shaw's skill would make an observational error of this nature.

Thanks

[Robert Prudhomme]

I agree with you that the chances of the bullet tumbling upon entering Connally's back are slim to none. So much evidence points to a bullet travelling straight and true, the LN camp has to rely upon a poorly informed public to maintain their fantasy of a tumbling bullet in the SBT.

Has Dr. Shaw, in his handwritten notes, always maintained the orientation of the wound was vertical, as he described it in his testimony to the WC? The reason I ask is that it would seem to me that having an elliptical wound on the vertical axis would be very advantageous to those pushing the SBT, as opposed to a horizontal wound. A horizontal wound would imply, to researchers, a bullet that struck at the extreme outside margin of the thorax, basically where the arm and thorax would touch, if the arm were pressed against the thorax. An entrance wound at this point, and an exit wound medial to the right nipple, would very obviously describe an angling bullet path from right to left. It would make it impossible for a bullet passing through JFK's neck to be the bullet that caused Connally's wounds, unless Connally was turned to the right at the moment he was hit in the back. A vertical wound, OTOH, would imply a bullet that struck on a flat surface of the back, much closer to the scapula (shoulder blade), much reducing the perceived left to right angled path of the bullet. The vertically elliptical wound could then be blamed on either a tumbling bullet or on the downward angle of the path of a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

As Connally does not begin any kind of turn to the right until z237, and JFK is clearly reacting to his wound(s) at z223, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is these men were struck with different bullets.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I am enjoying and learning from this conversation you are having with Gary.

One comment I would make from trajectory analysis I undertook, is that any chance that Connally could receive this chest wound - from the Oswald window at 223/4 - he would need to be seated facing forward.

You suggest he needs to be turning right. As he turns to his right the position of the entrance moves away from the TSBD and moves more towards the Daltex and the Records.

By the 230's - as you correctly identify as a period when he is turning to his right - the car has rotated to its right as a consequence of the turns in Elm Street and further complicating the position of the entry wound.

James.

[Robert Prudhomme]

James

Just out of curiosity, what angle are you using as the lateral angle from the SE corner of the TSBD to the midline of the limo at z223/224?

[Gary Murr]

I agree with you that the chances of the bullet tumbling upon entering Connally's back are slim to none. So much evidence points to a bullet travelling straight and true, the LN camp has to rely upon a poorly informed public to maintain their fantasy of a tumbling bullet in the SBT.

Has Dr. Shaw, in his handwritten notes, always maintained the orientation of the wound was vertical, as he described it in his testimony to the WC? The reason I ask is that it would seem to me that having an elliptical wound on the vertical axis would be very advantageous to those pushing the SBT, as opposed to a horizontal wound. A horizontal wound would imply, to researchers, a bullet that struck at the extreme outside margin of the thorax, basically where the arm and thorax would touch, if the arm were pressed against the thorax. An entrance wound at this point, and an exit wound medial to the right nipple, would very obviously describe an angling bullet path from right to left. It would make it impossible for a bullet passing through JFK's neck to be the bullet that caused Connally's wounds, unless Connally was turned to the right at the moment he was hit in the back. A vertical wound, OTOH, would imply a bullet that struck on a flat surface of the back, much closer to the scapula (shoulder blade), much reducing the perceived left to right angled path of the bullet. The vertically elliptical wound could then be blamed on either a tumbling bullet or on the downward angle of the path of a bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

As Connally does not begin any kind of turn to the right until z237, and JFK is clearly reacting to his wound(s) at z223, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is these men were struck with different bullets.

Actually Robert, if you read all of Robert Shaw's testimony and deposition sessions carefully he never describes the orientation of the wound of entrance, at any point in time. That being the truth, the concept that the wound was oriented in a vertical plane vs a horizontal plane exists only because of the drawing generated by Shaw. But again the point I feel must be kept in mind when attempting to analyze this same drawing is that Shaw drew the wound as it appeared to him when he first saw the wound, which as I previously described was with the Governor in a semi-lateral position, on his left side at roughly a 60 degree angle, with his right arm and its fractured distal radius suspended above his head and away from his body. Shaw was consistent in describing the wound as roughly elliptical in shape/appearance with the "greatest diameter" being approximately 1.5 cms, but again he never refers to this "greatest diameter" as presenting itself in either a vertical or horizontal plane. And to return to a point you made in posting # 96 this thread I agree that had Dr. Shaw sutured this wound of entrance closed as he did with the aperture in a "non stretched" or relaxed position the resulting scar tissue should have presented itself in a vertical plane if it had been a vertical aperture of opening in the first place. But it did not. As Dr. Baden indicated, the scar was a "horizontal pale well healed scar" that some 15 years after the wounding basically matched the excised approximation of 3 cms testified to by Dr. Shaw. What I also find curious in the Baden description is his note that the lateral border of this scar tissue was slightly lower than the medial border. My interpretation of this is that if one were to view this scar with the Governor standing erect and you in turn were viewing it from the side or facing the Governor's right side, the scar tissue path would present as appearing tilted ever so slightly upwards, back to front, toward the medial/"center" point of the Governor's torso. However, if the Governor were laying on his side and you again viewed this scar tissue would the tissue tract now not appear to be traveling slightly right to left?

[Pat Speer]

Robert,

I am enjoying and learning from this conversation you are having with Gary.

One comment I would make from trajectory analysis I undertook, is that any chance that Connally could receive this chest wound - from the Oswald window at 223/4 - he would need to be seated facing forward.

You suggest he needs to be turning right. As he turns to his right the position of the entrance moves away from the TSBD and moves more towards the Daltex and the Records.

By the 230's - as you correctly identify as a period when he is turning to his right - the car has rotated to its right as a consequence of the turns in Elm Street and further complicating the position of the entry wound.

James.

FWIW, the Warren Commission re-enactment of 5-24-64 led them to conclude Connally was out of position to receive his back/chest wound after Z-225, should the shot have been fired from the sniper's nest. This is one of the main reasons they went with the single-bullet theory, IMO.

[Mark Knight]

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.

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I am was not talking about the kind of points you are Gary are discussing. I simply placed the car in the correct position and placed the two models - JFK and Connally - in their correct positions.

I led a pointer from the Oswald window to the JFK back entry. In this experiment I was not even concerned where such a bullet would exit on JFK's body.

Next I extended the Connally pointer backwards. I was curious whether it would come anywhere near the Oswald window. As you can see it sourced somewhere between the the Daltex and the Records.

This is the point I was trying to make. The more Connally is turned to his right the more the source of the shot moves away from the Oswald window.

The only way to link the JFK wound with the Connally wound is to distort it and have the bullet travel through Connally's chest and exit close to his heart - as Myers and Bugliosi do.

Now I accept that - as you have stated before - the Connally pointer is not perfect but it is sufficiently accurate to make my point.

The image below is what I refer to as the twin trajectories. The wounds for JFK and Connally - were they both to be struck at 223/4 - source from two different points.

James

[Robert Prudhomme]

Gary

I understand what you are saying. One question comes to my mind, does no one find it odd that Shaw, in his meticulous description of Connally's back and chest wounds, neglects to state the orientation of the elliptical wound?