CYRIL WECHT CLEANS POSNER CLOCK ON ANDERSON COOPER 360!

[Anthony DeFiore]

CYRIL CLEANED HIS CLOCK. PERIOD. SORRY YOU DISAGREE.

CYRIL WECHT CLEANS POSNER CLOCK ON ANDERSON COOPER 360!

http://CNN.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/11/23/ac-panel-conspiracies.cnn.html?iref=storysearch

Dr. Wecht didn't clean anybody's clock. Wecht is just flat-out wrong about several things, including the large fib he told about Governor Connally going to his grave with bullet fragments in his chest, which is dead wrong.....

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in
the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the
Governor's body?"

DR. ROBERT SHAW -- "No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the
X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation."

TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY!

And Dr. Wecht continues to make the absurd claim about the Warren Commission's test bullets that were fired into goat ribs and a human wrist. Wecht HAS to know full well that those bullets did not in any way mimic the flight path of the SBT bullet, because those WC/Edgewood Arsenal bullets did not travel through TWO bodies before smashing into the goats and the human wrist bone.

And yet Wecht, in his passionate arguments, continues to make it seem as if the WC test bullets were an exact duplication of what CE399 is said to have done. That has always been one of Wecht's dumbest arguments. It was dumb in 1986 when he said it at the Bugliosi/Spence mock trial; it was dumb when he brought up those Warren Commission test bullets in 2007 during a radio debate against Vince Bugliosi; and it's just as dumb here in late 2013 as well.

Wecht Vs. Posner on Anderson Cooper 360
(November 22, 2013) (MP3 audio version):
http://app.box.com/s/2b1fgrct3k1ivjjmz8qo

[James R Gordon]

I am very pleased that Gary has posted this Charles Gregory drawing. I have had it for some time but left it to Gary when he wanted to post it or use it.

It is impossible to over emphasise the importance of this drawing. As Gary pointed, Charles Gregory is not suggesting that it was John Connally’s left hand that was injured. He used his own left hand to model the damage on John Connally’s right hand.

Unless there are members who insist on being obstinate, there now can be no dispute as to where this bullet entered John Connally’s right wrist. As I have pointed out above this bullet exited on the Volar side, i.e. the palm side.

Charles Gregory wrote his medical report in the afternoon after he completed his surgery of Connally’s wrist. As I recollect it was written even before Air Force 1 landed at Andrews Air Force base.

The importance of this drawing, especially for L/N’s, is how could the SBT, being fired from the rear, enter this wrist – where Gregory describes it does – and somehow exit through Volar or palm side of the right hand. And of course, at the point this is happening John Connally has the palm of his hand against his chest.

If the SBT is such a clear description of fact ( as L/N’s enjoy informing us ), then it should not be too difficult to explain how the bullet does that before going on to injure John Connally’s left thigh.

James.

[John Crites]

_{the drawing is being made without the fingers and palm in the hat holding position, and the arm not bent in any way}

[Robert Prudhomme]

I am very pleased that Gary has posted this Charles Gregory drawing. I have had it for some time but left it to Gary when he wanted to post it or use it.

It is impossible to over emphasise the importance of this drawing. As Gary pointed, Charles Gregory is not suggesting that it was John Connally’s left hand that was injured. He used his own left hand to model the damage on John Connally’s right hand.

Unless there are members who insist on being obstinate, there now can be no dispute as to where this bullet entered John Connally’s right wrist. As I have pointed out above this bullet exited on the Volar side, i.e. the palm side.

Charles Gregory wrote his medical report in the afternoon after he completed his surgery of Connally’s wrist. As I recollect it was written even before Air Force 1 landed at Andrews Air Force base.

The importance of this drawing, especially for L/N’s, is how could the SBT, being fired from the rear, enter this wrist – where Gregory describes it does – and somehow exit through Volar or palm side of the right hand. And of course, at the point this is happening John Connally has the palm of his hand against his chest.

If the SBT is such a clear description of fact ( as L/N’s enjoy informing us ), then it should not be too difficult to explain how the bullet does that before going on to injure John Connally’s left thigh.

James.

At the risk of being "obstinate", there are a couple of things troubling me with regards to the description of JBC's forearm entrance wound location as "anterior lateral", as is clearly shown in the drawing with the red dot locating the site of the entrance wound, shown below:

There is no doubt that this drawing depicts an anterior lateral entrance wound, and it would be quite possible for JBC to have had his forearm in this position at the moment the SBT was to have occurred. However, there is a problem here, and that problem is that Dr. Gregory, in his testimony to the WC, never described this wound as "anterior lateral". Here is an excerpt from his testimony:

"Mr. Specter. Now what did you observe with respect to the wound on the Governor's wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. I did not have an opportunity to examine the wound on the Governor's wrist until Dr. Shaw had completed his surgical treatment of the Governor's chest wound.

At that time he was turned to his back and it was possible to examine both the right upper extremity and the left lower extremity for wounds of the wrist and left thigh respectively.

The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5 centimeters above the wrist joint.

There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters, something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist crease."

So, he describes the entrance wound as on "....a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the back of the hand..." I am a part time paramedic with BCAS and although I am not nearly as qualified as a teaching surgeon such as Dr. Gregory, I have been taught to accurately describe wound locations. If someone told me the wound was on the "back of the hand" and was on "a dorsal lateral surface", I would be checking the back, not the lateral, surface of the wrist; either directly over the ulna (posterior) or over the radius (anterior). In my opinion, Dr. Gregory is describing a wound with the back side of the wrist squarely facing JBC's chest.

Either way, it does not bode well for Specter's SBT. If the wound was on the dorsal side of the wrist, the bullet could not have come from the rear (JBC's chest) as it would be impossible for him to have his forearm in that position.

If the bullet struck the lateral edge of JBC's forearm (striking the radius bone quite squarely), as Mr. Murr presents to us, what path did it then take to allow it to pass between the radius and ulna bone and exit the palm (volar) side of JBC's forearm in the midline of this surface? Did it pass through the radius? How then did it make a 90° turn to allow it to pass between the radius and the ulna? If so much energy had been robbed from this bullet by striking the radius that it was nearly spent, as we are told by the LN, wouldn't it simply come up against the ulna bone and stop there?

Edited November 24, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Gary Murr]

Hello Robert:

I thank you for taking the time to construct a thoughtful response to my posting. And while it is not my intent to debate the semantics of just what Dr. Gregory stated in the quote you posted - which is from Gregory's testimony session of April 21, 1964 - he did make a somewhat similar statement almost a month earlier on March 23, 1964, during his deposition session with the same Arlen Specter. At that time he phrased his description of the "wrist" wound in this manner:

MR. SPECTER. What did you observe with respect to the wound of his wrist?

DR. GREGORY. I didn't see the wound of his wrist until after the chest operation had been completed, because his arm was covered by the operation drapes, the surgical drapes for the chest procedure.

MR. SPECTER. And when you did have the opportunity to observe the wound of the wrist, what then did you see?

DR. GREGORY. I observed the wound on the dorsal aspect of his wrist, which was about 2 cm in length, ragged, somewhat irregular, and lay about an inch and a half or two inches above the wrist joint. It was a little to the radial side of the wrist area. There was a second wound in the wrist on the volar surface, about a centimeter and a half proximal to the distal flexion crease and this wound was a transverse laceration no more than a centimeter in length and did not gape.

MR SPECTER. When you say on the dorsal aspect, what is that?

DR. GREGORY. In lay terms thats equivalent to the back of the hand.

MR. SPECTER. And the volar is equivalent to what?

DR. GREGORY. The palm surface of the hand. [4H97-98]

I find it interesting that in describing the "wrist" wound of entrance Dr. Gregory while indicating this entrance point was on the dorsal aspect [not dorsal surface] of the wrist the doctor also indicates that this same entrance aperture was a "little to the radial side of the wrist area." Again, we can argue semantics all we want, but my interpretation of this deposition description is an attempt on Dr. Gregory's part to indicate to Specter that the entrance wound was not directly on the dorsal aspect/"back of the hand" -his afformentioned "lay terms" - but rather lay a little on/to the side of the fractured right radius, as Gregory drew it on his post-op note sheet. This description by Dr. Gregory mirrors what the doctor wrote on the same sheet of his handwritten post-op notes, which were constructed in point form and I list them below as he wrote them, complete with the doctors abbreviations etc.:

Op note: -

Open, comminuted fracture of the R radius - distal 1/4 due to missile wound.

- wound of entry 2 cm x .5 cm, oblique, radial, side

- wound of exit 0.5 cm - mid line, 2 cm proximal to flexion crease of wrist

And I agree wholeheartedly with you when you indicate that irrespective of interpretation, John Connally's wrist wound "does not bode well for Specter's SBT." It never did, and it never will. And of course this little discussion is but the tip of the colloquial iceberg when it comes to the wounding of John Connally.

FWIW

Gary Murr

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I see Gary has beat me to replying to you. For me he is the expert in the case. In my opinion no one has a better understanding of the case than him. In his trilogy on the Connally case to be published soon, Gary made this observation.

“During his later testimony session before the Warren Commission, Dr. Gregory was asked numerous questions regarding the size, shape and location of the Governor’s forearm wound, but not a single question requiring a response illustrative of the actual operative procedures followed and the subsequent treatment resulting from the initial operation.”

I believe that has made life very difficult to be detailed in answering the kinds of questions you have raised. Because the WC appear not to have been interested and therefore future generations, like ourselves, who now want these answers are not able to get them.

When I began studying the case in a serious manner, Connally was not serious concern - he was an adjunct to the Kennedy woundings. It was Gary Murrs astonishing generosity to make available to me his Connally research that I began to see a truth that had evaded me until then. The wounding of John Connally is the Achilles heel of the JFK assassination. David Von Pein, who will have read these positing since Gary and I joined this conversation, will not be responding to these points. I like David, but he never discusses the case outside repeating WC cliches. On occasions Gary Mack has e-mailed me about various points often supportive of the official view. I once asked him about some of the Connally points I was making and got no reply. He is happy to go on the media and repeat the same cliches, but will not debate issues outside the mainstream view of the case.

Everybody is happy to repeat the accepted view of the case, but when detail - especially medical questions - are raised these people run a mile. Gary is quite right to point out that the Connally wounding is an "iceberg." So little attention was paid to it none appears to have seen anomalies that were glaring to any serious enquiry. Strange as it may appear, if the case is to be solved, it will be through the Connally wounds.

One thing that has opened up a completely new view, at least for me, on this case is the Nova 2013 point about the Carcarno rifle. Today Gary corrected me. It was the ammunition that was the critical point. He told me "I believe that what this program does indicate, among other things, is that at least in my opinion the results obtained have as much to do if not in total with the ammunition rather than the weapon itself. The 6.5mm ammo manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company is extremely stable in flight with great penetrating power. That, if for no other reason, is one of my main tenets for discarding the SBT. "

I had thought it was the gun, but actually it was the ammunition. I have always argued that the weak point in the SBT are those moments then the bullet travels through the bodies of JFK and John Connally. Well here is another one. Any bullet that can travel through 13 slats of pine, is going to go through two bodies no problem. In addition, not only is it not going to be spent by the time of the thigh wound, it is going to have the power to strike the inside of the car.

Again I see DVP has not entered this aspect of the conversation. But this is a serious problem for the L/N’s. Up till now the L/N’s point was that by the time of the thigh wound this was bullet that had all but spent its force. That is clearly not the case. Because the only serious bone that it struck on its journey was the radius bone, by the time the bullet exited the wrist it would still have a significant proportion of its power.

I will be interested to see what points the L/N’s will make on this issue. In my mind this has serious consequences for the SBT. And I await the L/N’s contributions.

James.

Edited November 25, 2013 by James R Gordon

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Robert:

I thank you for taking the time to construct a thoughtful response to my posting. And while it is not my intent to debate the semantics of just what Dr. Gregory stated in the quote you posted - which is from Gregory's testimony session of April 21, 1964 - he did make a somewhat similar statement almost a month earlier on March 23, 1964, during his deposition session with the same Arlen Specter. At that time he phrased his description of the "wrist" wound in this manner:

MR. SPECTER. What did you observe with respect to the wound of his wrist?

DR. GREGORY. I didn't see the wound of his wrist until after the chest operation had been completed, because his arm was covered by the operation drapes, the surgical drapes for the chest procedure.

MR. SPECTER. And when you did have the opportunity to observe the wound of the wrist, what then did you see?

DR. GREGORY. I observed the wound on the dorsal aspect of his wrist, which was about 2 cm in length, ragged, somewhat irregular, and lay about an inch and a half or two inches above the wrist joint. It was a little to the radial side of the wrist area. There was a second wound in the wrist on the volar surface, about a centimeter and a half proximal to the distal flexion crease and this wound was a transverse laceration no more than a centimeter in length and did not gape.

MR SPECTER. When you say on the dorsal aspect, what is that?

DR. GREGORY. In lay terms thats equivalent to the back of the hand.

MR. SPECTER. And the volar is equivalent to what?

DR. GREGORY. The palm surface of the hand. [4H97-98]

I find it interesting that in describing the "wrist" wound of entrance Dr. Gregory while indicating this entrance point was on the dorsal aspect [not dorsal surface] of the wrist the doctor also indicates that this same entrance aperture was a "little to the radial side of the wrist area." Again, we can argue semantics all we want, but my interpretation of this deposition description is an attempt on Dr. Gregory's part to indicate to Specter that the entrance wound was not directly on the dorsal aspect/"back of the hand" -his afformentioned "lay terms" - but rather lay a little on/to the side of the fractured right radius, as Gregory drew it on his post-op note sheet. This description by Dr. Gregory mirrors what the doctor wrote on the same sheet of his handwritten post-op notes, which were constructed in point form and I list them below as he wrote them, complete with the doctors abbreviations etc.:

Op note: -

Open, comminuted fracture of the R radius - distal 1/4 due to missile wound.

- wound of entry 2 cm x .5 cm, oblique, radial, side

- wound of exit 0.5 cm - mid line, 2 cm proximal to flexion crease of wrist

And I agree wholeheartedly with you when you indicate that irrespective of interpretation, John Connally's wrist wound "does not bode well for Specter's SBT." It never did, and it never will. And of course this little discussion is but the tip of the colloquial iceberg when it comes to the wounding of John Connally.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Hello Gary

To this point, I had not read Dr. Gregory's post-op notes, in which he had written "wound of entry 2 cm x .5 cm., oblique, radial, side". This is somewhat of a revelation, as it is in direct contradiction to the testimony he presented to the WC. Describing a radial wound (wound to the radius bone) as "side" can only be interpreted as an anterior lateral wound to the radius.

Just to be clear, a doctor describing the "dorsal aspect" of the wrist translates to the same thing as the dorsal surface being described. Dr. Gregory confirms this by equating the dorsal aspect to the back of the hand, in lay terms, and by locating the dorsal wound "a little to the radial side of the wrist"; still placing the wound well onto the dorsal surface. Actually, "a little to the radial side of the wrist" is quite an understatement, considering the bullet struck the radius square on. How could the bullet possibly get closer to the radial side of the wrist than that?

Seeing contradictions between the post-op notes and the testimony given to the WC by Dr. Gregory reminds me of how many doctors, and other medical personnel, described a large gaping wound to the right rear of JFK's head in their first day notes and remembrances, only to have their memories "improve" by the time they testified to the WC.

As we both see quite clearly, locating the wrist wound in the dorsal lateral or anterior lateral area of JBC's wrist makes no difference; upon close examination, both locations present impossibilities for Specter's SBT.

[Chris Newton]

Robert,

Seeing contradictions between the post-op notes and the testimony given to the WC by Dr. Gregory...

I've been commenting for years that a lot of the testimony we have was conducted improperly by lawyers who could clearly direct witnesses down whatever path they desired. I've also commented specifically that the Spector/Gregory transcript is especially shameful. He was asked to comment on procedures he did not perform and every time Spector proposed an implausibility, Gregory's comment was "It's possible".

[Bjørn Gjerde]

Here is a composite of the pre-operative X-ray and Gregory's drawing, with both oriented as seen from the dorsal aspect of Connally's right arm.

Here is a recent exhibition of Connally's clothing.

Exhibit to show Connally's clothing when JFK shot

http://news.yahoo.com/exhibit-show-connallys-clothing-jfk-shot-210915107.html

Bjørn Gjerde

[Robert Prudhomme]

I was hoping the exhibit would include JBC's Stetson hat. Any idea what became of it?

[Bjørn Gjerde]

This is supposed to be Connally's hat

Bjørn Gjerde

[Blair Dobson]

Robert,

Seeing contradictions between the post-op notes and the testimony given to the WC by Dr. Gregory...

I've been commenting for years that a lot of the testimony we have was conducted improperly by lawyers who could clearly direct witnesses down whatever path they desired. I've also commented specifically that the Spector/Gregory transcript is especially shameful. He was asked to comment on procedures he did not perform and every time Spector proposed an implausibility, Gregory's comment was "It's possible".

good point...moreover, the quesions that "weren't" asked are just as shameful..

[Blair Dobson]

I was hoping the exhibit would include JBC's Stetson hat. Any idea what became of it?

Personally, I'd like to see his leg..I joke

[Blair Dobson]

for posterity

what is this hole in pic above?

I wonder if any B.S.T...err SBT braniacs care to discuss "tumbling bullets" here...

Edited November 25, 2013 by Blair Dobson

[Gary Murr]

Connally_hat.jpg

This is supposed to be Connally's hat

Bjørn Gjerde

Hello Bjorn:

Actually there is no "supposed to be" about the image - it is Connally's hat. What you have posted is an enlargement from one of two images taken by a local Dallas newspaper reporter/photographer. [i want to indicate it was Jack Beers, but I do not have my file in front of me at the moment; I am sure that Gary Mack will correct me on this if wrong]. This same reporter noticed the hat on a coat rack/tree in the corridor/hallway outside of Jessie Curry's office. The images were taken at approximately 8:00 p.m. CST on the evening of November 22, 1963. Curry confirmed for this same reporter that it was indeed Connally's hat. I do have the entire images in a file somewhere and if I can find them later I will post them. In 2004 I exchanged correspondence with a former member of Connally's staff who indicated that the hat was returned to Connally after his return to Austin from PMH in December of 1963. It was also indicated to me that Connally had the hat cleaned and is holding it in his hand in the infamous LIFE image from the 1967 "Why Kennedy Went To Texas" issue, but I have been unable to confirm this as true. What the photograph does appear to indicate is that the hat has no visible damage to it - i.e. "bullet" holes, something that this same employee stated was his observation as he handled the hat. However, as your enlargement does show, the hat is speckled with blood; whether this is the blood of John Connally or is from the fatal impact to JFK's head is not known.

Gary Murr