Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 520
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I must take issue with the locating of the entrance wound in Connally's back by those presenting evidence to the WC. Unwittingly or otherwise, this deception continues to be perpetuated, and I cannot let this continue.

I believe Dr. Shaw stated, in his post operative report and in testimony to the WC, that this entrance wound was an elliptical wound approx. 1.5x.5 cm. in size. I also believe Shaw stated, in his testimony, that the orientation of this elliptical wound was horizontal, unlike the vertical wound shown in the WC diagram, and that this statement was magically edited from his testimony, as often happens in the course of one sided commissions.

The horizontal/vertical orientation of the wound is critical to defining its true location. The location of the entrance wound in the WC diagram makes the path the bullet followed an impossibility. The wound is depicted as missing the lateral margin of the scapula (shoulder blade) by no more than 1 or 2 mm. If the bullet had entered the Governor's back at this point, one of several things would have happened:

1. If Connally had been turned to his right at all, and the shot came from behind the limo, the bullet would enter his back and be on a course 90° to the posterior section of Connally's 5th rib. It would have easily gone through the 5th rib and entered his right lung, contrary to the path Shaw described that followed the outside of the 5th rib.

2. If Connally was facing straight ahead, and the shot came from behind, the bullet could also have penetrated the posterior of the 5th rib and entered the right lung. It could have contacted the 5th rib at the mid axillary line, as Shaw testified but, because of the point of entry, it could not have followed the right to left course through the outside of Connally's chest wall described by Shaw, without making a sharp and unwarranted left turn.

3. If Connally had been turned to his left at all, and the shot came from behind, the scapula would have occluded the 5th rib from the path of the bullet, and the bullet would have passed only through the flesh of the outer chest wall.

4. If 1 & 2 had been the result of a shot fired from the west end of the TSBD, we once again have the problem of the bullet contacting the 5th rib at its posterior end, instead of at the mid axillary line (side of the chest), and very likely penetrating the rear of Connally's right lung.

The only way Connally could have suffered the right to left wound of the lateral and anterior chest wall, as described by Shaw, is if the bullet entered Connally's back much further from the shoulder blade, and toward the armpit, than the WC evidence diagram claims. Surprisingly, the only possible location for this entrance wound is right where Dr. Shaw said it was; "It was just medial to the axillary fold or the crease of the armpit..." On a two dimensional WC drawing, there does not appear to be much space between the crease of the armpit and the shoulder blade yet, in truth, the chest wall curves through this area, and "just medial to the crease of the armpit" is still quite a distance from the shoulder blade.

As I stated, the chest wall begins curving to the front between the shoulder blade and the armpit, and because of this, the path of the bullet would be approaching an almost parallel course to the side of the chest wall. Would such a tangential strike here not produce a horizontally elliptical wound, closely matching the horizontal scar described by Dr. Michael Baden, who was allowed to view Connally's back in 1978?

We have been duped and, more importantly, I believe Dr. Robert Shaw was duped, by a fast talking lawyer named Arlen Specter. The location of the entrance wound on Connally's back, and its horizontal/vertical orientation, was changed to try to make it fit the SBT.


The drawing you posted, Bernice, is a disgrace, and should not be allowed on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites


The drawing, that you refer to as a disgrace, is not a drawing. It is a 3D object I constructed on a very expensive and accurate 3D anatomical model. The program it was created in is Cinema 4D.

Second, it is not a disgrace. lt was created in 2012. If I were to create it now - or return to it later as I may well do next year - yes there are changes I am likely to make.

Third. the description you ascribe to it, is just your opinion and no more than than.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernice and James, thank you for posting the images of CONNALLYS clothing although interesting, it is not what I am looking for.

I am searching for an image of the displaying back of CONNALLYS shirt, it would be best to see it on a mannequin similar to the photograph in link of the front of the shirt.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Here is an image of the back of the shirt. I believe it is also one of Gary Murr’s images.

There is a B&W one where Robert Shaw has circled this same area and signed it. You should find that easily on the Internet.

As Gary has commented a number of time the jacket damage may be horizontal in nature, however this damage is on an incline. If memory serves me correctly the angle of the damage to the back of the shirt is very similar to the angle to the damage to the front of the shirt.

I do not believe there an image of the back of the shirt on the mannequin. Also note in mind that those images are from 2013. There is significant changes to the damage on the shirt by that time. Gary's images from 1999 are excellent quality. However even there, there are quite significant wear and tear on the clothes compared to 1963.

Back of Shirt:-



Link to post
Share on other sites


Gary asked to me upload these three images from 2013. He points out that he believed they were taken at the Texas State Archives in Austin, though he is not positive about that. As far as he knew there unfortunately was no photograph taken of the entire shirt on the mannequin as viewed from behind

First Image:-


Second Image:-


Third Image:-



Link to post
Share on other sites


My comments/responses to some of your statements in Post # 302, this thread, below in blue:

"I also believe Shaw stated, in his testimony, that the orientation of this elliptical wound was horizontal, unlike the vertical wound shown in the WC diagram, and that this statement was magically edited from his testimony, as often happens in the course of one sided commissions"

Though potentially possible, in this particular instance I believe it is highly unlikely and in the case of the PMH doctors and their deposition and testimony statements I know this not to be true. I spent a considerable amount of time during one of my visits to NARA examining record file 272.2.3, "Records Relating To Testimony" which contain, among other things, transcripts and stenotyped notes of all testimony and deposition sessions conducted in 1964 by all members of the Commission staff, in essence the raw materials from which the 26 volumes of the WC record was produced. It was as a result of this search that I was able to confirm, again among other things Ii was seeking, what I had always believed to be a transposition error in the March 23, 1964 deposition session of Dr. Charles Gregory. In responding to a Specter question on this date regarding why he, Gregory, felt the missile responsible for the Governor's wrist wound travelled from "back to front" as published at 6H98 the Gregory answer was; "In attending this wound it was evident early that clot had been carried into the wound from the dorsal surface to the bone and into the fracture." I had felt based upon his post op report and his handwritten notes that what Gregory had actually indicated to Specter in March of 1964 was that "cloth" not "clot" had been carried into the radial wound site and my examination of the original transcript/steno notes verified my suspicions. Now this is a minor instance, but one I felt I had to resolve. I can only tell you that in examining these same records for Shaw, Gregory and Shires, I found no examples of changed, omitted or manipulated testimony.

Regarding your four point scenario of "impossibility" of bullet path through the Governor's thorax based upon the positioning of the rear wound entry site on the WC diagrams, I can only add that I do agree with the bulk of your assessments. However, because we do not know the precise position of the Governor at wounding impact we, almost of necessity, are forced to speculate which is fine provided in doing so one buttresses their conclusions with some attempt at evidentiary feasibility, as you do in this thread. It is difficult, in particular in attempting to analyze the relationship of the scapula to the rib cage at the moment of wounding impact. My examination of drawings in medical texts, as well as study of countless hundreds of available X-rays that show the relationship of the rib cage to the scapula, X-rays in turn that do include varioius types of rib fractures, leads me to believe that your statement that the scapula just possibly may "occlude" the passage of the wounding bullet onto the 5th rib, in particular as you have indicated with the Governor turned to his left could be in error. When you examine drawings and X-rays of the scapula/rib cage, as I assume you must have done, do you not feel that the point of initial contact of the wounding bullet that struck Connally, at the lateral mid-point of the 5th rib, actually sits "below" the basal section of the right scapula? Again, ones answer to a question such as this is based in their belief of the Governor's position at wounding impact. I think it is important to remember that in constructing his immediate post-operative report on his repair of this wound site, Robert Shaw as very specific when he indicated that the point of entry was lateral to the right scapula and close to the axilla. As you are aware the axilla is a pyramidal shaped space, that depressed hollow region located under your shoulder joint, medial to your upper arm - most commonly referred to as one's "arm pit." In essence, and as you have clearly indicated, Shaw is agreeing with you, in the sense that he is clearly indicating that the wounding bullet did enter at a point away from the scapula, very near the arm pit, just catching aspects of the latissimus dorsi muscle bundle, which as I recall is a muscle grouping that is vertically transposed/positioned on the rib cage over the serratus anterior muscle groupings. And you are further correct in stating the restrictions/limitations imposed upon the Parkland doctors because of the use of the two-dimensional standard anatomical drawings onto which they originally did approximate the locations of the wound sites, drawings that were in turn re-traced onto "new" diagrams, which in truth were not new, by Roger Warner of the SS. Where we disagree is in your assessment that Dr. Shaw was somehow "duped" by Arlen Specter, for I don't know that this is/was the case. I can tell you from my two exchanges with Dr. Shaw that he was not a big fan of Specter's but that was merely his opinion. FWIW


Edited by Gary Murr
Link to post
Share on other sites

"....I found no examples of changed, omitted or manipulated testimony."

If testimony had been deleted, or omitted, or erased, or just plain disappeared, how would you be able to find an example of it, especially if it was made to look as if it never existed?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, one certainly couldn't argue with this "logic!" Therefore, tell me who, specifically, and in your words, "changed...the location of the entrance wound on Connally's back, and its horizontal/vertical orientation...to try to make it fit the SBT." Obviously you must know specifics, name, date, just what was changed. I know I can't. You do realize that the only changes made to the anatomical drawings presented to them were made by Connally's physicians from PMH, changes necessary because of transposition/tracing errors [purposeful?] on the part of SS SA Roger Warner. And I can only assume that in truth when you look at these changes, in particular comments by Robert Shaw regarding the steepness of the angle "through' the anatomical representation of Connally's thorax you realize that these changes do little, if anything, to support the emerging SBT. And I must further assume that having read closely the testimony of doctors Shaw and Gregory that you comprehend that they really did not believe in the validity of the SBT, regardless of how Specter presented it to them. Was Dr. Shaw "duped" by Arlen Specter? I doubt it, in fact it appears to me as though he and his colleagues acquitted themselves quite well in the face of the hypothetical rats nest of narratives presented to them. All I was attempting to indicate to you is that errors did occur between deposition/testimony and stenographic notations on the way to the completion of the Commission's final end product. However, in my opinion, and it is only my opinion, it is virtually impossible to "prove" that testimony was made to "disappear" but if you have proof of same and can show me where it occurred with anyone who gave deposition or testimony before any member of the Commission staff I would be grateful. Don't get me wrong for I know that members of the Commission staff, basically lawyers all, did all they could in many instances to sweep the truth of November 22, 1963, as far under the proverbial rug as they could. William Manchester perhaps said it best in his construct of The Death Of A President: "Of course, no one can ever root out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is a game lawyers play. There is something touching about their naive assumption that one gets the full story by putting a man under oath. In practice you get very little of it. Anxious not to perjure himself, the witness volunteers as little as possible. The President's Commission on the Assassination was dominated by attorneys. Their record shows it. Their deposition of minor witnesses were remarkably brief."

Link to post
Share on other sites


In the WC Exhibit the arrow is pointing directly at the man to the right side of "OSWALD", if this is NOT LOVELADY, can anyone provide conclusive proof of the identity of who this person was?

It would seem that my case of OSWALD on the steps is based on this man at the end of the yellow line being LOVELADY, can anyone prove this is not LOVELADY by revealing the true identity of the man in the short sleeved shirt shielding his eyes?

Conclusive proof.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...