The T3 back wound

[Cliff Varnell]

Jon G. Tidd on another thread posted

<quote on>

The document Burkley signed saying "T3" -- what document was that? The death certificate?

If it was the death certificate, it would be admissible into evidence at a trial of JFK's murderer(s).

I don't know, however, whether Burkley's 'T3" notation would be admissible. The answer is probably yes IMO if Burkley's notation either was required or was a standard practice. The answer is probably no otherwise (hearsay).

<quote off>

Yes, the Death Certificate filled out by Adm. Burklely was signed off as "verified."

Using the spine as the fixed anatomical landmark follows proper military autopsy protocol.

[Mark Knight]

I deleted the other thread on the back wound, as requested by the member who started that thread.

So any discussion can now be directed here.

[Cliff Varnell]

I deleted the other thread on the back wound, as requested by the member who started that thread.

So any discussion can now be directed here.

Thank you, Mark!

[Robert Prudhomme]

I deleted the other thread on the back wound, as requested by the member who started that thread.

So any discussion can now be directed here.

Thank you, Mark.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Posted Today, 02:43 AM

Robert Prudhomme, on 13 Jul 2015 - 10:25 AM, said:

Kenneth Drew, on 13 Jul 2015 - 02:23 AM, said:

Robert Prudhomme, on 12 Jul 2015 - 9:04 PM, said:

Cliff Varnell, on 12 Jul 2015 - 6:45 PM, said:

Robert Prudhomme, on 12 Jul 2015 - 6:25 PM, said:

What if the autopsy doctors had already been told what type of bullet had entered JFK's back, and this discussion about "ice bullets" and such was merely a show for the FBI agents and other witnesses present at the autopsy?

No, I'd be embarrassed to think such a thing.

The autopsists put on a little show?

Researcher, please!

Are you aware that the x-ray tech at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest, and when Custer and his assistant were not present, and that Custer believed an extremely limited number of people were present when these organs were removed?

Did Sibert and O'Neil witness the removal of the chest organs?

They didn't write it up if they did.

I concede the point -- perhaps the round was removed prior to the autopsy witnessed by Sibert & O'Neill.

Cliff

I have a theory about the back wound, and the bullet that caused it. You see, I believe SA Sibert was on the right track when he phoned to find out about a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize". Unfortunately, he was taken in enough by Humes' act concerning the "shallow" back wound to be able, in his mind, to follow to a logical conclusion what effect a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize" would have in a wound.

Such a bullet is called a "frangible" bullet. It is constructed usually of a copper alloy jacket with a core made from compressed powdered lead, in a heat process known as "sintering". If not sintered, the powdered lead (or other metal) can be bonded together with a glue. Whatever the method, the bullet is designed to enter soft tissue (or a skull) making only a small entrance wound.

A lethal frangible bullet also has a hollow point on its nose, and this hollow point is key to making this bullet disintegrate after travelling only 2 or 3 inches in soft tissue. Once it enters semi- liquid tissue (lung, brain) the semi-liquid fills up the hollow point and, due to immense hydraulic pressure inside the nose caused by the velocity of the bullet, exerts an enormous pressure on the compressed powdered metal core. Long before the bullet can exit the other side of the chest (or skull), it will disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that comes to an instant stop inside the wound.

This sudden stop and transfer of 100% of the bullet's energy to surrounding tissue is completely devastating, and likely had the effect of breaking every pumonary artery in the top of JFK's right lung. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, it is because he likely was. He had not only just lost 50% of his breathing capacity with the collapse of his right lung, there was also likely blood quickly flowing through the bronchi into his left lung and impairing its ability to transfer oxygen.

While a frangible bullet could be explained away, in a head wound, as a full metal jacket bullet that behaved oddly and broke up, such was not the case with the back wound. The long slender FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet is very stable, and capable of tremendous penetration in flesh. An FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet entering JFK's back at 2000 fps, at the level of T3, was more than capable of going through JFK (exiting midway down his sternum), the jump seat and Connally, and possibly having enough legs to still wound Kellerman.

If JFK appears to be choking at z224, It's likely because he had been shot in the throat.

Seriously, you read that entire post, and that is the only comment you can come up with?

I've read all that several times. I just wanted to point out that there is no mystery about why he grabbed his throat, it's because a bullet had just gone through it.

But I will add, that I think he was hit in the back with a bullet that didn't penetrate very far, probably a dud and it likely fell out or was taken out before the autopsy, while all the other modifications were going on. As far as your frangible bullet theory, could have happened though you would think a lot more damage would have shown up.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken

You realize that you cannot prove he was "clutching his throat" (in actuality, his hands were balled into fists NEAR his throat and were not clutching at all), no more than I can prove he wasn't. As long as we all agree that certainties such as this are impossible to prove, I'm sure we will all get along just fine.

Now, as far as your belief the back shot was caused by a dud, let's examine this a little more closely.

The 6.5mm Carcano allegedly used to kill JFK has a muzzle velocity of around 2200 feet per second (fps). When test fired by the FBI using WCC ammunition, C2766 was found to have a muzzle velocity of 2165 fps; not bad for a rifle in the condition it was in.

Assuming the back shot occurred between z210 and z224, a distance of less than 50 yards from the shooter, the bullet would still be travelling at about 2000 fps. At this velocity, the 162 grain FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet, a very long and unique bullet with an unusually thick jacket, had the potential to go through JFK's chest, the seat in front of JFK, through Connally, the seat in front of him, and still have enough "oomph" left to hurt Kellerman.

Now, my question to you is this. If you say the bullet was a "dud", I assume you mean there was a failure in the cartridge this bullet was fired from, and that this bullet's velocity was severely reduced.

In order to penetrate JFK's back only an inch, what velocity do you believe this "dud" bullet was travelling when it struck JFK?

P.S.

The damage caused by the frangible bullet would have all been in the top of JFK's right lung. There is medical evidence showing damage in this location, and a pulmonary condition known as a "tension pneumothorax".

Edited July 14, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

I love this forum. As soon as anyone challenges one of the accepted "facts" in this case (ie. the "shallow" back wound on JFK) he is met with complete and utter silence.

It's not just a matter of thinking outside of the box, you have to know where the box is to begin with.

[Mark Knight]

I've been reading the testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck over the past couple of days. Speaking before the HSCA, with questions coming from other doctors, he briefly mentions the lung area damage...but doesn't give any real details, and changes directions on a dime when the topic is mentioned. The main thing I got out of his HSCA testimony was that the autopsy doctors were ORDERED not to dissect the wounds in the torso. Quite odd for an autopsy, in my opinion... While the cause of death was most obviously the head wound, one would think that it would be prudent to dissect any other wounds that might have helped determine whether the "theory," that there was only a single shooter firing from above and behind, could be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robert, I think your theory has "legs"...but beyond that, my knowledge is quite limited. I haven't seen any xrays of JFK's chest, so I can't speak of that which I haven't seen.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've been reading the testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck over the past couple of days. Speaking before the HSCA, with questions coming from other doctors, he briefly mentions the lung area damage...but doesn't give any real details, and changes directions on a dime when the topic is mentioned. The main thing I got out of his HSCA testimony was that the autopsy doctors were ORDERED not to dissect the wounds in the torso. Quite odd for an autopsy, in my opinion... While the cause of death was most obviously the head wound, one would think that it would be prudent to dissect any other wounds that might have helped determine whether the "theory," that there was only a single shooter firing from above and behind, could be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robert, I think your theory has "legs"...but beyond that, my knowledge is quite limited. I haven't seen any xrays of JFK's chest, so I can't speak of that which I haven't seen.

Hi Mark

Interesting that the autopsy doctors would say they were ordered not to dissect the wounds in the torso, yet they removed the organs in the torso. Did they keep their eyes closed as they removed the lungs?

As I said before, the x-rays of JFK's chest would not reveal much, as Jerrol Custer told the ARRB the lungs and heart were removed prior to his taking x-rays of the chest.

[Cliff Varnell]

I've been reading the testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck over the past couple of days. Speaking before the HSCA, with questions coming from other doctors, he briefly mentions the lung area damage...but doesn't give any real details, and changes directions on a dime when the topic is mentioned. The main thing I got out of his HSCA testimony was that the autopsy doctors were ORDERED not to dissect the wounds in the torso. Quite odd for an autopsy, in my opinion... While the cause of death was most obviously the head wound, one would think that it would be prudent to dissect any other wounds that might have helped determine whether the "theory," that there was only a single shooter firing from above and behind, could be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robert, I think your theory has "legs"...but beyond that, my knowledge is quite limited. I haven't seen any xrays of JFK's chest, so I can't speak of that which I haven't seen.

Hi Mark

Interesting that the autopsy doctors would say they were ordered not to dissect the wounds in the torso, yet they removed the organs in the torso. Did they keep their eyes closed as they removed the lungs?

As I said before, the x-rays of JFK's chest would not reveal much, as Jerrol Custer told the ARRB the lungs and heart were removed prior to his taking x-rays of the chest.

What if Custer mis-remembered?

Tough to pin certainty to a scenario relying on one person's statements.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I have never seen a murder case with so much "mis-remembering" taking place within the space of one day.

Honestly, don't you think the very odd fact that the chest organs were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest would stand out very clearly in Custer's memory, for the simple fact the reason for taking chest x-rays was to try to locate and bullets lodged in the chest organs?

[Cliff Varnell]

I have never seen a murder case with so much "mis-remembering" taking place within the space of one day.

I feel ya.

I hate the way witnesses are bashed.

I'm not gonna bash Custer -- I'd rather emphasize the importance of redundancy.

The only scenario I'll hang on a single witness is Glenn Bennett's account of the back wound, his movements corroborated by the Willis 5 and Altgens 6 photos. Bennett said the shot hit "the Boss" about 4 inches down from the shoulder -- the bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the collars.

Honestly, don't you think the very odd fact that the chest organs were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest would stand out very clearly in Custer's memory, for the simple fact the reason for taking chest x-rays was to try to locate and bullets lodged in the chest organs?

I don't ascribe infallibility to any individual.

Due to the vagaries of human nature, the uncorroborated account of a single individual doesn't rank Certainty.

Sibert & O'Neill signed off on Humes' discovery the shallow wound.

Redundancy...

Edited July 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell