Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Tom Neal]

I'm agreeing that the wound in the back and the throat wound are separate wounds produced by different shooters.

I'm trying to ascertain what scenario would allow a shallow back wound to JFK and simultaneously a devastating

deep wound to JC, which I presume is also a shot fired at JFK but a miss.

I don't have a "unified" theory that covers all shots, but IMO there were at least 4 shots, and at least 2 shooters. I am undecided as to the order and intervals of these shots, but as you say, if the JFK and JBC back wounds occurred simultaneously then it would of course require two shooters from the rear. I think the two corners of the TSBD are likely candidates. I am convinced of the following wounds and directions:

From a frontal shooter:

1. JFK throat wound

2. JFK head wound

From a rear shooter:

3. JFK back wound

4. JBC back wound

Then we have either a round, (or possibly a large fragment) that hits the upper frame of the windshield and another round hits Tague's curb.

The only way I can account for all these is two shooters at the rear and one from the right front.

The above do NOT account for the Tague curb shot OR the windshield dent, both of which would have to come from the rear, because I haven't given enough thought as to how they fit in with the shots I've listed. I think it's possible that JFK was also hit in the head from behind. Fragments from this shot could have hit the windshield and/or Tague's curb. I don't think a whole bullet hit the curb, or the windshield. IMO unless passing through something else first, a whole bullet would have done more than just dent the windshield. Credible witnesses have also reported a shot hitting the pavement behind the Limo and ahead of the limo. Could a 5th shot account for Tague, the windshield and the street hits?

Sorry, but at the moment I can't give you a better answer than this.

[Chris Newton]

Tom,

Almost agree 100% on all counts except that the windshield frame hit appears to be a well rounded deep dent in the chrome, most likely not a fragment. The JBC wound is more of a side wound than a back wound. I don't think there's any way the windshield frame miss could also be the Tague curb hit.

The point I'm trying to convey is that the nature of the shallow back wound compared to the penetrating JBC wound would require:

a, a shooter from the rear firing two different types of ammo

b. two shooters firing different weapons/ammo

c. Lifton's theory that this the back wound was created post assassination

In my opinion the evidence for "b" is the number of rear shots fired, misses and hits.

note that I'm not addressing the front shooter in the above, just identifiable probable rear shots.

edit: comma dyslexia

Edited November 5, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Tom Neal]

Tom,

Almost agree 100% on all counts except that the windshield frame hit appears to be a well rounded deep dent in the chrome, most likely not a fragment. The JBC wound is more of a side wound than a back wound. I don't think there's any way the windshield frame miss could also be the Tague curb hit.

As I stated, I haven't devoted adequate time to the windshield, Tague, and shots that hit the street yet, so your input is appreciated.

The point I'm trying to convey is that the nature of the shallow back wound compared to the penetrating JBC wound would require:

a. a shooter from the rear firing two different types of ammo

b. two shooters firing different weapons/ammo

c. Lifton's theory that this the back wound was created post assassination

In my opinion the evidence for "b" is the number of rear shots fired, misses and hits.

a. I agree this seems almost absurd. You'd have to predict which shots you were going to take and when...

b. Of course, different shooters might prefer different ammo for the same job, but IMO these guys had specific orders as to how their assignment would be carried out. Including weapons and ammo. I am convinced that the throat wound and back wound bullets did not exit, so it seems they were frangible bullets. I'm ready to be convinced otherwise given the proper evidence.

c. DSL made that decision back in "Best Evidence" and I have ENORMOUS respect for his work on that, but I'm not ready to decide whether he's correct or not.

Speaking of further research regarding the back wound, have you read my post #358? If you don't mind, I'd like your take on whether Carrico himself thinks a bullet hole in JFK's back "should" have been discovered (as recently stated by DSL) during his "hands on" back inspection. Meanwhile, I am working to compile 'all' of the evidence pro or con that is available as to whether the back wound was seen before or at Parkland or should have been seen there.

Tom

[Chris Newton]

Speaking of further research regarding the back wound, have you read my post #358? If you don't mind, I'd like your take on whether Carrico himself thinks a bullet hole in JFK's back "should" have been discovered (as recently stated by DSL) during his "hands on" back inspection.

When did they remove his clothing and brace? Apparently it was given to SS before he left Parkland because JFK showed up at Bethesda naked, right? It would seem to me that whomever removed these items had to have rolled him (if he was lying face up) to each side several times or had him on each side long enough to remove jacket, shirt and brace. This individual or presumably individuals would have had ample opportunity to see his back. Even if I was an orderly or nurse, and I found something important I'd want to show someone in authority.

As far as Carrico's feeling goes, it's hard to say. Too bad there's no audio, the way someone says something is often more telling than a transcript.

[Tom Neal]

When did they remove his clothing and brace?

Per Carrico and nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe, Caricco was in the Trauma Room when JFK arrived. His first action was to check for a heartbeat. He detected heartbeats so they removed his clothing to allow further examination.

Apparently it was given to SS before he left Parkland because JFK showed up at Bethesda naked, right? It would seem to me that whomever removed these items had to have rolled him (if he was lying face up) to each side several times or had him on each side long enough to remove jacket, shirt and brace. This individual or presumably individuals would have had ample opportunity to see his back. Even if I was an orderly or nurse, and I found something important I'd want to show someone in authority.

If you look at the photos of the clothes you can see that the sleeves are slit full length, they state that they cut the tie off to one side of the knot. They may have raised the body slightly, but they essentially just slid the clothing and brace out from under his body. Both nurses were assigned to the Trauma Room so I'm sure it happened quickly.

Per Bowron's testimony, after the clothing was removed it was placed on a shelf. When JFK was pronounced dead, the clothing and brace was bagged and handed to Bill Greer who had arrived with JFK and remained in the Trauma Room until the body was placed in the casket. I wonder why *he* was chosen to remain in the room?

Considering the fact that Greer, Burkley, and a dozen or more doctors were all in that tiny room, anyone could have examined the clothing.

As far as Carrico's feeling goes, it's hard to say. Too bad there's no audio, the way someone says something is often more telling than a transcript.

After replying to Specter's questions regarding the back exam, when Carrico states there "certainly" could have been a back wound, following this with "there's no way to tell" I was convinced that this indicated that there may been an undetected back wound. I don't feel it's absolutely conclusive, but it is strong evidence that Carrico believes a back wound was possible.

I'm curious what you think Carrico may have meant by this reply?

[Chris Newton]

If you look at the photos of the clothes you can see that the sleeves are slit full length, they state that they cut the tie off to one side of the knot. They may have raised the body slightly, but they essentially just slid the clothing and brace out from under his body. Both nurses were assigned to the Trauma Room so I'm sure it happened quickly.

I guess there's no "too morbid" line to cross here considering the discussion... so I doubt you can just "slide" the clothes out from beneath a dead guy. It's not like your doing some trick with a tablecloth.

I'm curious what you think Carrico may have meant by this reply?

It sounds like he's making excuses. Ultimately it was their job to try save his life, if in fact he was still alive, and it would seem to me that finding all the wounds would have been paramount. Once it was determined he had passed there wasn't any point in further examination because I'm sure they assumed that was the coroner's role.

[Sandy Larsen]

I think I can read CENTIMETER on the left. Prob can count the divisions. Might be possible to actually identify the ruler by the markings.

edit add: I counted the divisions and found 5 measured as 2.5 cm (WYSIWYG) 100% zoom on my screen. So, scaling up the image to 200% gives an image pretty much to scale at 100% zoom. So saving it as PDF using PosteRazor enables printing a full scale poster.

Counting the marks on here, I find there are roughly 30 markings made in centimeters. As there are 2.54 cm. to the inch, 30 cm. divided by 2.54 = 11.81 inches.

John D., thanks for posting this photo of the ruler. It will come in very handy.

Robert, your count of 30 divisions corroborates my belief that it's a 30 cm ruler. We can also see a chamfer on each corner that needs to be taken into account. In addition, I believe there is a tiny margin from the point of chamfer to the zeroth division mark.

Be careful using the ruler as a guide, though. The center of the picture is at the middle of the four fingers. The further away from that you get, the more the divisions will be compressed due to perspective.

There can be no doubt that the markings are spaced a centimeter apart and not an inch. The problem is that I cannot see the marks well enough on the left half of the ruler to count them all. And distortion due to perspective prevents me from extrapolating over the left half.

I'm pretty sure the ruler is a 30 cm one.

I think my analysis stands.

I have come to the same conclusion that it is likely a 30cm ruler.

Can you re-state your results as to how far apart the 'bullet hole' in the back (per the photo) and the holes in the jacket and shirt are?

IF you are interested in further measurements you MAY find the reference points stated in Boswell's HSCA testimony of interest:

Tom: I'll redo my analysis, taking this new information into account, when I can find the time. BTW, your link appears to be broken.

I'm also going to try and find what the standard metric size is for shirt buttons. The collar is unusually narrow... did somebody say it is a French design? That same person had a name for this style of shirt. Does anyone recall that? (I will look for it if nobody recalls.)

[Sandy Larsen]

The throat to back wound suffers from the same problem as the SBT's back to throat wound; that being the vertebrae are in the path of such a trajectory.

That seems reasonable, but I'm not so sure after looking for a clear path using this online three-dimensional skeleton:

http://www.3dtoad.com/human_skeleton_torso.php

If you rotate the torso just right, you can see a clear path from between the second and third ribs of the back to the throat area above the sternum. It appears to me that there is even a larger path between the third and fourth ribs.

[Sandy Larsen]

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often?

Count me as skeptical.

I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel.

With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

There is a fatal error with your throat-entrance-back-exit idea.

You may be right that such a rotation may give you a clearance - though I doubt it. Robert is on very sound ground pointing out the impediment of the spinal column.

However there is a further impediment. If the source of the shot is from the north of the plaza then the direction of the bullet would be towards the left side of the body and not the right. Only a shot from the south of the plaza would allow the bullet to continue in a rightward direction.

Put simply. Say the source of the shot was from the GK then - even if it actually avoided the spine - it would exit on JFK's left side and not his right side.

[Sandy Larsen]

At the moment I rate GB's testimony as reasonable, while I continue to explore the statement that "if the back wound was real, it HAD to have been observed at Parkland." Really? The doctors did NOT have the opportunity to see it, so their lack of confirmation means nothing. The nurses may have had the opportunity to see it, but I've heard no reason as to why they would be looking for additional wounds, and in their Q&A testimony with Specter, the only time it's certain that he specifically asks is in reference to removing JFK from the limo.

Margaret Hinchcliffe/Henchcliffe stated in an interview 30 years later, that she observed the back wound. Now due to the time interval this may be questionable, IF it's counter to any statements she previously made. I have yet to find anything in her Q&As where she was specifically asked if she saw any additional wounds when they cleaned blood off the body. This statement is not conclusive, but is evidence favoring the back wound. It shouldn't be totally dismissed as some are doing.

I'm with you on this Tom. I agree that we shouldn't discount the back wound as being real just because those preparing the body for transport either didn't see it, or saw it but didn't make it a point to bring it to the authorities' attention.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thank you, Ron Ecker #338. "...military man who told David Lifton..." When I read that, I knew it was at the back of Best Evidence, and my copy fell open to one of the many dog-eared pages. Chapter 29, The Assertion of Adm. David P. Osborne, p 645. 2nd P: "The HSC reported Osborne's assertion that he 'thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table; at the outset of the autopsy.'" The next page Osborne stated, "I had that bullet in my hands."

p590 is the first appearance of "The Osborne Allegation." I believe; haven't had time to go over it much.

Whenever I hear of an intact bullet just falling or rolling out of JFK or his clothing, or Connally, the phrase "planted evidence" flashes in my mind. What are the odds that a bullet cleanly pierces the flesh (or clothing) on the way out and just happens to stop right there. I'm sure it happens... but how often?

Count me as skeptical.

I think it's more likely, in this throat-to-back trajectory theory, that the bullet exited Kennedy's jacket, went through the back of his seat, into the trunk. Where it could hit something much more likely to stop it... steel.

With so much blood all over, I can see how nobody spotted the hole in the seat.

It would be interesting to know where a throat-to-back shot would have originated from.

[Sandy Larsen]

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but you seem to be hostile to this neck-to-back trajectory theory. Nearly all the objections and points you make could likewise be applied to the theories you're seriously considering yourself. I didn't see you making these objections about those.

Sandy,

I'm not hostile to the "neck to back" trajectory. I'm stating that you and others are dismissing the back to front trajectory by stating evidence that allows EITHER to be true. For example, as I said, no one has come up with a believable path for a wound from back to throat, but you are perfectly content that a track exists in the opposite direction. There are pros and cons for each, so I do not understand why you are immediately accepting a back exit as a revelation. Where did the bullet go if it exited the back?

And yes, AFTER your immediate acceptance of the back wound as exit, you asked where the bullet went. Isn't this a considerable weight of evidence AGAINST a back exit?

But there is a huge difference between a front-to-back trajectory and a back-to-front trajectory that eliminates the latter from consideration. And that is, for the back-to-front trajectory to occur, the shooter would have had to shoot into the back of the limo (and hope it hits Kennedy). Isn't that right? In addition, I think he'd have to be lying on the ground, or at least kneeling.

I suppose there could have been a shooter inside the trunk of the vehicle.

As for where the bullet went after the throat-to-back shot, I suggested elsewhere that it went through the back of the seat into the trunk of the car.

[Roy Wieselquist]

Egg is on my face. Literally because I'm eating breakfast. And figuratively because my first post on this topic, #319, I said it was SS Win Lawson who was on the front-right running board of the follow-up car who said he saw a "spray of water come OUT the boss's back." Now, someone said this but it wasn't WL because he was riding shotgun beside Jesse Curry in the lead car.

In the follow-up car: Sam Kinney driving, Emory Roberts beside him. On the right running-board: Jack Ready in front of Paul landis. The two DPD motorcycle police on the right of the limo: James M. Chaney inboard and Douglas L Jackson outboard. I am certain one of these lawmen said, and I think repeatedly, that he saw a spray OUt of JFK's back right above the seat-top. I'm having a heck of a time tracking this down.

Ron Ecker, you remember it was a military man who told David Lifton about the bullet that rolled out of our dear Jack's clothes at the start of the Bethesda inquest; which bullet disappeared. RE, you helped me track that down. Any ideas who it was looking right at JFK's back and reported a spray out? Muchos gracias

[Roy Wieselquist]

Robert Prudhomme #372: That shot had to come from fairly high up to the front-LEFT. The elevation of the RR tracks south of the overpass or an elevation high up in the Postal Bldg. I used to think there was a lone boxcar on the closest spur to DP at the far left side of that RR bridge, which would fit the direction, but I haven't been able to find it in pictures since. I thought a complete Nix film where he pans the plaza from left to right showed this boxcar. The postal bldg is actually too much to the left of JFK for that shot unless he turned quickly that way, which I've never heard that he did. But then at Z190 he was behind the Stemmons sign, right?