Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Roy Wieselquist]

Tom Neal #415: "source for this exchange" between Kennedy and Greer at Love Field before the parade --- I'm almost positive it's in the generally execrable Jim Bishop's The Day K Was Shot, pronounced "shat" in snotty Eastern Establishment-ese. I have my heavily annotated copy right in front of me, and since the book is strictly chrono, it would be relatively easy to find it. Ten minutes tops, 10 min. I don't have at the moment. Within a couple hours though, I promise I'll get that to you. I feel bad that I've been so slack on sources while you guys are like walking reference books.

Bishop never missed an opportunity to give a detail to point out what he thought illustrated JFK's patrician hypersensitivity. My favorite of his that points out the opposite---when K arrived at the FT. Worth hotel around midnight, the air-conditioning was going full-blast. Mind you, this was a month before winter solstice and after midnight. I imagine it was about 55* in that room. So Jack "snapped" to turn the damn thing off and open a window. (p 30 "Get that damned air conditioning off") That man was Mother Nature's Son.

James #416: "pictures of the procession from Love Field...back seat... was always in the down position." Yes. President Kennedy ordered the seat lowered as soon as he first sat in it. That Kennedy was sensitive to Connally's feelings--I doubt it. The man was a professiona satirist. As Jonathan Swift noted, "Satire is the refuge of a pure heart."

Edited November 8, 2015 by Roy Wieselquist

[Chris Davidson]

Roy,

Jackie and Jack entering the limo at Love Field.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwrExtVD005OSUctamRYWTFZU0U/view?usp=sharing

chris

Edited November 8, 2015 by Chris Davidson

[Sandy Larsen]

I didn't realize that if you say somebody misunderstood you, that this means you are blaming them for the misunderstanding.

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..."

When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B":

1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding."

2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication

An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by:

1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault

2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault

3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault

4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault

5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument...

To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not.

e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why."

Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B".

This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK."

Well, as I said before, I believe the word "misunderstand" merely denotes a case of Person A saying X and Person B interpreting it as Y, without regard for where any blame belongs. After all, how can one determine whether Person A said what he did clearly enough, or Person B didn't listen carefully enough? And even if one could, what purpose would be served in doing so? Just to point fingers?

My attitude in general is that pointing to people's mistakes in interpersonal relationships serves no useful purpose. People make mistakes... that's life.

Anyway, now that I know someone might take offense at the word "misunderstand," I will try to use it more carefully.

Dictionaries are wrong -- Got it!

Surely you know that the meaning of a word often has subtle differences depending upon the ethnicity, ancestry, customs, norms, etc., of the locality where it is used.

Where I grew up, "spring fever" meant that you were lethargic. Where I later lived it meant the opposite... that you were energetic. And different dictionaries at the time gave different definitions.

In college, we used the word "moot" to mean something was irrelevant. Yet the dictionary I had defined it as debatable.

I'm sure dictionaries have improved since then, but I'm also sure that subtleties remain.

Anyway, the meaning of "misunderstand" as I gave it is how I learned it. If you want to know precisely what I meant, you should use my definition. If you choose to continue using your definition for what I was trying to say, then there is nothing more I can do.

[Tom Neal]

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and

one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head.

At the present time that appears to be the most likely scenario, IMO.

I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull.

All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction...

Absolutely agree on that point. Considering the stated issue at autopsy of multiple bullet wounds that did not exit, and no bullets in the body it's almost impossible to consider any FMJ bullets. Personally, I can't come up with any reason for Greer's actions other than he wanted JFK dead. If so, it would take a lot of guts to be in the limo with the target. Perhaps he was assured that only the BEST marksmen would be used, and they would use bullets that would not exit. Also, they were probably reluctant to take out the Connally's and Jackie.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple...Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot... ...my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places.

The pressure wave propagating inside the virtually spherical skull would produce equal pressure on all parts of the skull, thus the weakest part would fail first. If, as you propose, the shot to the back of the head occurred prior to the front shot, the weakened skull would fail at the rear entry point.

[Sandy Larsen]

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back. That part never came. So I re-read your theory and saw the following paragraph of yours:

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Is this paragraph the place where you're telling us what happened to the bullet to the back? That is, as part of your theory, are you saying that the fragments from the bullet to the back "ranged downwards in JFK's torso," and some fragments from the EOP bullet went down to T3/T4? (BTW, I don't know if I can refer to frangible pieces/powder as fragments. But you know what I mean.)

If so, that strikes me as odd. That fragments from one bullet (EOP) end up "replacing" fragments I expect to see (at T3/T4) from a different bullet (T3). (I hope you know what I mean by that.) Not impossible... just a bit of a twist.

If not so, please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

[James R Gordon]

Tom Neal #415: "source for this exchange" between Kennedy and Greer at Love Field before the parade --- I'm almost positive it's in the generally execrable Jim Bishop's The Day K Was Shot, pronounced "shat" in snotty Eastern Establishment-ese. I have my heavily annotated copy right in front of me, and since the book is strictly chrono, it would be relatively easy to find it. Ten minutes tops, 10 min. I don't have at the moment. Within a couple hours though, I promise I'll get that to you. I feel bad that I've been so slack on sources while you guys are like walking reference books.

Bishop never missed an opportunity to give a detail to point out what he thought illustrated JFK's patrician hypersensitivity. My favorite of his that points out the opposite---when K arrived at the FT. Worth hotel around midnight, the air-conditioning was going full-blast. Mind you, this was a month before winter solstice and after midnight. I imagine it was about 55* in that room. So Jack "snapped" to turn the damn thing off and open a window. That man was Mother Nature's Son.

James #416: "pictures of the procession from Love Field...back seat... was always in the down position." Yes. President Kennedy ordered the seat lowered as soon as he first sat in it. That Kennedy was sensitive to Connally's feelings--I doubt it. The man was a professiona satirist. As Jonathan Swift noted, "Satire is the refuge of a pure heart."

Roy,

Chris Davidson has pointed you to a movie clip that shows the car and the position of the back seat prior to him entering.

Here two images from that sequence that a fellow researcher gave me some time ago.

In post 442 you mentioned that "President Kennedy ordered the seat lowered as soon as he first sat in it." Although I consider myself a fellow member in this conversation, I am also an administrator. We administrators take very seriously that this forum is referred to as the "Education" forum and we jealously guard the integrity of this forum. Put another way we expect controversial statements - of the kind you have just posted - to be backed up so those not so deeply versed in the case know where to go to see how such a statement can be made. Chris Davidson - in post 423 - has shown you reason why such a statement is incorrect and I have just posted two images that contradict your statement. We administrators do not and will not accept assertion to be dressed up as fact as a fellow member discovered very recently. We - the administrators - will not accept controversial statements - of the kind I have highlighted - to be made without clear references. I expect you to supply - to the forum membership - the reference to the statement "President Kennedy ordered the seat lowered as soon as he first sat in it."

[Chris Davidson]

Roy/James,

One of the few times I've seen the seat in the raised position.

chris

[James R Gordon]

Chris,

I absolutely agree. Such an image makes clear that there can be no doubt whether the seat is raised or not.

James

[Roy Wieselquist]

Guys, you are scientific historians and historical scientists. This is who and what i've been looking for, lo these many years. Chris Davidson, your two posts, the video of the Kennedys getting into the limo at Love Field and the photo of the back seat raised up all the way, are pure gold for me, manna from heaven. My new favorite bookmarks. SO, the seat WAS down then. Mea culpa. Sidenote: notice John Con; that is one scared stiff Texan. He has an educated idea about what's about to happen.

So far I have not been able to find a citation that JFK ever ordered the seat down on 11-22-63. It's not in Bishop at the airport because, simply, the seat was down at the start of the parade. I'm about to look at when they rode from the Ft. Worth hotel to Carswell AFB. But then they may not have used X-100. I don't remember at present.

Solemn promise: from now on I will cite a good source for my analysis, no matter how small or tangential a point I'm trying to make. I beg you to suspend disbelief for a few more hours about this small point. I'm not asking for sympathy about my lack of computer skills, but a monkey who had been playing with this interweb thing as long as I have, about 4 years, would be ahead of me for facility with all the gadgets. No excuse, but somewhat of a reason. Picture a caveman Luddite.

Different smal topic: the wild-goose chase I might've caused Sandy RE a possible hole in the backseat that JFK had his back pressed against. I believe that if a Sherlock Holmes, with magnifying glass and most sensitive fingers, were to get a hold of that exact piece of material, he would have trouble finding the damage caused by that missile that entered throat, exited back.

Gotta go for now. The Donald's coming on SNL and I consider that an important part of my research into the Coup D'etat of 1963 and this New Dark Age we find ourselves in.

Major thanks to all Ed Forum for science and forbearance.

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's an interactive 3D recreation of Dealey Plaza from which you can explore various shooter points:

http://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2013/11/22/jfinteraktive-the-assassination-of-john-fitzgerald-kennedy/

Thanks for that, Ollie. I just wish I could get it to work on one of our computers here.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds. Unfortunately, my theory requires there to have been at least six shots fired, and I am not sure if even the use of suppressors on three of those shots could have made it sound as if there were only three shots. Also, this only accounts for the wounding of three people (JFK, Connally and Tague) and does not account for the crack (hole) in the windshield or the dented frame above the windshield.

First, I should state that I believe all of the evidence points to JFK being shot twice in the head, with one bullet entering in the right (or possibly left - that theory is far from dead) temple and one bullet entering low and to the right on the rear of JFK's head. I believe the back of the head was the first bullet to enter, and that the large wound created by the temple shot partially obliterated the rear entrance wound in the skull. However, I shall be calling into question the true location of the rear head wound, as Lt. Lipsey tells some very interesting things about this wound and the throat wound to the HSCA.

In order to make this theory work, the majority of bullets, excluding the one from the front, had to originate from behind and fairly high up. All bullets fired had to be frangible bullets, although likely of a fairly primitive construction strongly resembling frangible range bullets (M37 Magistri) made for the 6.5mm Carcano.

To begin, it is my theory that a frangible bullet hit JFK's back at about the level of T3, entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated. While the bullet would have disintegrated totally into powder, thus stymieing any search for bullet fragments, the jacket itself would not have disintegrated, and the fact they found no jacket fragments has always bothered me.

A frangible bullet, likely the last shot, also entered JFK's right temple, although there is also a lot of information pointing to the fact this bullet entered the left temple. Either way, the large blowout in the rear of JFK's head was created by this shot. While it may not seem possible for a shot to the right temple to cause a blowout in the right rear of the skull, my experience hunting deer with hollow point bullets has demonstrated that the large hydraulic pressure created by such a bullet will cause the skull to blow out in unexpected places. For example, a shot entering the side of the head that one would expect to exit the opposite side of the head actually causes the top of the head to blow off. An exit wound also does not mean an intact bullet actually exits from that sight. In fact, in the case of a frangible bullet, I would be surprised if any part of the bullet exited through an "exit" wound.

Now, the throat wound and the bullet that entered the rear of JFK's skull. The throat wound, as we all know, has been the most difficult to explain. I will present a theory that attempts to explain what occurred with the throat wound.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that a bullet struck the rear of JFK's head and entered just to the right of the External Occipital Protuberance, something very obvious comes to light, as can be seen in this x-ray:

External Occipital Protuberance (EOP) designated by arrow.

X-ray showing location of cervical vertebrae, EOP and throat.

Note how low in the rear of the skull the EOP is, and how the surface of the skull is actually sloping inwards at this point. I have always assumed the bullet entering just to the right of the EOP would have made a clean entrance wound and, if it broke up, would have remained inside of JFK's skull. However, seeing the location of this entrance wound on an x-ray, and considering the distinct possibility many of the shots came from high up on a building to the rear of the limo, I am not so sure the entire bullet remained inside JFK's skull any more.

Here are some of the clues I have been contemplating; most of which emerged with the release to the public of HSCA interviews in the 1990's.

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Jerrol Custer was the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy. He, too, was interviewed by the HSCA, and he made one observation that has bothered me since I first read it. In his interview, he stated the x-rays purported to be of JFK's neck were not the ones he remembered seeing. The ones he recalled showed many metallic fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4. Looking again at the x-rays above, we can see the location of C3/C4 is directly in line with a bullet path originating at the EOP and exiting at the throat, just below the Adam's apple.

Once again, this would require that a frangible bullet had been used in this shot, as I have no doubt a full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet would have easily passed through his neck (including the vertebrae) without leaving fragments behind. I also believe the design of this frangible bullet would have been somewhat primitive, as compared to modern frangible bullets, and would not have been 100% powdered lead inside the jacket. Rather, it might have resembled the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet, pictured below:

6.5mm Carcano M37 Magistri frangible range bullet on right.

As the cutaway above shows, this bullet was of an odd construction. Inside the copper alloy, two-piece jacket, there was sand in the base of the bullet, powdered lead above the sand and, above that in the nose of the bullet, was a solid pellet made from lead or "maillechort". Was this pellet what made the throat wound, described as being from 3-8 mm in diameter by Parkland surgeons, while the powdered lead, sand and bullet jacket were deposited on bone at C3/C4?

The only fly in the ointment here comes, once again, from another HSCA interview. Thomas Robinson, one of the enbalmers from Gawlers Funeral Home who prepared JFK's body following the autopsy, reported that, as viewed from inside JFK's empty skull, every bone in JFK's face appeared to be broken. While this statement hardly seems to be supported by the "stare of death" photos of JFK, it must still be taken into consideration.

From my experience hunting, it seems unusual that a shot, entering the right temple and causing a blowout in the right rear of the skull, could cause such extensive breakage of bones in JFK's face, although I may be underestimating the explosive force of the bullet used.

One explanation may be that the EOP wound was not as neat as described in the autopsy and, considering the oblique angle it struck the rear base of the skull, the frangible bullet might have broken up penetrating the skull and sent part of the bullet into the skull, and part on its way to C3/C4.

Another explanation may be that the bullet entered the skull at the EOP, disintegrated shortly after entry, and parts of it either exited the base of the skull or exited through the "foramen magnum", the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.

Unfortunately, these last two possibilities place the wound slightly higher than the hair line wound, and do not line up anywhere near as nicely with C3/C4 and the throat wound.

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back. That part never came. So I re-read your theory and saw the following paragraph of yours:

In Lt. Lipsey's interview, he related that most of the time spent in the autopsy he observed was spent in trying to locate the bullet that entered JFK's back. As the autopsists were quite convinced the shots from behind were all from high up, it was believed this bullet may have ranged downwards in JFK's torso. However, Lipsey also goes into some detail describing a bullet that entered the lower rear of JFK's head. While never really pinpointing the exact location of this entrance wound, Lipsey finally relays that it would be about where the rear hairline meets the neck, which is considerably lower than the EOP. Lipsey then states that the autopsists were quite convinced that, because of the steep angle the bullet was travelling at, this bullet, or a fragment of it, continued on and exited the right side of JFK's throat. I believe, looking at the x-rays above, this may be a distinct possibility.

Is this paragraph the place where you're telling us what happened to the bullet to the back? That is, as part of your theory, are you saying that the fragments from the bullet to the back "ranged downwards in JFK's torso," and some fragments from the EOP bullet went down to T3/T4? (BTW, I don't know if I can refer to frangible pieces/powder as fragments. But you know what I mean.)

If so, that strikes me as odd. That fragments from one bullet (EOP) end up "replacing" fragments I expect to see (at T3/T4) from a different bullet (T3). (I hope you know what I mean by that.) Not impossible... just a bit of a twist.

If not so, please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

Perhaps you should take the time to re-read my post. I was proposing that part of the bullet entering at a downward angle at the EOP (external occipital protuberance) might have impacted at C3/C4 (cervical vertebrae or neck), not T3/T4 (thoracic or upper back vertebrae).

What I am proposing is what Lipsey described; a frangible bullet entering just inside the hair line at the back of the head and part or all of it impacting the C3/C4 cervical or neck vertebrae and a small part of it continuing on and exiting the throat. For the moment, I am ignoring the back wound, aside from saying it was at T3 and the bullet entered the top of the right lung.

[Sandy Larsen]

Different smal topic: the wild-goose chase I might've caused Sandy RE a possible hole in the backseat that JFK had his back pressed against. I believe that if a Sherlock Holmes, with magnifying glass and most sensitive fingers, were to get a hold of that exact piece of material, he would have trouble finding the damage caused by that missile that entered throat, exited back.

I saw a nice, color, profile-view of the presidential limo today and was going to post it. Unfortunately it got lost between then and when I finished a chore my wife had gotten after me to do. (That's what happens when you're not looking and you have a curious five-year-old around.)

I was surprised to see how high JFK's back rose above the back cushion. I mean, it was really high, seeming not to match other images, like those from the Z-film. I wanted to get Robert's opinion on how far above the cushion the back wound would have been, based on that photo. To my untrained eye it looked way too high for a bullet to have entered the top of the cushion. To me it looked like a bullet would have hit the trunk lid.

FWIW.

From looking at that photo I realized I'd never really taken a good look at the limo before. Because I'd never noticed that bar running across the top of the car (it appears to be part of the passenger/driver partition thing). My reason for mentioning this (other than revealing my ignorance, ha!) is that it reveals yet one more obstacle to a potential shot from the front. Including Roy's shot from the left-front.

Not looking good for Roy's Theory. Sorry Roy.

Good thing Robert has a theory.

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert,

As I read your theory, I kept waiting for the part where you tell us what happened to the bullet to the back.

...please let me know where I went wrong... what happened to the bullet to the back.

Perhaps you should take the time to re-read my post. I was proposing that part of the bullet entering at a downward angle at the EOP (external occipital protuberance) might have impacted at C3/C4 (cervical vertebrae or neck), not T3/T4 (thoracic or upper back vertebrae).

Oops! Yeah, that's where I got messed up. You wrote "C3/C4" and my mind read "T3/T4."

Edited November 8, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

Going over the HSCA interviews with Lt. Lipsey (aide to Maj. General Wehle and present at the autopsy) and Jerrol Custer (x-ray technician at Bethesda that night), I have come up with another theory that might explain all of JFK's wounds..

Robert,

I like your theory for a number of reasons. I can't think of any testimony that contradicts it, and it does seem possible to me that the bullet did as you describe.

But I'd like a little more info about the following: Isn't the angle from the EOP, through the skull, and down to C3/C4 too steep to have come from the TSBD? After fragmenting, could the particles have deflected to this steeper angle?

One of your concerns is how the skull got broken up into so many pieces, including some in the face. This doesn't concern me because I believe pre-autopsy surgery was done in order to obfuscate any wounds from the front. There was a gaping wound in the back at Parkland and it was obfuscated elsewhere by enlarging the blowout to cover the whole top of the head. (Right side only, that is.) How would one do that? With a saw? How about a chisel and hammer? The latter would look more convincing as a wound. I studied this topic (two caskets, three entrances, pre-autopsy surgery) in great detail and came away convinced of it. (Not in full agreement with DSL, but close.) How the various witnesses to the autopsy were brought in at various times helps explain why some people saw a blowout in the back and others saw the top of the head missing. Different witnesses saw different wounds in Bethesda. But they all included the missing occiput area.

Anyway, if you're open to that idea, the great damage to the head isn't hard to explain.

After reading Best Evidence I came away not trusting what Humes said. But as time has passed and I've read the testimony of others, like Lt. Lipsey, things have gradually started to fit together and I have come to believe that Humes was more honest than what I had originally imagined. (Though I never thought he was all that bad... just that his every step was being controlled.)

This is how I have come to accept the EOP entrance wound as being real. The fact that Humes held his ground for so long before giving into the HSCA regarding the BOH wound being at the EOP and not the cowlick area. Why would he do that if it was one of the lies being told?? (If you haven't read that testimony it's pretty interesting. One congressman was saying they were all "nuts" for letting the tape recorder run during Humes's objections.)

Now that I'm being exposed to the complexities of the shots not having exits, the frangible bullets make sense. Though I don't know what to make of the jackets not being found. Maybe they were jacket-less? There actually were reports of a few fragments being removed from the body (NOT official reports). Could these have been jacket fragments? I don't anything about that stuff, but it sounds ridiculous, mistaking copper for lead.

As for the back wound, I've wrestled with the fact that they cut the organs up when they could have simply x-rayed them. But recently it occurred to me that maybe they x-rayed the organs *before* the dissection looking for the fragments. They couldn't find any because (in their way of thinking) they were using a low-powered portable machine. I've fixed many of my radiologist friend's x-ray machines over the years (I'm an electrical engineer) and I know they always want me to get the repair done quickly because the images from the portable machine aren't very good.

So anyway, they take poor x-rays, don't see anything, and assume they didn't find bullet fragments because of the poor images. So the decide to dissect and cut up the organs. They don't x-ray the organs *after* the dissection simply because they already did, and they think they can find fragments by slicing the organs. It doesn't pan out and they scratch their heads wondering where the bullet went.

One thing I like about your theory is that it actually agrees with what Humes really did and what Lipsey actually saw. According to Lipsey, the surgeons were certain the EOP bullet exited the throat. and it did (in a way, according to your theory). The surgeons couldn't find the back wound, as they shouldn't (according to your theory). The top of Kennedy's head was blown off with "surgery to head," and Humes has to make up a pretend bullet entrance and exit, both in the hole area. This according to Lipsey. But of course this is because of the pre-autopsy surgery. The bullet really entered one of the temples and fragmented, blowing out the back of the head.

Why didn't they (including Jenkins) not see a hole in the pleura? Because... I don't know. If somehow the bullet could have disintegrated before entering the pleural cavity, the tiny particles could have penetrated the pleural cavity and lung, and the tiny holes in the pleura go undetected. But from your lessons on frangible bullets, it seems that could not have happened. So this remains unsolved. And the copper jacket problem remains unsolved, though maybe they were necessary for some reason.

I'm running these peripheral thoughts by you and the others, hoping they might trigger ideas to go along with your new theory.