Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Three autopsy doctors also told the world there was not a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, yet this seemed to be the prevailing observation not only of Parkland witnesses but also of Bethesda witnesses. So much so, it was necessary to suppress the contents of the HSCA interviews with Bethesda witnesses, tell outright lies about these interviews and not reveal the contents of these interviews until the formation of the ARRB over a decade later.

Do you believe the autopsy doctors were truthful about everything? If you don't, how can you tell when they were being untruthful, and when they were not?

None of the surgeons at Parkland saw the back wound, for the simple fact that they never rolled him over. I know this may have been poor medical practice, as even we, as paramedics, are trained to do a ten second Rapid Body Search to determine the full extent of injuries but, our RBS does NOT involve rolling a supine patient into the prone or semi-prone position. Even if they had done a Rapid Body Search, it only involves quickly passing the hands under the back to look for bleeding. With the amount of blood present from the rear head wound, and the fact JFK was essentially pulseless, would this search have revealed anything? I don't believe so.

Under the circumstances, I believe the surgeons in Dallas can be forgive for not seeking out every single one of JFK's wounds. The Parkland surgeons were simply too involved with basic life support and critical interventions to begin turning JFK over to look for bullet wounds. They say this themselves in every interview they have ever given. Once their job was over, they quite naturally did not feel it was up to them to begin exploring JFK's corpse for any other wounds, and quite rightly so. This is why they have autopsies.

Why did the staff placing JFK into the coffin at Parkland not see the back wound. Quite simply, it was on the back, and they were not looking for a wound. How much rolling over of JFK's corpse would they have done? Lt. Lipsey described, in his HSCA interview, the great amount of blood caked onto JFK's upper torso, and how much time was spent by the autopsy doctors scrubbing through this blood, prior to examining JFK's corpse. Would the post-mortem staff at Parkland not also be looking at a blood caked corpse? Would a tiny entrance wound be discernible in such a mess?

What caused the damage to the right lung, and where did it go? An unjacketed frangible bullet entered the right pleural space at the level of T3 and entered the top of the right lung. As the bullet passed through intercostal and lung tissue, its hollow point nose filled with this tissue, exerting a tremendous pressure on the rest of the bullet. Shortly after entering the lung, this internal bullet pressure caused the frangible bullet to disintegrate into the metal powder from which the bullet was made, damaging the lung and leaving no large sized fragments for the autopsy doctors to find. If these doctors were genuinely unaware of the game afoot, and knew nothing about frangible bullets, they must have been seriously baffled by what they saw; so much so, they did not recognize grainy material on a chest x-ray as minute particles of a bullet, and chose to call it "dirt" instead.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

From David Lifton:

"Finally, your argument about the chest tubes baffles me. One cannot substitute a theory about whether this or that person is a xxxx, with genuine anatomic evidence. Three doctors signed an autopsy report which made clear those tubes were not pushed all the way in. That's data which I respect--and certainly more powerful and substantive (as evidence) than a hypothesis as to whether someone who lied about "A" might also have lied about "B" (or not). etc."

The Parkland surgeons wrote medical reports a few hours after JFK was pronounced dead, and not only stated that a chest tube(s) was inserted, but that it was also connected to a sealed drain. Is this not data worthy of respect as well?

[Chris Newton]

I'm curious about two issues:

1. if no shot came from the rear and hit JFK in the back then what do we make of the round or rounds that hit JC?

2. if frangible or exploding bullets did hit JFK in the back and disintegrated in the lung then how did a different type of round apparently hit JC?

I'm not entirely comfortable separating the two men's injuries and attributing them to separate shooters firing different loads. How does the shooting scenario "play" out in your minds?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I'm curious about two issues:

1. if no shot came from the rear and hit JFK in the back then what do we make of the round or rounds that hit JC?

2. if frangible or exploding bullets did hit JFK in the back and disintegrated in the lung then how did a different type of round apparently hit JC?

I'm not entirely comfortable separating the two men's injuries and attributing them to separate shooters firing different loads. How does the shooting scenario "play" out in your minds?

Excellent questions, and ones that have kept me awake a few nights trying to answer.

To answer these questions, we have to take a hard look at Connally's wounds, and put the lie to the many misconceptions surrounding his wounds. In the process of doing this, the true nature of Connally's wounds will be seen, and the absurdity of Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory will also be revealed. It might take several posts to cover everything.

[Chris Newton]

To answer these questions, we have to take a hard look at Connally's wounds, and put the lie to the many misconceptions surrounding his wounds. In the process of doing this, the true nature of Connally's wounds will be seen, and the absurdity of Arlen Specter's Single Bullet Theory will also be revealed. It might take several posts to cover everything.

Thanks Robert for the confirmation that I'm not totally crazy.

It seems to me that a basic assumption we could make, (that should hold up), is that the missiles that hit JC were intended for JFK. The alternatives are either: a) that the shooter(s) was/(were) just wildly shooting into the car or b.) JC was a target as well. Both of those alternatives seem unlikely because none of the other four passengers were wounded.

[Robert Prudhomme]

The first misconception, and one held by a surprising number of researchers, is that Connally suffered a "through and through" bullet wound to the right side of his chest. The reason for this belief is that Connally had a wound on his back and a wound just below the right nipple AND he had an open pneumothorax in his right lung cavity. However, even with these three established facts, it is also an established fact that a bullet never entered his right lung. I will attempt to explain.

Before I explain that, though, I should point out that while I believe JFK had a "tension" pneumothorax in his right lung, Connally most definitely had, in his right lung, an "open" pneumothorax or "sucking" chest wound. While the two are close cousins, there is a difference. In many instances, the two will have the same cause, such as a bullet piercing the pleural cavity and making a hole in the balloon known as the lung. In JFK's case, his condition was likely an open pneumothorax right up until they laid him on the ER table in Trauma Room One. At that point, the weight of his upper back pressing against the table likely sealed the opening, and created a tension pneumothorax. In Connally's case, the opening in his pleural cavity was more toward the front of his chest, to the point he would not be lying on it if he was on his back and it would remain open to the atmosphere. However, the open pneumothorax is just as dangerous as the (I'm going to start referring to the pneumothoraxes [actually pneumothoraces] as "O.P." and "T.P." to save myself a bit of typing) T.P., and, if not dealt with quickly, can lead to the demise of the patient. The best treatment for an O.P. is to seal the opening in the chest, and even a hand with a rubber glove over it is adequate. But, if the lung is compromised, as well as the pleural lining, and the seal on the chest is not removed periodically, building air pressure in the lung will quickly transform the O.P. into a T.P., and the patient may die anyways.

If I had been on an ambulance in Dallas that day and Connally was my patient, this is the thing I would have applied over the opening in his chest to seal it:

Asherman Chest Seal

The Asherman Chest Seal, or ACS, is an adhesive dressing to be placed over the opening in the chest causing an O.P. There is an opening in the centre of the adhesive section of this dressing that corresponds to the "stem" in the centre. If the opening into the pleural cavity is greater than the diameter of the ACS, such as from a laceration, the majority of the opening should be sealed with tape (duct tape works great if nothing else is available. remember, a life is at stake; worry about sterile dressings and infection later), leaving only an opening large enough for the vent of the ACS. The funny looking "stem" of the ACS is actually a vent, and also acts as a "check" or "one-way" valve. Any air pressure in the pleural cavity is enough to open this stem and allow air from the pleural cavity to vent to the atmosphere. When the patient breathes in, creating a vacuum, the stem instantly flattens, sealing the pleural cavity from outside air and allowing the lung(s) to expand.

As I said, it is a popular misconception that a bullet went through John Connally's right lung, and this was the cause of the O.P. he suffered. In actuality, a bullet entered the side of his right chest at the mid axillary line.

This bullet precisely followed the outside of the downward coursing 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), before exiting just below and medial to Connally's right nipple. For those not familiar with medical references, medial means toward the centre of the body. In other words, the exit wound was actually between the right nipple and the centre of his chest.

To put this in simpler terms, Connally was hit with a grazing shot that was only a centimetre or two away from missing his chest altogether. Also, the path of the bullet was not from an origin anywhere near JFK, unless Connally was almost completely turned sideways toward JFK when he was hit. The proof of this is that a bullet entering the flesh at the mid axillary line, and exiting medial to the right nipple, is obligated to follow almost a 45° angle across the front of the chest to do so.

The 5th rib is quite soft at this point, and would have offered little resistance to the bullet. However, it would be just brittle enough for the bullet to shatter fragments from this rib, and it was these shards of the 5th rib that tore through the pleural lining, creating the O.P. This is how Dr. Robert Shaw described it in his medical report:

"The plura had been torn open by the secondary missiles created by the fragmented fifth rib."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm

Now, I'm sure it has occurred to you that the ribs are curved, and you are probably wondering how a bullet flying in a straight path could follow the curve of a rib for 4 inches. Well, it did, and the explanation for this can be found in Dr. Shaw's medical report, as well as in his WC testimony.

Dr. Shaw observed that the 5th rib actually seemed to be depressed into the pleural cavity, when compared to the 4th and 6th rib, and it was his understanding the force of the passing bullet actually depressed the rib inward, partially straightening it. Confirmation of this was the discovery the 5th rib had also suffered a stress fracture near the back end of the rib, just out from where it attached to the 5th vertebra. In other words, the force of the rib straightening out was great enough to snap the far other end of the rib where it attached to the backbone.

So, the question is, if the bullet that caused this wound was a frangible bullet, would this contact with the 5th rib be enough to cause the frangible bullet to disintegrate?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

As an afterthought, I thought I would share with everyone how the average person can deal with an open pneumothorax, should you come across a person with one and you just don't happen to have an Asherman Chest Seal in your back pocket. With the number of crazies running around with firearms these days, it is probably a good thing to know.

Pictured below is something referred to as the "Three Sided Dressing", and it can be made from a good quality plastic bag and a roll of tape. If the patient is one of those hairy "gorillas", you may have to shave a small area around the wound to get a good seal.

The opening in the chest is obvious here, and the plastic has been applied with that opening directly in its centre and then taped and sealed on three sides. The open side of the plastic is on the bottom side of the dressing to encourage any blood expelled from the wound to run downhill and out of the dressing, instead of accumulating inside the dressing.

How it Works

When the patient breathes in, his diaphragm moves downward and creates a vacuum in his chest cavity. Atmospheric air, with a pressure of 14.7 psi at sea level, rushes in through the trachea to fill the lungs and occupy this vacuum. With a hole in the pleura, air travels through the pleura to fill this vacuum and fills the pleural cavity, preventing the lung from filling and causing it to collapse. The plastic sheet of the Three Sided Dressing, or T.S.D., gets sucked against the skin of the chest during inhalation, sealing the wound, and prevents this, allowing the lung to fill.

Now, if it was that simple, you could just tape the dressing down on four sides, and pack the guy off to the hospital before he bleeds to death internally. The problem here is that whatever put a hole in his pleura has also very likely put a hole in his lung. When he inhales, our plastic dressing now allows the lung to inflate. If there is a hole in the lung, it will only partially inflate, and air will be pulled through the hole in the lung into the pleural cavity. When he exhales, the lung will collapse again, sealing off the hole in the lung and trapping the air in the pleural cavity. This is how an open pneumothorax can evolve quickly into a tension pneumothorax.

The solution is, of course, not to tape the bottom side of the dressing. When the patient exhales, the plastic moves away from the skin and allows the venting of any built up air pressure in the pleural cavity out through the open side of the dressing. As I stated earlier, it is important to leave the open side of the dressing on the downhill side to allow for drainage of blood.

It is actually quite fascinating to watch one of these dressings in action in the field as it pops open and closed, and it is very gratifying to the first responder to see such a simple dressing transform a patient's condition so rapidly in a matter of seconds.

P.S.

When dealing with chest wounds, especially those made by bullets, ALWAYS check the opposite side of the chest from the wound you have found for another wound. It is quite common to find entry and exit wounds in the chest (or multiple wounds) when dealing with a patient suffering a gunshot wound.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I do not disagree with much of your commentary about Connally,s chest wound. There are a number of points I would add.

A. I am surprised anyone would seriously contemplate a frangible bullet was used.

B. I agree that when the bullet bumped into the 5th rib - as opposed to striking it - one consequence was that the 5th rib was pushed inwards.

C. However the bullet also caused numerous bone fragments to break off - some of which moved inwards and damaged the lung - and others that flew forward and exited through the wound created by the bullet.

D. There has been debate as to whether the bullet traveling through Connally's body tumbled. In research - based on the best images on Connally's clothing - it is clear it did not tumble. As Robert Shaw believed it traveled right through Connally's outer chest in a straight line.

E. John Connally sustained two other injuries. L.N's like to believe this bullet also caused these wounds. It did not. However, the body material the bullet encountered would not have reduced its power to any great degree. THEREFORE, what happened to that bullet?Logic suggests it most likely went on to strike the dividing wall between the Secret Service and the Connally's.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I agree about the bullet not tumbling, as Dr. Robert Shaw goes into some detail describing how the intercostal tissue, above and below the path of the bullet through the outer surface of the 5th rib, was left relatively untouched. Considering the narrowness of the rib at this point, this would suggest a non-tumbling bullet flying straight and true. I have always found it somewhat miraculous, though not unbelievable, that the bullet followed the precise downward angle of the 5th rib for the entire time it was in contact with it.

As to whether or not the bullet that caused Connally's chest wound was a frangible bullet, this is a point I am still leaving open for consideration, as there are several features regarding frangible bullets that might just make them possible candidates for this. I will go into this in the next post.

As you and I both know, and as you stated in (E) above, the material encountered by the bullet, in its circuitous path around Connally's chest, would not have greatly reduced the velocity of this bullet. With this in mind, we then must consider the severity of the wound in Connally's wrist. For those not familiar with the wrist wound, a bullet struck just above Connally's right wrist, hitting squarely on the back of the radius bone and breaking it into several pieces. It, or a fragment of it, either went through the radius bone or between the radius and ulna bones, and exited the bottom or palm side of his forearm through a tiny hole that was much smaller than the entrance wound.

I believe that it was Dr. Shaw that testified that such a wound from a rifle bullet, at normal velocities, would typically have destroyed the radius bone, and amputation might have been the only medical solution. As we are both aware, the wrist wound either was from the bullet that injured Connally's chest, or was from a totally separate bullet. In either case, shouldn't we have seen far more damage to the wrist?

Edited October 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

I am astonished anyone would keep an open mind on the idea of a "frangible" bullet. When that bullet "slapped" [ to use Robert Shaw's term ] against the 5th rib it would have exploded and caused - most likely - causing a fatal wound.

The idea that the bullet that caused the chest wound, could also cause the wrist wound does not seem likely. Why? I do not have my notes with my so I am using laymen's terms.

a) The wrist would need to be near the bullet's chest exit point.

AND

a) The entrance [ which is just behind the thumb ] would need to be facing the exit wound.

c) Charles Gregory was of the opinion [ because there was cloth fragments within the wrist wound ] the bullet had already struck an object.

d) We have agreed that whatever bullet caused the chest wound sustained little if no damage. Therefore it is extremely unlikely it could have caused the "star shape" damage to to Connally's shirt cuff.

There are too many reasons why the bullet that caused the chest could not also be the same bullet that caused the wrist wound.

In my opinion John Connally was either:-

a) Struck by two separate bullets.

OR

The wrist wound was a fragment from the head shot. If you study an excellent copy of Z313 you will see object moving in the direction of Connally's wrist.

As regards to the damage to the wrist wound. I believe it was a fragment from the head shot.

a) The damage to the clothing is very different from the Jacket and Shirt compared to the sleeve and shirt cuff. They display pristine bullet damage, very different from what we see on the shirt.

The damage Connally's back did not also have clothing fragments within it. The usual result of a pristine shot.

c) The damage to the wrist did have clothing fragments which is usually a symptom that the bullet is damaged and has struck another object. There was only one shot where there was clearly bullet fragmentation and that was the head shot.

So I disagree that the bullet that caused Connally's chest wound also caused his wrist wound.

[Chris Newton]

One "victim: I almost forgot:

The car seems to have taken a direct hit from the rear in the windshield frame, some have attributed this to a fragment but it looks to round and deep to be so, to me.

The result of this scenario then is: 2 or 3 rounds JFK, 1 or 2 rounds JC, 1 round car, 1 miss (Tague)?

[Robert Prudhomme]

I hate to disagree with you James but, the very mechanism that causes a frangible bullet to break up is the very reason it may have survived reasonably intact from its tangential contact with Connallly's rib.

Frangible bullets are normally made from powdered metal that is either compressed, glued or "sintered" into the shape of a bullet, although it appears the frangible range bullets made for the 6.5mm Carcano since the 1930's, designated as the M37 "Magistri" frangible bullet, were made with uncompressed powdered lead in a copper alloy jacket; with a tiny lead or "maillechort" solid pellet just inside the nose of the bullet. From the cutaway photos I've seen of the M37, the powdered lead appears to be quite coarse.

While lethal frangible bullets made for hunting and law enforcement differ slightly in their construction from frangible range bullets, such as the M37, frangible bullets all have one thing in common; they will disintegrate back to the powder they were made from if they impact a very hard surface, such as steel, concrete or stone. They are more than capable of penetrating bone and remaining intact, such as a human or a deer skull, but there are reports of them disintegrating if they impact a large, thick or particularly hard bone.

The 5th rib is neither hard enough nor thick enough for a frangible bullet to disintegrate simply by impacting it with a tangential blow.

The only way for a frangible bullet to have disintegrated by impacting the 5th rib tangentially is if it possessed the one feature that all modern frangible bullets possess. That feature is a hollow point nose. As I have tried to explain countless times on this forum, it is not striking bone that gives the lethal frangible bullet such deadly results. Just like the standard hollow point solid lead bullet, it is when it travels through semi-liquid tissue that the frangible bullet is at its deadliest. Quite simply put, semi-liquid tissue fills up the hollow nose of the bullet and exerts tremendous hydraulic pressure on the compressed core of the bullet, to the point the compressed core can no longer withstand the pressure and disintegrates into a cloud of powdered metal.

Frangible bullets are available both jacketed and unjacketed. If jacketed, the solid remains of the jacket will still be visible. If not jacketed, only powder remains.

I have no idea whether or not the bullets that struck JFK and JBC were jacketed, nor do I know if they had hollow point noses, or if their cores were plain powdered lead, or compressed lead. While the M37 bullet was considered a "safe" frangible bullet for use in indoor ranges, its safety was based on the fact that a concrete wall was placed behind the target area and, instead of ricocheting when the bullets struck the concrete, they would disintegrate into powder. I have no idea what would happen to one of these M37 frangible bullets if it was fired directly at someone's head.

If the frangible bullet that caused JBC's chest wound did have a hollow point nose, the question is, why did it not behave as it should passing through 10 cm. of JBC's rib? The answer may be that the epidermis and bone it went through was not liquid enough to fill the hollow point and exert sufficient pressure on the core of the bullet to cause it to disintegrate.

As the bullet only went through JBC's shirt cuff, and not the cuff of his mohair suit, the fibres Gregory described, in JBC's wrist, could only have come from its passage through the front and back of the suit. The "star" shaped hole in JBC's shirt cuff is also no indication of the condition of the bullet that made the hole, especially if that bullet struck tangentially, instead of square on. There is indication of a partially tangential blow in that the wound on JBC's wrist was quite a bit longer on one axis than the other. A good way of explaining this is to look at paper targets at a shooting range. Instead of making neat little round holes, bullets tend to tear their way through paper targets. This is one reason why "wadcutter" bullets were invented.

Wadcutter bullets have a square nose, as seen above, and make a perfect round hole when passing through a paper target; something that is only of any concern to competition shooters.

As the wound data from JBC's chest wound clearly tells us, the bullet traversed the front of his chest at about a 45° angle. This means one of two things:

1. The bullet that struck JBC's chest did not originate from the east end of the TSBD but, rather, came from much further west in the TSBD.

or

2. JBC was turned to his right in his seat by at least 35-40° when he was struck by the bullet; something we do not see in the Zapruder film until long after JFK is struck in the back.

With this in mind, is it really fair to say JBC's right wrist was not in line with his chest wound, when we have no clear idea when JBC was shot in the chest?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[James R Gordon]

Robert,

It is clear that we disagree on more than I realised.

I will comment on two points:-

a) You say the bullet did not go through Connally's jacket sleeve. You are wrong it did. I refer you to Robert Frazier's drawings of the Jacket and his comments on the damage he saw.

The trajectory of the bullet through Connally's body prohibits a shot at Z223/4 - which I assume you are suggesting. As I have pointed out many times before, the source of a shot at Connally at Z223/4 is somewhere between the DalTex building and The Records building. Looking at frames after 223/4 we see Connally's hand rise with his palm towards his chest. The injury Connally sustained could not be achieved if his palm was towards his chest.

[James DiEugenio]

Where is Gary Murr's book?

I thought it was supposed to be out by now?

[Robert Prudhomme]

" The trajectory of the bullet through Connally's body prohibits a shot at Z223/4 - which I assume you are suggesting. As I have pointed out many times before, the source of a shot at Connally at Z223/4 is somewhere between the DalTex building and The Records building. Looking at frames after 223/4 we see Connally's hand rise with his palm towards his chest. The injury Connally sustained could not be achieved if his palm was towards his chest."

I cannot see how you have come up with this location for the source of the bullet that caused JBC's chest wound, if you believe JBC was facing forward when struck in the chest. Dr. Robert Shaw clearly states that the bullet entered at the "mid axillary line" and exited just below and MEDIAL to the right nipple. Once again, for clarity, "medial to the right nipple" means somewhere between the right nipple and the centre of JBC's chest.

One more time, the mid axillary line:

Taking into account the position of the mid axillary line, and the position of the nipple, this bullet almost travelled sideways across JBC's chest. If JBC was facing forward at the time the bullet hit him, it would have to be travelling, if measured from a line running lengthwise through the centre of the limo, at an angle of 45° measured from the line running through the centre length of the limo.

This is why the SBT is an absurdity, and why JBC could not have been shot from directly behind the limo, UNLESS he was turned far to his right at the moment he was shot.

COINCIDENTALLY, this is exactly the position Dan Rather claimed JBC was in when Rather viewed the Zapruder film shortly after the assassination. Oh, and Rather saw him extending his right arm toward JFK, something also witnessed by someone on the Triple Underpass, explaining why the bullet, travelling at such an angle, did not hit his arm.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme