Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

Tom,

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. Please see my comments below:

The fibers around the circumference of the holes in the Jacket/Shirt were pushed into the wound. If you choose to believe the jacket and shirt, then it's an entrance wound. If not...

According to whom?

WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all.

I had more in mind the source of the information when I asked "according to whom." I'm certainly not gonna believe something just because the WC or HSCA said it.

WC, HSCA and Doug Horne...who could be lying or mistaken, so that leaves you with no theory at all.

That wouldn't leave me "no theory at all." In all of our theories there is some evidence or testimony that we question.

Couldn't somebody have simply reversed the direction of the threads? Or lied about it?

Of course they could. That's the problem with this case. We KNOW they were ordered to lie.

We don't KNOW if it's JFK in the photos.
We don't KNOW if that's HIS shirt.
We don't KNOW when the holes were first observed.
We don't KNOW if the holes are fake.
We don't KNOW if they line up with the back wound.
We don't KNOW if the back wound is real.

Do you see the point? All we can do is look at the probabilities of each and rate them accordingly.

Of course I see the point. We have to use our best judgment when deciding what is more likely to be true. But why are you picking right now -- with me asking if we can believe the reported thread direction -- to make this point? Why not any time before now, when other things have been questioned?

If the shot entered the throat and passed out the back wound, they would have been able to probe it from either direction. But they couldn't. But of course they could be lying about that, also...

But you don't know that the doctors couldn't probe (find a path) between the throat and back wounds. If such a path existed, that is something they most certainly would have kept to themselves. For such a path would have destroyed the official narrative. I remember reading testimony from a witness who said that those who were in charge the autopsy would tell the doctors, "No, don't do that." Probing for a path from the T3 wound to the neck wound would certainly have been a good time for them to say, "No, don't do that."

If that is the actual path then what about the probable fracture up around C7/T1? It would require an additional shot. One to damage T1 and another to exit at T2 or T3.

That's a good point. Have you asked yourself this same question regarding the theories you are seriously considering? Like a frangible bullet entering the back wound at T3?

If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened.

Yes, that's an important point. I made the same point in post #334. It would be helpful to know if the back seat were reupholstered when the car was cleaned up.

Everything about the back wound is a guess. Every theory has several reasons to reject it. If that's your criteria to dismiss a theory then you have to dismiss ALL of the theories regarding this wound...

Huh? Are you directing that at me? The only back-wound theory I have dismissed is the bullet-hit-a-tree-limb theory.

At the moment I favor the frangible bullet theory. I am now considering the throat-to-back trajectory theory. And I've put the fabricated-wound theory on hold.

Can it be seen on the photos of the jacket and shirt?

On the closeup photos I'd say, yes. Is it 100%? Of course not.

I don't THINK that it's as easy to alter the direction of those holes as you think. Especially if you think they are real, and were made by the passage of a supersonic bullet.

I believe that I personally could reverse the direction of those threads, if I had something that could momentarily liquefy coagulated blood. It would no doubt have the forensic experts scratching their heads, but I could do it.

Is the evidence that the shot was an exit wound more likely than the evidence that it was an entrance wound?

Well the back wound was larger than the throat wound. It was apparently big enough for Humes finger to fit in it. It seems to fit an exit-wound description.

BTW, the fibers in he throat area of the shirt were bent outward, indicating an exit. wound Yet a good majority of researchers, it seems, believe the throat wound is an entrance. So my questioning the validity of reported fiber direction isn't what one should call far-fetched. Don't you believe the throat wound might be an entrance yourself? I do.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

If the bullet DID exit at T3 it would have done so at a downward angle and would have likely ended up in the seat back. I haven't heard that happened.

Yes, that's an important point. I made the same point in post #334. It would be helpful to know if the back seat were reupholstered when the car was cleaned up.

The back seat was indeed reupholstered.

A piece of the original leather was up for auction a couple years ago. Here is the item description:

"Original piece of leather from President Kennedy's limousine that drove him through Dealey Plaza and down Elm Street where he was fatally shot on 22 November 1963. A haunting item, literally cut from the limousine in which the President sat when he was assassinated. Known as the ''SS-100-X'', the limousine from that day was customized by the Cincinnati company Hess & Eisenhardt, which began customizing presidential cars during the Truman administration. The company went to great lengths with Kennedy's convertible, lengthening it and reinforcing it, and even raising the seat so there could be a better view of the President. After the assassination, the limo was taken back to the White House garage where it was inspected for evidence. Eventually, it was sent back to Hess & Eisenhardt where it was refurbished for future use by Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Today, the limo is on display at the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Leather piece is midnight blue in color and measures 9'' x 11.75'', with uneven edges as it was clearly cut away from the seat. ''P.R.C.P'' is written on back suede in pen in unknown hand. Leather has two circular holes most likely from a fastener or bolt to hold the leather in place. With two signed letters of provenance, one from the car upholsterer's daughter, another from his nephew, to whom he gifted the leather. LOA from his daughter reads in part, ''...The limousine in which he was riding was returned to Hess and Eisenhardt to be completely refurbished. My father was one of the two men who reupholstered the interior of the car. Though most of the leather interior had been removed, some of the leather on the back of the back seat just below the boot remained. As the remainder of the interior was removed and discarded, my father asked and was given the small piece of leather...'' The second letter, written by his nephew, reads in part, ''...it was my uncle's job to remove what remained of the old leather upholstery, as the secret service had basically cut away almost all the carpeting and leather as a large portion of both were blood stained. However, the leather attached to the boot of the car was still intact. Rather than throw this away, my uncle saved it...'' Also with a copy of the obituary of the upholsterer, stating his employment with Hess & Eisenhardt. Overall, near fine." [Emphasis added.]

Edited November 4, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

[Roy Wieselquist]

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.

Robert Prudhomme #348 --- No, you misunderstand me. It's not the same problem. SBT predicates a HIGH back (actually shoulder) wound, which of course it would have had to hit some part of the cervical vertabrae. I'm talking about the ragged hole about five inches down on the back between spine and scapula, which lines up with the large ragged hole in the coat and shirt. IN throat, grazing rt side of trachea (so JFK COULD exclaim, "My God, I'm hit!"), down at a (relatively) steep angle, 15-20*, avulse top right lung, OUT back 5" down from shoulder, between spine (T4 or 5? hell I don't know) and shoulder blade. Doesn't get close to any vertebrae. Now, going between those back ribs without doing any damage, that's like threading a needle.

More later.

[Tom Neal]

This would have had to occur on the plane -- or else Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett was one of the master-minds of the cover-up.

This is his contemporaneous notes written while flying back on AF1:

The chain of possession for the clothing is clear, not so for the autopsy photos.

Hi Cliff,

I mentioned this a ways back in this thread. A number of responses were that Bennett "wasn't even looking at JFK" when the shot occurred; I was told to "see 'this'" photo and the Z-film. So I again looked at the indicated photos and as I already knew, GB who is sitting on the right side of the rear seat, is staring into the right rear quadrant EXACTLY as he should be according to all the SS testimony. i.e. That is their operating procedure. Personally I can't tell where he's looking from the Z-film as Zap is attempting to center JFK in the frame. Now if someone will tell me exactly WHEN the back shot was fired relative to these photos I can form an opinion.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, GB states that he was looking to the right, heard a shot, immediately looked at the Boss and saw a shot hit him 4" below the shoulder, etc. Now, if he heard the shot that hit in the back and then turned he would have been too late to see it hit. He says the next shot hit him in the head. As many believe there were two shot prior to the head shot, GB could have heard the first shot (which many feel was a miss) and turned his head in time to see the next shot hit him in the back. Additionally, GB states that the back shot came from the rear. So the photo taken of him looking to the rear could have been taken immediately before or immediately after the shot and GB would have been looking right. IMO, this is something to consider when deciding his level of credibility, not something that conclusively proves he was lying.

As you say, and I stated earlier, his published notes state they were made at 5:30pm on the 22nd, his testimony wasn't taken until the 23rd. Did GB tell this to anyone prior to the autopsy? We don't know. Of course like everyone else involved he could lying. This makes him no more or less credible than EVERYONE else. IF this statement was vital to "proving" shots from behind, why tell ONLY GB to lie? Why not tell Shift Leader Emory Roberts (who called Rybka and Hill back to the SS car, and is suspected by many to be complicit) who per procedure was SUPPOSED to be looking only in JFK's direction to claim he saw this also?

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.

[Tom Neal]

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?

[Tom Neal]

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.

Thank you, Robert!

That was my initial point. I never stated there couldn't be a back exit, I stated reversing the trajectory direction doesn't solve the problem we've discussed during this entire thread, AND the previous one.

I'm still at the same place that I was when this thread started:

IMO, and based upon these two threads: There is NO through-and-through bullet trajectory from EITHER the neck wound or the back wound.

Sandy, to use your word, I am "hostile" to EITHER theory that connects the throat and back wounds. As I believe you have been until hearing the back wound as exit theory.

No bullet that I am aware of, could cause the shallow back wound without perforating the pleura and lungs. The only known X-ray of this area 'has dirt that looks like metal, but is dirt,' and disappeared from the archives sometime during the HSCA investigation. My opinion at the present time is that the back wound was caused by a frangible bullet that entered the back and fragmented. I believe that at least SOME fragments penetrated the pleura and lungs.

In support of my opinion:

1. The ONLY x-ray taken of this area was taken with a low-resolution portable x-ray machine only suitable to detect bullets or large fragments (per both x-ray techs and Ebersole)

2. This x-ray *conveniently* disappeared more than 35 years ago.

3. Per multiple testimony, the lungs etc, were removed and cut up in search of a "bullet" when they could easily have been hand-carried to the high-resolution X-ray machines. Was this not done because they did NOT want to see dust and tiny frags that would eliminate a Carcano bullet?

[Tom Neal]

The back seat was indeed reupholstered.

No offense intended, but take it as you will:

Was it reupholstered BEFORE it was examined? Yes, I know, you've stated repeatedly that everyone lied about everything, and I agree, but where we disagree, is that particular fact doesn't prove or disprove anything. As I have been repeating here, like virtually EVERY piece of evidence in this case someone could have lied and the evidence is worthless, so that fact can't be used to cherry pick evidence in support of a specific theory only.

Is it surprising that the entire bloody interior was replaced? IF ONLY that rear seat was reupholstered, that would be circumstantial evidence of a bullet hole.

Even considering the above, has anyone actually reported that a bullet hole was seen in the seat?

And yes, IMO it is possible that a bullet hole existed in the seat back, but with no evidence to support it, doesn't it seem unlikely?

[Chris Newton]

Robert Prudhomme, on 04 Nov 2015 - 04:01 AM, said:

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.

Thank you, Robert!

That was my initial point. I never stated there couldn't be a back exit, I stated reversing the trajectory direction doesn't solve the problem we've discussed during this entire thread, AND the previous one.

I'm still at the same place that I was when this thread started:

IMO, and based upon these two threads: There is NO through-and-through bullet trajectory from EITHER the neck wound or the back wound.

Tom & Robert,

By my count we have 2 shots from the front: JFK's neck wound and right skull above the ear (?),(not counting the windshield perforation).

At least 2 from the back: Assuming all JC wounds accountable by one bullet (doubtful) and JFK's back wound, (not including Tague's curb and the windsheild frame).

Is 4-8 shots a good estimate?

If so, I think 2 shooters could get off 2 accurate shots in the time frame allowed... but if we think it might be 8 shots then we have to assume 3 teams of shooters, at least.

I'm still trying to account for the different ballistic profiles. If we had 3 shooters, it's possible that we have different weapons and different rounds, some of which might have properties we haven't considered yet.

This could support Cliff's theory of an "exotic" weapon.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Cliff Varnell]

This would have had to occur on the plane -- or else Secret Service Special Agent Glenn Bennett was one of the master-minds of the cover-up.

This is his contemporaneous notes written while flying back on AF1:

The chain of possession for the clothing is clear, not so for the autopsy photos.

Hi Cliff,

I mentioned this a ways back in this thread. A number of responses were that Bennett "wasn't even looking at JFK" when the shot occurred; I was told to "see 'this'" photo and the Z-film. So I again looked at the indicated photos and as I already knew, GB who is sitting on the right side of the rear seat, is staring into the right rear quadrant EXACTLY as he should be according to all the SS testimony. i.e. That is their operating procedure. Personally I can't tell where he's looking from the Z-film as Zap is attempting to center JFK in the frame. Now if someone will tell me exactly WHEN the back shot was fired relative to these photos I can form an opinion.

According to his statement Bennett was looking to the right when he heard the first shot.

This is corroborated by Willis 5.

Bennett is the seated agent on the far right of the frame.

He stated that he then turned to look at "the Boss."

In Altgens 6 his features are blurred, consistent with a movement toward the front.

His observation of a strike about four inches down from the shoulder is corroborated by the location of the bullet holes in the clothes four inches below the bottom of the collars.

Bennett's statements enjoy three points of corroboration -- Willis 5, Altgens 6, and the clothing evidence.

As I wrote earlier in this thread, GB states that he was looking to the right, heard a shot, immediately looked at the Boss and saw a shot hit him 4" below the shoulder, etc. Now, if he heard the shot that hit in the back and then turned he would have been too late to see it hit. He says the next shot hit him in the head. As many believe there were two shot prior to the head shot, GB could have heard the first shot (which many feel was a miss) and turned his head in time to see the next shot hit him in the back. Additionally, GB states that the back shot came from the rear. So the photo taken of him looking to the rear could have been taken immediately before or immediately after the shot and GB would have been looking right. IMO, this is something to consider when deciding his level of credibility, not something that conclusively proves he was lying.

As you say, and I stated earlier, his published notes state they were made at 5:30pm on the 22nd, his testimony wasn't taken until the 23rd. Did GB tell this to anyone prior to the autopsy? We don't know. Of course like everyone else involved he could lying. This makes him no more or less credible than EVERYONE else. IF this statement was vital to "proving" shots from behind, why tell ONLY GB to lie? Why not tell Shift Leader Emory Roberts (who called Rybka and Hill back to the SS car, and is suspected by many to be complicit) who per procedure was SUPPOSED to be looking only in JFK's direction to claim he saw this also?

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.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The photo/film evidence plus the witness statements put the throat shot circa Z190.

SS SA Glenn Bennett's well-corroborated contemporaneous account puts the back shot circa Z260.

As per the autopsists suspicion the night of the autopsy with the body in front of them that JFK had been hit with a high tech round which wouldn't appear on x-ray or in the body: first shot paralytic, second round kill shot with toxin.

Most likely scenario in my book.

Check out JFK and the Unspeakable pg 131 for an account of similar high tech weaponry used in Hue that May.

The trail of the assassins Garrison couldn't follow (pg 161):

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

The back/throat wounds lead us to legitimate Persons of Interest.

The obsessive study of Ozzie/s & the Head Wound/s lead no where.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Neal]

Robert Prudhomme, on 04 Nov 2015 - 04:01 AM, said:

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.

Thank you, Robert!

That was my initial point. I never stated there couldn't be a back exit, I stated reversing the trajectory direction doesn't solve the problem we've discussed during this entire thread, AND the previous one.

I'm still at the same place that I was when this thread started:

IMO, and based upon these two threads: There is NO through-and-through bullet trajectory from EITHER the neck wound or the back wound.

Tom & Robert,

By my count we have 2 shots from the front: JFK's neck wound and right skull above the ear (?),(not counting the windshield perforation).

At least 2 from the back: Assuming all JC wounds accountable by one bullet (doubtful) and JFK's back wound, (not including Tague's curb and the windsheild frame).

Is 4-8 shots a good estimate?

If so, I think 2 shooters could get off 2 accurate shots in the time frame allowed... but if we think it might be 8 shots then we have to assume 3 teams of shooters, at least.

I'm still trying to account for the different ballistic profiles. If we had 3 shooters, it's possible that we have different weapons and different rounds, some of which might have properties we haven't considered yet.

This could support Cliff's theory of an "exotic" weapon.

Chris, I'm confused as to how your statements relate to the quoted text in your post...

And I do agree that an "exotic" bullet/weapon was a real possibility, given probable CIA involvement. I have been unable to find any specific data on a bullet that would only penetrate an inch or two and then fragment into dust particles that could violate pleura and lungs yet are undetectable on x-rays. My thought is to investigate the possibility that the pleura and lung WAS violated by a fragmenting bullet, and the only chest x-ray was removed from the Archives to prevent this discovery.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

I am researching the "back wound" and whether or not it "should" have been detected at Parkland:

WC Testimony of Dr. C. James Carrico:
Dr. CARRICO - After what we have described we completed an initial emergency examination ... we felt his back, determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there.
Mr. SPECTER - Specifically what did you do with respect to the back, Dr. Carrico?
Dr. CARRICO - This is a routine examination of critically ill patients where you haven't got time to examine him fully. I just placed my hands just above the belt, but in this case just above the brace, and ran my hands up his back.
Mr. SPECTER - To what point on his body?
Dr. CARRICO - All the way up to his neck very briefly.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you feel by that?
Dr. CARRICO - I felt nothing other than the blood and debris. There was no large wound there.
Mr. SPECTER - What source did you attribute the blood to at that time?
Dr. CARRICO - As it could have come from the head wound, and it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound and not from his head.
[Emphasis above is mine]

IMO, Carrico is stating that the back exam was cursory - quickly feeling for "large" "life-threatening" wounds. Although a 1/4" wound is life-threatening if inflicted by a bullet, is it considered "large"? Carrico mentions blood "and debris" - presumably brain matter. This blood and debris would add a degree of difficulty to the hurried tactile detection of a 1/4" hole.

Obviously, Specter is 'fishing' for back wound info in this part of the Q & A, but like so much of the WC testimony, whenever they are about to receive a definitive statement they immediately change the subject, or a commissioner buts in with an irrelevant question, and that is the end of that line of questioning.

Carrico's last response above appears to either be edited, or prior to, and/or after, Carrico's response, Specter may have stated something that has been removed. Until this statement Carrico is clear and concise in his responses, but this statement is neither. IMO it is confusing and muddled. This is the time for Spector to ask a clarifying question such as "If there had been a small bullet hole in his back, could it have been missed in this type of an examination?" Instead Spector lets an ambiguous statement stand, and moves on to another topic.

Referring to the blood on JFK's back, Carrico states "it certainly could have been a back wound." Did he intend to say "from" a back wound? That would make more sense. Either way, isn't he acknowledging that there "certainly" could have been a back wound even though he did not detect one? If Carrico believed that his "hands on" back inspection proved there was little chance of an existing back wound, why would he state that "it certainly could have been a back wound", and "there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound and not from his head."

SUMMARY:
1. "determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there".
Clearly, Carrico is stating that he was looking for LARGE wounds only. Does a 1/4" bullet hole count as a LARGE wound? Because he is looking for a LARGE wound he is less likely to find a SMALL wound.

2. Replying to Specter's question as to where the blood originated: it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound.

If Carrico is convinced that his 'feel the back exam' proved there was no back wound, why does he state that it "certainly could have been a back wound" in regard to the origin of the blood?


Based on the above statements, it is my strong opinion that Carrico believes a back wound could easily have gone undetected at Parkland.

Opinions, please...

Edited November 5, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Chris Newton]

Chris, I'm confused as to how your statements relate to the quoted text in your post...

Well they do because 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.

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.

[Ron Ecker]

Notice the large white blotch on the back of the seat where JFK sat. That is presumably reflected sunlight. Why would it be reflected that way in that place? Could the blotch have been put there to hide a bullet hole?

Edited November 5, 2015 by Ron Ecker