Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

Well, I wouldn't phrase it as "everybody lied about everything." In fact I give the benefit of the doubt to most witnesses, and accept their testimonies if there is corroboration.

I think Humes lied only because he was ordered to do so by a superior officer.

Some of the autopsy photos are obvious fakes. I don't know enough about the x-rays to doubt them.

Many things tell me that somebody in the Secret Service was complicit in the crime. And it is my firm belief that stripping the car down right away was intentionally done to suppress evidence. I thought that long before this "throat-to-back theory" entered my mind. So, for a bullet hole in the rear seat not to have been reported wouldn't come as a big surprise to me. It is precisely what I would expect.

You ask, "... with no evidence to support [a bullet hole in the back seat], doesn't it seem unlikely?" Absolutely not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan used to say. Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car. Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these.

With what I know now, this latest theory (latest in this thread) seems just as likely, or maybe even more so, than the frangible bullet theory. On the other hand it hasn't been thoroughly criticized. I see no reason at this time to count it out.

[Sandy Larsen]

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. ...

o

o

o

Well, now there is some evidence -- which I'd missed -- against the "throat-to-back trajectory" theory. I had assumed SS Glenn Bennett was one of those standing on the side rails. It's a whole new ballgame now that I know he was sitting. The bullet hole, four inches down from the top of the shoulder, had to have been above the top of the seat's back for Bennett to have seen it. Meaning the bullet couldn't have disappeared into the seat. It would have likely hit the trunk lid. And that would have left a dent, if not a hole.

Does anybody know of any good photos of the trunk lid after the shots were fired?

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

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[/u]

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...

I'm inclined to believe the back wound was real. I mean, so what if no bullet for it was found? Same is true of the throat wound, and we know that wound is real.

[Tom Neal]

But there is a huge difference between a front-to-back trajectory and a back-to-front trajectory that eliminates the latter from consideration. And that is, for the back-to-front trajectory to occur, the shooter would have had to shoot into the back of the limo (and hope it hits Kennedy).

There are additional reasons why a back entry seems unlikely at best, however, I was referring ONLY to the fact that nowhere in this thread or the previous one has anyone accepted the throat wound entry and back wound exit can be connected.

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

I hope you're not serious, but... The bubble top was stored there. Before you ask, Sam Kinney states that he removed it from the trunk and assembled it outside of Parkland as he was ordered to. Kinney would have to be in on it, and none of the many, many, police, etc. didn't wonder why a guy was inside the trunk.

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

...where it would have been found by someone during the limo inspection or by the company that completely rebuilt the limo. I think they would turn in a bullet found in the trunk. At the very least there would have been rumors. Have you heard of any?

[Sandy Larsen]

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?

I don't think so, Ron. The bullet had to be much higher up than that, up in the black area or even above that. For SS agent Glen Bennett to have witnessed the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would have had to be above the top of the seat back.

Still, this photo is useful. Look how thick that back cushion is.

Suppose the back wound was located just slightly above the top of the back cushion. If so, it would be possible for the bullet to enter the cushion at an angle from its top.

The "throat-to-back trajectory" theory isn't dead after all.

[Tom Neal]

You ask, "... with no evidence to support [a bullet hole in the back seat], doesn't it seem unlikely?"

Absolutely not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as Carl Sagan used to say.

Based upon your above logic, because there's no evidence that Jackie pulled a gun out of her pocket and shot JFK in the back, this "theory" is also likely.

If "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" then it isn't evidence of existence either. I'm only aware that Sagan used this analogy when questioned about other life in the universe, which given its infinite nature becomes a statistical certainty. Is a back entry wound a statistical certainty?

Sure, I cannot conclude out of thin air that a bullet went through the back seat of the car.

But obviously you can conclude that it's likely, or if you want to quibble, not unlikely. You also must conclude that the front exit wound is considerably smaller than the back entry wound. Can you provide evidence that this is "likely" to occur?

Just like you (or I) can't conclude out of thin air that a frangible bullet was used. But if the evidence leads us to no other choice, then of course we can conclude either of these.

I have NEVER "concluded" frangible bullets were used. As I have stated in multiple posts, IMO, and with the current evidence that is the better of the possible choices. If that means I "concluded" then you and I are not reading the same dictionary.

Out of thin air? Do you think an FMJ made the throat wound and the back wound and didn't exit? Do you think that an FMJ disintegrated inside JFK's head leaving cone-shaped dust trails of bullet fragments?

Speaking of "out of thin air"... When you decide that a back entry may be more likely than a front entry with as you state 'no evidence' to back it up, who is conjuring "out of thin air"?

With what I know now, this latest theory (latest in this thread) seems just as likely, or maybe even more so, than the frangible bullet theory. On the other hand it hasn't been thoroughly criticized. I see no reason at this time to count it out.

You are referring to the back shot entry? I'd be curious to know how many here agree that this is "maybe even more likely."

[Tom Neal]

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?

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[/u]

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...

I'm inclined to believe the back wound was real. I mean, so what if no bullet for it was found? Same is true of the throat wound, and we know that wound is real.

I agree.

However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy,

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

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

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

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

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

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

Yes, of course.

[Tom Neal]

The bullet had to be much higher up than that, up in the black area or even above that. For SS agent Glen Bennett to have witnessed the hole in Kennedy's jacket, it would have had to be above the top of the seat back.

Suppose the back wound was located just slightly above the top of the back cushion. If so, it would be possible for the bullet to enter the cushion at an angle from its top.

At what time or Z-frame do you propose JFK's back entry occurred? What was JFK's posture at the time? What was the angle of the bullets trajectory as it passed through the throat wound and exited the back wound? Do you agree that the above data is required to evaluate your "back shot entry wound" theory?

[Sandy Larsen]

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

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

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

Count me as skeptical.

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

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

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

I just took a short trip down Elm Street in Dealey Plaza -- via Google Maps -- and I see no tall buildings from which a bullet could have originated. Roy said the downward angle of the shot had to have been around 15 degrees. I just can't see how that angle could have been achieved. I'd like to hear from Roy about this, given that he's the proponent of the theory.

[James R Gordon]

Sandy,

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

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

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

Actually I was being polite. I am not convinced with your understanding of the geometry of human anatomy.

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

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

There is no building in the south plaza that would could be a source for such a shot. If Roy Wieselquist has the Post Office in mind that is just just complete nonsense and displays a complete misunderstanding of Dealey Plaza topology. Sherry Fiester “Enemy of the Truth” did promote a theory whereby the shooter was firing from the TUP. She is a highly qualified forensic scientist who has published on the JFK assassination. However - from my perspective - she lacks an understanding of trajectory analysis. I do not criticise her blood splatter analysis: I am not qualified to do so.

However firing from the south towards the car has an impediment that Sherry was never prepared - in the conversations that we had - to accept. In firing towards the car required that the shot - or shots - now had to avoid Bill Greer, Nellie Connally and John Connally. The danger presented to these individuals was created by the fact the JFK had moved his position and was limiting any possible successful through shot. One of Sherry's possible locations required the bullet to pass through Jackie Kennedy. At Z 312 Jackie is covering JFK if you are firing towards the car from the TUP.

There was even the issue of elevation and whether there was sufficient elevation to even make such a shot. What needs to be borne in mind is that a shot being fired from the north of the plaza then the the car is not an obstacle. However a shot from the south then the car becomes a severe obstacle. Where - to some degree - a shot from the north of the plaza presents an open target. But a shot from the south presents a closed target. Before reaching the target the shot has to first pass through the windscreen and then find a passage between the other occupants - and obstacles such as the divider between the Secret Service and the passengers - and the target JFK. It is just not possible.

And that does not even account for the fact that no witness claimed shots flew the central grassy area in the plaza where witnesses were positioned and were even taking pictures.

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

Yes, of course.

[Chris Davidson]

Elevation and the Triple Under Pass

SS ReEnactment.mov

[Sandy Larsen]

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

...where it would have been found by someone during the limo inspection ...

Oh, really? Like the hole they found in the windshield? (Which had been seen by six credible witnesses, according to Doug Horne.) Oh wait... that hole subsequently disappeared, didn't it. Hmmm.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

This is just one of the many reasons I believe someone in the Secret Service was complicit.

... or by the company that completely rebuilt the limo.

The inside of the limo had been stripped before those folks got it.

[Chris Davidson]

Sandy,

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

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

You doubt a clearance based on what? Did you actually rotate the 3D skeleton I linked to and look for one? If so, did you not see the clearance? I did.

Actually I was being polite. I am not convinced with your understanding of the geometry of human anatomy.

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

We haven't even discussed the direction of the trajectory yet. Roy Wieselquist, who was the one to bring this theory up, said that he believes the shot came from the south. For this theory to work, there needs to be a "tall" building in that direction. I believe Roy has one in mind.

There is no building in the south plaza that would could be a source for such a shot. If Roy Wieselquist has the Post Office in mind that is just just complete nonsense and displays a complete misunderstanding of Dealey Plaza topology. Sherry Fiester “Enemy of the Truth” did promote a theory whereby the shooter was firing from the TUP. She is a highly qualified forensic scientist who has published on the JFK assassination. However - from my perspective - she lacks an understanding of trajectory analysis. I do not criticise her blood splatter analysis: I am not qualified to do so.

However firing from the south towards the car has an impediment that Sherry was never prepared - in the conversations that we had - to accept. In firing towards the car required that the shot - or shots - now had to avoid Bill Greer, Nellie Connally and John Connally. The danger presented to these individuals was created by the fact the JFK had moved his position and was limiting any possible successful through shot. One of Sherry's possible locations required the bullet to pass through Jackie Kennedy. At Z 312 Jackie is covering JFK if you are firing towards the car from the TUP.

There was even the issue of elevation and whether there was sufficient elevation to even make such a shot. What needs to be borne in mind is that a shot being fired from the north of the plaza then the the car is not an obstacle. However a shot from the south then the car becomes a severe obstacle. Where - to some degree - a shot from the north of the plaza presents an open target. But a shot from the south presents a closed target. Before reaching the target the shot has to first pass through the windscreen and then find a passage between the other occupants - and obstacles such as the divider between the Secret Service and the passengers - and the target JFK. It is just not possible.

And that does not even account for the fact that no witness claimed shots flew the central grassy area in the plaza where witnesses were positioned and were even taking pictures.

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

Yes, of course.

James,

I tend to agree with you.

Throw in the convertible top support while viewing from the right side of the limo, and it creates a very difficult shot.

chris

[Robert Prudhomme]

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

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

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

Count me as skeptical.

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

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

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

I just took a short trip down Elm Street in Dealey Plaza -- via Google Maps -- and I see no tall buildings from which a bullet could have originated. Roy said the downward angle of the shot had to have been around 15 degrees. I just can't see how that angle could have been achieved. I'd like to hear from Roy about this, given that he's the proponent of the theory.

I believe the downward trajectory would have been in excess of 20° unless, of course, JFK quickly bent over while behind the Stemmons sign. However, bending over tends to hide the throat wound location behind the chin.