Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Chris Newton]

Byrd removed the East window frame--the one all the shots supposedly came from--and put it on display at his house.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WindowAuthenticity001.pdf

I wasn't aware that the museum has a conspiracy exhibit, but I haven't been there in 15+ years.

Hey Brian, Thanks. I had to go back to what Gary Mack told me in 2012. Someone had passed the info that the window was blocked in error and Gary actually corrected me:

FYI... Gary Mack has confirmed that the southwest corner windows, facing Elm, are not blocked and never have been. The pair of windows overlooking Stemmons, to the west, are blocked by an exhibit, "Ballistics and Forensics".

And yes, per Gary there was/is a little display with various conspiracy theories, "little" being a key word I gathered. This was an offshoot to a bigger discussion I had with Gary over Charles Briggs' involvement with the Museum exhibits.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've always been a bit puzzled by the autopsy doctors reporting bilateral scalpel incisions made in preparation for the insertion of chest tubes, but also reporting no chest tubes had actually been inserted. It is disturbing to read the medical report of Dr. M.T. Jenkins. written only a few hours after JFK's death, in which he states only a right chest tube was inserted AND connected to a closed chest drainage tube. As the chest tube is inevitably inserted first, and then connected to drainage, it seems very odd for Jenkins to say this if the tube(s) were never inserted. My licence does not allow me to insert a chest tube (for relief from tension pneumothorax) but I have gone over this procedure many times with higher licenced paramedics. While it may have been a common practice in 1963, I have never heard of anyone making a scalpel incision in the chest, in advance of inserting a chest tube. It is a rather quick routine involving nothing more than a large bore needle inserted through the intercostal space between the 2nd and 3rd rib, at about the midclavicular line.

Does anyone recall the Parkland surgeons speaking of making scalpel incisions for chest tubes? It was definitely mentioned in the autopsy report, and the claim that the incisions were made, but no tubes inserted, seemed to lessen the importance of chest tubes; as if they were an afterthought.

Dr. Peters did insert a right chest tube, as you noted on page 1 of this topic. So of course an incision was made there. As for the left side, I don't know.

Maybe Humes (falsely) reported such an incision being made on both sides in an attempt to make it sound like doing so was standard practice and nothing to ask questions about. Because an incision on just one side naturally would indicate something being wrong... on just that side. Dr. Humes would mislead like this because the presence of a collapsed lung would have been problematic to the WC.

I have two questions related to this, for you Robert:

1. How could the Parkland doctors have known which lung, left or right, was affected based upon symptoms they saw, like agonal breathing? Dr. Jenkins said that there was "obvious tracheal and chest damage." What kind of chest damage would indicate which lung is affected?

2. Jenkins said there was "obvious tracheal ... damage." Could this damage have been the cause of the Kennedy's pneumothorax, rather than something from the back wound? After all, Jenkins himself said, "...a tracheotomy tube was put in. This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs"

Hi Sandy

I discussed this a few posts back but I will gladly go over it again. When JFK arrived in Trauma Room One, assisted ventilation was begun almost immediately. As oxygen was pushed into his lungs, much of it would escape from the hole through his trachea and out through the throat wound. I'm sure bloody air bubbles would have been visible at the throat wound.

If JFK had a tension pneumothorax in his right lung, for which a chest tube connected to closed water drainage would be the only solution, there would be no expansion seen on the right side of the chest each time a breath was forced in. Also, another sign of a tension pneumothorax is the external observation of the trachea deviated away from the affected lung. The deviation of JFK's trachea to the left was reported by Dr. Malcolm Perry in his WC testimony.

Many have argued that the tension pneumothorax could have been caused by air escaping the trachea and going down into the mediastinum and the two pleural cavities, but I strongly disagree. First, the hole in the skin at JFK's throat kept the tracheal wound from being airtight and, as air will take the path of least resistance, it would escape through the wound in his throat to the atmosphere long before it ever pressurized the cavities below. Second, with the deviation of the trachea to the left as an indicator, why would only the right pleural cavity fill with air from the tracheal wound?

P.S.

Note that Jenkins says "This is one way of avoiding pushing air out through a fractured trachea and down into each chest cavity, which would cause a pneumothorax or a collapse of the lungs." Jenkins speaks of air coming out of a fractured trachea, not one shot through by a bullet and with a nice vent hole to atmosphere adjacent to it. He also speaks of air going down into EACH chest cavity, and a collapse of the LUNGS, not a LUNG.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

The simplest explanation is that the pleura actually WAS penetrated, and they are covering this up, but overselling the lie.

You make some good points, Tom. And I'm inclined to agree with you were it not for what

James Jenkins said in a fairly early interview, that he could see Humes probe the pleural membrane (with

a probe, not his finger) and that the membrane was intact. Jenkins is considered to be a reliable witness.

Hi Sandy,

To elaborate: when I stated "simplest explanation", I probably should have included the caveat that I do NOT have a theory that fits all the evidence that appears to be real. To believe Humes is lying is "the simplest explanation" in the sense that it's the least complex. To believe that others are also lying is not AS easy, but of course we don't know WHO was ordered to lie to comply with the LN scenario. ANY of the military personnel MAY have been ordered to lie.

Below are lists off the top of my head, stating what I PERSONALLY have been convinced is true, and what I PERSONALLY find bewildering. By all means PLEASE pick apart anything I've stated that IN GENERAL is incorrect. Any contrary or supporting evidence is EQUALLY welcome.

The issue of body alteration, and lying by witnesses is problematic. If you accept body alteration (and I DO!) then you must be suspicious of (but NOT reject out of hand) any evidence that points toward multiple gunmen. If you believe Humes, Boswell, and Finke were ordered to lie (and I do!) the same method should be applied regarding them and ANY military personnel at Bethesda.

What I do believe regarding the Back Wound:

1. SS Glen Bennett stated on the day of the shooting that he observed a 'hit' about 6" down JFK's back and slightly to the right of the midline

2. RADM Burkley's Death Certificate completed and signed in Dallas in support of the SS stealing the body states a wound at or near T3

3. The holes in JFK's clothing support Bennett's statement, AND Burkley's Death Certificate

4. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, and did so whenever necessary

5. The doctors were not allowed to perform a complete autopsy. See testimony of Finke during Clay Shaw's trial. Thus, evidence necessary to understand the wounds has been hidden. This of course implies that there actually WAS 'something' that was required to be hidden...

6. The body WAS tampered with, possibly including the back wound. Therefore vital evidence regarding the back wound MAY have been destroyed. The condition of the throat wound based upon Humes' description as he began the autopsy convinces me that sometime between Parkland and the moment Humes began the autopsy, someone opened the throat. If the purpose was to create an unquestionable wound of exit, then it was extremely overdone. If however, someone expected to find the wrong type of bullet and/or remove proof that this shot entered from the front, this is the type of damage to be expected. Proof that the throat wound WAS tampered with, is proof that ALL the wounds are suspect.

7. Bullets and/or bullet fragments WERE removed from the throat wound (see size of wound above) and therefore, possibly the back wound as well

8. CE-399 was a plant to link the TSBD rifle to the assassination. It did NOT create any of the damage done to JFK or JBC, and should be completely disregarded in any discussion of the wounds

What I do NOT know about the Back Wound:

1. How a FMJ, or a standard frangible bullet could have made a shallow wound. A FMJ would have penetrated the pleura. A frangible would not break up after traveling only an inch or two. In the previous linked thread, the possibility that an under-powered shot aimed at his head would have impacted his back was discussed. To my satisfaction you could have a short-shot that EITHER hit low, OR impacted at a low enough velocity to cause a shallow wound, but not BOTH with the same shot. Importantly, no one came up with a proven impact velocity that would create a wound ONLY an inch or two deep in soft tissue.

2. Was a bullet or any metallic fragments removed from the back wound?

3. Could ANY type of bullet including an 'exotic' bullet create the shallow back wound without penetrating the pleura?

4. Are we absolutely certain that the pleura was NOT penetrated? Jenkins stated that Humes' probe did not penetrate the pleura. What was the diameter of the probe used? If there were a number of holes smaller in diameter than the probe used, and Humes WAS seeking the track of an intact bullet, then the probe would not have penetrated. If the probe was held at an angle other than the bullets actual trajectory, it would not have penetrated. Toward the end of the autopsy it was decided that the back wound AND the throat must be connected by a bullet path. If a hole in the pleura was discovered lower than the back wound entry this can NOT be admitted as it would require one more rifle shot than a LN could produce in the allotted time frame. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, why not Jenkins?

5. Where is chest x-ray #9? As discussed in testimony by Ebersole there are a multitude of small objects visible, which he dismisses as 'dirt' in the film cartridges. At least one other doctor present appears to disagree. I know nothing about Radiology. Are film cartridges typically that dirty? Prior to use, aren't they shipped in protective bags?

[Chris Newton]

Tom,

I concur 100%. A couple of observations and additions:

8. CE-399 was a plant to link the TSBD rifle to the assassination. It did NOT create any of the damage done to JFK or JBC, and should be completely disregarded in any discussion of the wounds

CE-399 was almost certainly a different missile when found. BUT If a projectile that came to be CE-399 was found in Parkland on a stretcher (and it was not planted) then it would have probably come from a wounded person. This scenario would presumably only be possible if the found missile fell from a wound or clothing. Knowing what was removed and left in Senator Connolly in surgery, presumably also rules out his wounds as a source. I would think that it would be unlikely that an almost intact projectile could "fall out" of any wounds of JFK except his back.

I do agree that another scenario is that it's simply planted like a whole bunch of other evidence.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Tom Neal]

Tom,

I concur 100%.

Thanks Chris!

A couple of observations and additions:

CE-399 was almost certainly a different missile when found. BUT If a projectile that came to be CE-399 was found in Parkland on a stretcher (and it was not planted) then it would have probably come from a wounded person. This scenario would presumably only be possible if the found missile fell from a wound or clothing. Knowing what was removed and left in Senator Connolly in surgery, presumably also rules out his wounds as a source. I would think that it would be unlikely that an almost intact projectile could "fall out" of any wounds of JFK except his back.

Based on JFK and Governor JBC's wounds, I agree that IF CE-399 fell out of any wound, it was JFK's back wound. However, I can't figure out how a Carcano bullet could have created such a shallow wound that it literally fell out of the body. An exiting bullet MAY POSSIBLY do this. According to quotes from LHO's doctors, Ruby's slug came close to exiting. In an attempt to consider every possibility, if this was an exit wound (and the jacket and shirt indicate it is an entry wound), where was the entry wound in the front of the body?? Especially if the pleura wasn't violated...

I do agree that another scenario is that it's simply planted like a whole bunch of other evidence.

As I recall, CE-399 had not a trace of "organic material" adhering to it. Not that I would otherwise accept the SBT, but in addition to flesh, blood and bone, JBC's clothing was made of organic fiber. This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, chest, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?

Unless the pleura was violated (and I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other) then this back wound is quite the enigma.

At the moment I can only accept two possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

Any additional plausible scenarios would be welcome...

Any leads to Chest X-ray #9, and the possibility of it revealing metallic fragments/particles...

Tom

EDIT: deleted "undershirt" from JBC's clothing

Edited October 21, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Chris Newton]

Tom,

Yes, an exotic bullet is a possibility.

O.P. Wright seemed positive during his interview with Josiah Thompson in 1966 that CE-399 had a pointed tip. Tink showed him pictures of CE-399 and O.P. rejected them as the missile he found. What I find missing is a description of what he did find, other than the "pointy tip". Was it big or small? What color was it? Was it intact? "Pointy" with "shoulders" or without?

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

If a different bullet fell out we will probably never find it even if we kill the CE-399 myth.

[Tom Neal]

Yes, an exotic bullet is a possibility.

O.P. Wright seemed positive during his interview with Josiah Thompson in 1966 that CE-399 had a pointed tip. Tink showed him pictures of CE-399 and O.P. rejected them as the missile he found. What I find missing is a description of what he did find, other than the "pointy tip". Was it big or small? What color was it? Was it intact? "Pointy" with "shoulders" or without?

If a different bullet fell out we will probably never find it even if we kill the CE-399 myth.

Chris,

What do you think of the "close friend" of Sam Kinney, who revealed that Kinney had told him that he is the one that put the bullet on the stretcher? I'm convinced that CE-399 is NOT the bullet found on the stretcher, and is very different in appearance from a Carcano bullet. If true, then where did Kinney get this bullet, and WHY did he put it on the stretcher?

The friend has also stated that according to Kinney at least one shot definitely came from the Grassy Knoll. Kinney himself has stated that he found the back of JFK's skull on the rear seat of the limo, "right where Clint Hill said it was."

Tom

[Chris Newton]

What do you think of the "close friend" of Sam Kinney, who revealed that Kinney had told him that he is the one that put the bullet on the stretcher?

I think Kinney put his friend and neighbor in a weird position.

If Sam Kinney really wanted to make a post-mortem confession he should have had a lawyer help make a video taped statement. I was moved by the neighbor's account, he seemed truthful but it's strictly hearsay. Sam may have felt remorseful about something he did or was part of and felt the need to confess to someone, I wish he had done it differently.

I also feel that if he did do what he said then there's a whole lot more he knows that he didn't tell about. I'm not sure a partial unofficial half-confession is absolution.

[Gary Murr]

Tom Neal:

"This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, undershirt, chest, undershirt, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?"

Hi Tom: Just a minor correction to your above quote: John Connally was not wearing an undershirt on November 22, 1963. This of course does not detract from the central point you are making - re: "no organic material..." found on CE 399.

FWIW

[Ron Ecker]

Tom Neal: "Any additional plausible scenarios would be welcome..."

I remember reading somewhere the suggestion that the back wound was deliberately created by whoever tampered with the body, to explain the throat wound as an exit wound. They just didn't do a very good job, being in a hurry. Problem is, that doesn't explain the corresponding holes in the coat and shirt. Presumably they would have had to shoot the corpse in the back while clothed, which brings us right back to the enigma of the wound's shallowness. But they wouldn't want this bullet to exit, if the intent was to explain the throat wound.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Chris Newton]

Presumably they would have had to shoot the corpse in the back while clothed, which brings us right back to the enigma of the wound's shallowness.

I'm pretty sure that when the heart stops beating the corpse stops bleeding (unless it's being bled out on purpose like a deer). A shot into a corpse would not explain all the blood on the extant shirt unless that shirt was a plant as well. I believe though, that the shirt we have was taken off JFK at Parkland although I know nothing about it's chain of custody.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm pretty sure that when the heart stops beating the corpse stops bleeding (unless it's being bled out on purpose like a deer). A shot into a corpse would not explain all the blood on the extant shirt unless that shirt was a plant as well. I believe though, that the shirt we have was taken off JFK at Parkland although I know nothing about it's chain of custody.

The clothes were given to Greer, who at some point before the autopsy gave them to an agent whose name escapes me at the moment (the one who was presumably left off the limo at Love Field) with instructions to go put them in a White House locker.

[Chris Newton]

Thanks Ron.

Back to the back wound. Prevailing theory amongst everyone is that the back wound occurred very early in the shooting sequence. Is there any possibility it occurred later on?

For instance, do we know what Kennedy's body configuration was when Jackie went out on the trunk? It would seem to me he was unattended until she and Hill got back in position before they went under the overpass. Could he have been shot then? Maybe from the overpass, one of the knolls, Byrd's window?

[Tom Neal]

Prevailing theory amongst everyone is that the back wound occurred very early in the shooting sequence.

Chris,

As stated below Bennett recorded his observations on the flight back to DC, so they are contemporaneous. AFAIK, he is the only person to report seeing the back shot hit JFK. According to his statement the first shot *that he heard* was the back shot. So it was either the first or second shot. Below Bennett's statement is Vince Palamara's take as to why PRS was in the motorcade.

SA Glen Bennett PRS-Notes: "Written on plane (5:30 pm 11-22-1963)

We made a left hand turn and then [back?] right. The Presidents auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. Immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker looked at the Boss's Car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Bosss head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left"

Vince Palamara 03-02-2014: Bennett was a PRS agent- an administrative agent who monitored threats to the president and stayed BACK in D.C. His presence on these trips (and later denials) confirms my suspicions that he was a covert monitor of mortal threats to JFK's life in-progress and that this was covered up afterwards for fear of reprisals from Congress and the public...

Tom

Edited October 20, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Tom Neal:

"This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, undershirt, chest, undershirt, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?"

Hi Tom: Just a minor correction to your above quote: John Connally was not wearing an undershirt on November 22, 1963. This of course does not detract from the central point you are making - re: "no organic material..." found on CE 399.

FWIW

Hello Gary,

Comment noted.

Thanks; every detail matters in this case.

Tom