Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Tom Neal]

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.

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your input. I recall reading about that scenario, also.

It's the only scenario I can come up with that would actually produce the shallow wound and explain a bullet falling out of a wound. But, as you say, the corresponding holes in the jacket and shirt require the creation of the false wound prior to the removal of his clothing at Parkland. It seems unlikely that anyone had the opportunity to so this unobserved. Also, we have Glen Bennett's statement that he observed a shot strike JFK in the back 4" below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the center of his back. So there is evidence that it is a real wound.

Tom

Edited October 20, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Ron Ecker]

Also, we have Glen Bennett's statement that he observed a shot strike JFK in the back 4" below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the center of his back. So there is evidence that it is a real wound.

I wouldn't put much stock in Bennett's statement, which was made the day after the assassination. As seen in Willis 5, Bennett was not even looking in JFK's direction at the time of the shot that startled Willis and caused him to snap the picture. Bennett is facing toward the right of the SS car and is looking off at someone or something in that direction.

[Ron Ecker]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your input. I recall reading about that scenario, also.

It's the only scenario I can come up with that would actually produce the shallow wound and explain a bullet falling out of a wound. But, as you say, the corresponding holes in the jacket and shirt require the creation of the false wound prior to the removal of his clothing at Parkland. It seems unlikely that anyone had the opportunity to so this unobserved.

I know this is far-fetched, but it is not inconceivable that a rush job was done on the body at Walter Reed, with the clothes available there. In addition to the head surgery, the corpse could have been clothed, shot in the back, then the clothes removed and sent to be stowed away at the White House while the body went to Bethesda.

As for blood on the shirt or jacket, it didn't have to be JFK's blood.

[Sandy Larsen]

But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.)

Sandy,

One of Connally's wounds at the least.

chris

(I don't know why the image doesn't show up in what I'm quoting above.)

Thanks Chris. I did not know that any official concluded and stated that the magic bullet (or any bullet) came from the west end of the building. I've suspected for some time that shots were fired from there, as others have and as a few witnesses claimed.

I personally believe that either the TSBD was a CIA front, or that it's owner, D.H. Byrd, was CIA. (Byrd had CIA associations, though I can't name them off the top of my head.)

Of course, Dr. Shaw's claims contradict the magic bullet theory. But them, most everything does.

[Sandy Larsen]

I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that.

Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible.

The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too?

Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation.

[Sandy Larsen]

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

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

Hi Brian,

How sure are you that Byrd had the "official sniper's nest" window removed, and not another one instead?

The following 2007 Education Forum topic

"Siiper's window" up for bid on eBay

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9321

has on its first page a very long convoluted history of the window, and this quote of Joan Mellen:

“Dry Hole” Byrd just happened to own the Texas School Book Depository, from which someone, not Lee Oswald, but someone, fired at the President on November 22 nd. Six weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy, when Byrd wanted a souvenir of this historical building, he chose the South Westernmost window of the sixth floor, not the window from which Oswald purportedly fired with his creaky rifle with its loose telescopic sight, that was the Southeast. No, Byrd took the window from which a Dealey Plaza witness and his wife told the Warren Commission they saw a man with a gun. It seems D. H. Byrd knew exactly which window was the souvenir, and, by inference, that Oswald was no shooter. [emphasis added]

Ron Ecker posted this quote and said he didn't know what the source of Joan's information was.

(Ron must have forgotten Joan's TSBD-window comment he posted back in 2007. Because In his #71 post above he said, "There are two things new to me here, both amazing. Byrd removed the wrong window? And the museum has a conspiracy exhibit?" It's nice to know I'm not the only one who forgets amazing things! ;-)

EDIT:

I see now that Chris Newton, in post #76, linked to what may have been the source for Joan Mellen's comment. Which, for the record, is a letter signed by O.V. Campbell, co-owner of TSBD from 1928 to 1981, where he states that "there is no question in my mind that D.H. Byrd took out the wrong window." He also states that A.S. Truly informed him of the mistake; that Byrd's workmen "removed the last window from the west side of the building;" and that a later owner of the building, Aubrey Mayhew, had in fact removed the original windows from the so-called Oswald sniper's nest.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Tom Neal]

Also, we have Glen Bennett's statement that he observed a shot strike JFK in the back 4" below the shoulder and slightly to the right of the center of his back. So there is evidence that it is a real wound.

I wouldn't put much stock in Bennett's statement, which was made the day after the assassination. As seen in Willis 5, Bennett was not even looking in JFK's direction at the time of the shot that startled Willis and caused him to snap the picture. Bennett is facing toward the right of the SS car and is looking off at someone or something in that direction.

Thanks, Ron. Now that you mention it, I do recall reading that.

Are you certain that Willis 5 was snapped due to a reaction to the first shot? I'm undecided as to the sequence of the back, throat and head shots, and where the first shot occurred. Also, IIRC, some witnesses reported hearing more than one "firecracker" sound.

Glen Bennett's notes made on return trip to DC: "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."

Bennett does state that he heard the "firecracker" [and] immediately looked at the Boss's Car and saw the shot hit. This statement indicates that he was NOT looking at JFK when he heard the sound, and this agrees with Willis 5. I am far from certain, but I think the back shot occurred behind the Stemmons sign. It appears to me that Willis 5 was taken prior to the area where the Stemmons sign blocks Zapruders line of sight. If so, Bennett, as he says, was looking away from JFK before the first shot or at the time of the first shot, and only looked at JFK after he heard a shot.

I do have a problem accepting his statement regarding the back shot. The bullet would hit first, then the sound would arrive. The interval would be minimal due to the short range, but could he actually turn his head at the sound and still see the bullet hit? However, if there were two firecracker shots as some witnesses stated, he could have heard the first firecracker, turned and saw the impact from the second "firecracker" without realizing there was a second sound. Additionally, he states a second shot immediately hit the boss's head. If there were two "firecracker" sounds, this would tend to support that he saw the impact of the second "firecracker" shot.

He compiled his notes on the way back to DC aboard Air Force Two(?). Is it likely that he would have been informed of the back shot including its precise location at that time? The back shot doesn't seem to have been a major topic of discussion even among the doctors that were in the ER. Would this information be known to the SS Agents at this time?

Of course, in this case ANYTHING is possible!

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

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? Yes, according to Paul O'Connor. However, that is hearsay (he didn't witness it himself) and apparently is late testimony, circa ARRB.

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?

Tom,

I also (along with Chris Newton) concur with everything you say in your list. In fact I want to thank you for creating the list. I have made a copy of it to keep in my notes. I did elaborate a bit on one of your points (see above in red.)

I do have one question. You write:

1. ...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. ...

What is meant by the phrase "short shot?"

[Ron Ecker]

Are you certain that Willis 5 was snapped due to a reaction to the first shot?

Willis testified that it was a reaction to the first of three shots that he heard.

He compiled his notes on the way back to DC aboard Air Force Two(?). Is it likely that he would have been informed of the back shot including its precise location at that time? The back shot doesn't seem to have been a major topic of discussion even among the doctors that were in the ER. Would this information be known to the SS Agents at this time?

I don't know when Bennett compiled his notes, but his written statement was dated Nov 23, after the autopsy and after two of his fellow SS agents had personally viewed the back wound when the autopsy was completed.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I still find it somewhat odd that Humes would declare his finger had bottomed out in the back wound, and then still attempt to explore this wound with a probe after the lungs had been removed. If Humes knew anything about human anatomy, which I assume he did, being a doctor, he would know the thickness between the outer back and the pleural lining was not very thick, and a probe could not have gone any further than his finger without entering the pleural cavity. Was he trying to determine if there was a bullet hole in the pleura? A quick look with a flashlight inside the pleural cavity would have determined that.

Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible.

The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too?

Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation.

If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as claimed by many witnesses, and Humes knew the basics of human anatomy (one would assume a doctor of his standing would have such knowledge), he would have been aware of the fact the only way to get to the throat wound, from the back wound, was by going through the top of the right lung. As Paul O'Connors' sketch clearly shows, there is only a thin layer of skin, intercostal muscle and ribs between the outside and the pleura.

If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"What is meant by the phrase "short shot?" "

A "short shot" is a bullet that impacts unexpectedly short of its target. Its name implies that the rifle the bullet is fired from is functioning properly and has already fired several rounds that impact where the shooter expects them to impact.

The cause of a short shot is inevitably within the cartridge itself, and can be attributed to deteriorated gunpowder, a deteriorated primer or a ruptured or loose primer that vents propellant gases out the vent port of the rifle. These occurrences are extremely rare and, considering the high standards Western Cartridge Company ammunition was manufactured to, I do not believe a WCC 6.5mm Carcano cartridge produced a short shot during the assassination.

[Chris Davidson]

http://forensicoutreach.com/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/

Interesting analogy, just in terms of the speeds obtained from a free-falling bullet.

SB_Pete's comment, ninth entry below article.

I'm not insinuating the back wound was created this way.

[Chris Newton]

"What is meant by the phrase "short shot?"

It's what I worried about at Hood when standing guard at the ammo resupply point upon hearing arty overhead going down range.

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://forensicoutreach.com/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/

Interesting analogy, just in terms of the speeds obtained from a free-falling bullet.

SB_Pete's comment, ninth entry below article.

I'm not insinuating the back wound was created this way.

Interesting that the authors of this article quote someone as saying that a projectile travelling between 300 and 700 fps is still going fast enough to pierce a human skull.

[Pat Speer]

http://forensicoutreach.com/the-falling-bullet-myths-legends-and-terminal-velocity/

Interesting analogy, just in terms of the speeds obtained from a free-falling bullet.

SB_Pete's comment, ninth entry below article.

I'm not insinuating the back wound was created this way.

Interesting that the authors of this article quote someone as saying that a projectile travelling between 300 and 700 fps is still going fast enough to pierce a human skull.

They were quoting former L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca. He almost certainly meant to say "penetrate", as opposed to "pierce."

Or is it your contention bullets traveling 300-700 fps can't even penetrate a skull?