The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Ken Davies said:

JFK does not reach for his throat. He raises both clenched hands ( like fists) to an area near the front of his throat. Was this a reflex action, or perhaps a taught response to protect himself from a forward shot. 

 There is no touching, squeezing, or cradling of his throat. His hands go up. Why , why are the fingers clenched?

Nellie Connally, who got a close look at JFK's reaction, said he was grabbing at his throat ("he had both hands at his neck," "clutch his neck with both hands"). This was no "reflex action." That myth was debunked years ago. When you reach for an area where you're feeling pain, you may not actually touch the area, or only touch it briefly and then pull away slightly. JFK is definitely reaching for his throat, because he has just been shot in the throat.

The back shot comes quite visibly in Z226, when he is suddenly jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. Though studiously ignored by WC apologists, this is one of the most obvious, visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film.

In Z221, Jackie is already looking intently at JFK, obviously because she has realized something is wrong with him. You can see JFK's right hand in front of his mouth in Z206. So obviously, JFK's reaction began well before Z224 and Jackie noticed it and began staring at JFK well before Z224, just as the HSCA PEP noted.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Ken Davies]

What frames of the Z film show JFK clutching his neck with both hands?

 Nellie's account does not match the film.

[Ken Davies]

Also, I am not talking about a Thorburn effect! 

Another neurological reaction may have resulted from the back wound. 

[Michael Griffith]

18 hours ago, Ken Davies said:

What frames of the Z film show JFK clutching his neck with both hands? Nellie's account does not match the film.

One, we can't see JFK from Z210 through Z223. Two, there is strong evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered (such as the fact that the film does not show the limo stop or marked slowdown described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza). Three, from Nellie's vantage point, JFK may indeed have appeared to be grabbing his throat. Four, he was certainly reaching for his throat, whether or not he actually touched it. 

Regardless of how you want to describe JFK's action with his hands, it is crystal clear that he begins to react many frames before Z224. In Z206, his right hand is clearly in front of his mouth.

Moreover, anyone who peddles the fiction of a Z224 SBT hit on JFK needs to explain Jackie's reaction from Z202 onward. When she reemerges from behind the freeway sign in Z221, she is already looking intently at JFK. Surely no honest person with decent eyesight can deny this fact. So obviously JFK had begun to react many frames before Z221, and obviously Jackie noticed her husband's reaction and rapidly turned her to the right and began to stare at him to try to see what was wrong, just as the HSCA PEP observed. 

JFK was reacting to a shot fired at or just before Z190, as the HSCA PEP also concluded. In addition to JFK and Jackie's reactions that start in Z200, there is additional evidence of a Z186-190 shot:

-- There's a strong blur episode from Z189-197.

-- At Z207, Howard Brennan snaps his head to the right.

-- George Hickey, in the follow-up car, starts to turn his head to the right at Z195.

-- Phil Willis said he took Willis slide 5 in a startle reaction to hearing a shot, and Willis slide 5 was taken at Z202. As HSCA PEP member William Hartmann noted, "So that is very nice, consistent evidence that something happened, say, at 190 or shortly before 190" (2 HSCA 15).

Finally, I think it is worth repeating the fact that this shot was fired while the sixth-floor gunman's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree (Z166-210). 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/4/2023 at 8:30 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Those bullets never leave a shallow wound in soft tissue, and JFK suffered a shallow wound in soft tissue.

Cliff could you clear something up? Would it be possible for a frangible bullet hitting one side of a rib bone to explain the shallow back wound?

The thought experiment: from that O'Neill quote you cite: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK."

I am no expert on ballistics, but from what I read frangible bullets (which vary in how they can be made) will remain intact through flesh until hitting something solid like bone or metal, then they "explode" into tiny pieces or dust in the immediate area.

Therefore if there was a shallow wound in the back which did not penetrate into the lung, and yet it cannot be explained as a short shot (would not have hit JFK at all), and ricochet of a military style bullet won't work as an explanation either ... and flesh alone would not stop a frangible bullet from going into JFK's lung ... how about this:

A frangible bullet hits a rib bone just under the skin or inside the flesh, but not straight head on but at an oblique angle on one side, enough to fracture and "explode" into powder the frangible bullet, and the hitting to the side, a lower side, deflects it "downward" in agreement with that 30 to 40 degree downward angle of the 1-2" felt by the autopsists. 

So hitting a rib bone explains (I am asking if this is plausible) the lack of penetration into JFK's lung of a normally-fired unproblematic frangible bullet from a rifle that hit JFK in the upper back, and explains the shallow wound afterward. The deflection from the bone explains the downward angle of the shallow wound.

The question I have is whether a frangible bullet going through JFK's suit jacket and skin and hitting a side of that rib bone enough to explode it, would break that rib bone. Would it necessarily?  

Would it be possible it might not break that rib bone but only "jar it". Could a referred effect of that blow or shock to that rib bone turn up as and explain the "bruise" reported at the top of JFK's right lung, without that right lung being penetrated by the bullet itself?

What would expert opinion be on this scenario? Is it a non-starter, dead in the water? Or could it possibly account for the facts? Thanks-- 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Cliff could you clear something up? Would it be possible for a frangible bullet hitting one side of a rib bone to explain the shallow back wound?

It didn’t show up on x-ray.

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

The thought experiment: from that O'Neill quote you cite: "“A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK."

I am no expert on ballistics, but from what I read frangible bullets (which vary in how they can be made) will remain intact through flesh until hitting something solid like bone or metal, then they "explode" into tiny pieces or dust in the immediate area.

Wouldn’t that show up on x-ray?

[Greg Doudna]

52 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It didn’t show up on x-ray.

Wouldn’t that show up on x-ray?

That's a different issue. One question at a time. 

I wonder if you know the answer to the question asked, whether a frangible bullet from a normal rifle hitting and deflecting downward from a rib bone could possibly account for the medical wounds and the shallow wound--without invocation of a short shot or ricochet. 

If you don't know its OK, maybe someone can respond who may know, able to give an up or down yes or no answer to the question. That's what I'm after. Thanks--