Why was Connally's suit laundered?

[Jerry Freeman]

  Mr Connally's suit was laundered before being presented as evidence. Why?

Where was that documented?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Where was that documented?

It's in the WC's report in the blandest form possible--one sentence is devoted to it, and no explanation is given for this surreal failure to properly examine Connally's clothing (p. 94).

Dr. McKnight discusses this in much more detail in Breach of Trust (pp. 142-144).

[Sean Kneringer]

It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.

I agree. I would have kept the clothes as they were. But, Nellie felt it would be better if they were cleaned. Go figure.

[Joe Elliott]

This is one of the more obvious proofs of the cover-up. The FBI knew full well that Connally's shirt and coat were crucial forensic evidence, yet for months--not weeks, but months--both the FBI and the Secret Service acted as though Connally's clothes did not exist and showed no interest in them. 

Nellie Connally notified the FBI and the Secret Service that she had her husband's bloody clothes, but, she said, "nobody seemed interested." She waited two months after notifying the FBI and the Secret Service, and then she decided to have them cleaned because she logically thought that for some reason there was no interest in them.

Finally, the FBI went and got the clothes from Mrs. Connally, and the FBI lab received them on April 1, 1964, but, as mentioned, Mrs. Connally had already had them cleaned, so they were of very limited forensic value. The holes could not be tested for metallic residue, not even by super-sensitive methods, and the value of the fabric and shape of the clothing holes was diminished.

Why the keystone-cop lack of interest? One reason was that the FBI was aware that both of Connally's surgeons suspected that the bullet that hit Connally had fragmented, which would explain the weird H-shaped tears in the front of the shirt and the dimensions and nature of the wrist wounds.

Another reason for the astonishing months-long lack of interest was that the FBI knew that spectrographic testing of the Connally clothing holes could reveal metallic residues that were different in composition from the residues found on the edges of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, which of course would prove that Connally and JFK were hit by different bullets.[/size]

Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.

I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.

The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?

Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.

The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.

The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.

Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.

I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.

The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?

Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.

The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.

The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.

Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.

This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.

Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected.

[Joe Elliott]

This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.

And this is typically done in murder cases? In 1963? Checking the clothes for metallic traces.

Are bullet the only things that can add metallic traces to clothes? Are these tests run on both the areas around the bullet holes and other parts of the clothes, to check for the possibility that something else might have added these traces?

Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected. [/size]

Yes. Being hit by a fragment can explain why the damage to Connally’s wrist was not greater. As can being hit by an intact bullet, which was slowed by a neck and torso. I have never heard a ballistic expert say otherwise.


And, of course, what good would the examination of Connally’s clothes do? The examination of JFK’s clothes indicate that he was hit in the back by a bullet, which exited his throat. But this has not affected your opinion about the shot coming from the front in the slightest.

Nowhere, have I heard that the opinion of some Parkland doctors about the throat wound being an entrance or exit wound, was based on any kind of examination of his clothes, which they could have done, but didn’t. Of course, there job was not to examine the clothes. Their job ended when it was determined he had died. But their opinions would carry some weight if these opinions were based, in part, of their careful evaluation of his clothes, which they did not do.