Does Connally's wrist wound disprove the SBT?

[Michael T. Griffith]

The fragments issue mentioned above is exactly why even Dr Humes did NOT Support the SBT.

Yes. Humes based his conclusion on Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments, which Gregory wrote on 11/22 shortly after the surgery when everything was still fresh in his mind (CE 392). Gregory wrote that description before he knew what he was supposed to say, before it became apparent that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that left fragments in Connally's wrist. Year later, Gregory changed his story and claimed that the fragments were only tiny flakes, but this is not how he originally described them.

Moreover, Nurse Bell repeatedly explained that the fragments were not flakes but were were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in length by 2 millimeters wide. This squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows."

BTW, Humes wasn't the only autopsy doctor who recognized that Gregory's operative record of the wrist fragments ruled out CE 399 as the source of those fragments. Asked if CE 399 could have been the bullet that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Pierre Finck, answered, "No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," and he based this conclusion in large part on Gregory's operative record.

And how do WC apologists explain this evidence? Let me paraphrase: "Oh, umm, Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments in the operative record was 'mistaken,' even though he wrote it shortly after the surgery, and Nurse Bell was 'mistaken' too, even though she consistently said the fragments were not flakes, and even though she saw got a long and close look at the fragments! Mistaken. Mistaken. Mistaken."

[Royell Storing]

Besides, I don't see a clear arm gesture in my copy of the IOAA frames.  Frames 155-157 were damaged and you have included z157 which has a large dark blotch through the middle and skews the image and gives the impression of some arm movement.


These clips were made with frames from Cold Case, not IOAA. Here is another clip that skips Z157 and it's large dark blotch; so no potential skewing. I have also zoomed in a bit on Linda. It is quite clear that she turns her head to her right and points up towards the TSBD.

   A while back, I viewed a filmed interview of the older Willis Girl posted on You Tube. It was done by the Sixth Floor, before Gary Mack became curator or whatever title he was eventually rewarded with. She immediately gave me the impression of being a Drama Queen. And definitely Not shy of the camera. Your pointing out her "hands to the eyes" routine would be inline with exaggeration garnering attention. Everything "over the top". 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yes. Humes based his conclusion on Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments, which Gregory wrote on 11/22 shortly after the surgery when everything was still fresh in his mind (CE 392). Gregory wrote that description before he knew what he was supposed to say, before it became apparent that CE 399 could not have been the bullet that left fragments in Connally's wrist. Year later, Gregory changed his story and claimed that the fragments were only tiny flakes, but this is not how he originally described them.

Moreover, Nurse Bell repeatedly explained that the fragments were not flakes but were were identifiable pieces of metal anywhere from 3 to 4 millimeters in length by 2 millimeters wide. This squares with the recollection of one of Connally's other surgeons, Dr. Robert Shaw. Interviewed for the award-winning 1988 documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory, Shaw said, "I am sure that the bullet that inflicted these wounds on Governor Connally was fragmented much more than this bullet [CE 399] shows."

BTW, Humes wasn't the only autopsy doctor who recognized that Gregory's operative record of the wrist fragments ruled out CE 399 as the source of those fragments. Asked if CE 399 could have been the bullet that struck Connally's wrist, Dr. Pierre Finck, answered, "No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist," and he based this conclusion in large part on Gregory's operative record.

And how do WC apologists explain this evidence? Let me paraphrase: "Oh, umm, Dr. Gregory's initial description of the fragments in the operative record was 'mistaken,' even though he wrote it shortly after the surgery, and Nurse Bell was 'mistaken' too, even though she consistently said the fragments were not flakes, and even though she saw got a long and close look at the fragments! Mistaken. Mistaken. Mistaken."

[Andrew Mason]

It is quite clear that she turns her head to her right and points up towards the TSBD.

It is a bit of a stretch to say that it is "quite clear".  Can you show us any frame that has her pointing to the TSBD?  She has her arms up initially and then brings them down. At some point the right arm will have the hand at shoulder level but an intentional pointing usually lasts for long enough for someone to see it.

[Charles Collins]

It is a bit of a stretch to say that it is "quite clear".  Can you show us any frame that has her pointing to the TSBD?  She has her arms up initially and then brings them down. At some point the right arm will have the hand at shoulder level but an intentional pointing usually lasts for long enough for someone to see it.

In this frame Linda Willis clearly has her right hand up above her head.




A short time later Linda Willis' right hand is even higher. The change in the angle of her upper arm (shoulder to elbow) from the first frame I showed indicates that she shoved her hand upwards and towards the TSBD in a pointing motion. She also appears to be looking in the direction that she is pointing.

[Lance Payette]

In Linda Willis' 1991 interview, she specifically says she was "waving like everyone else." She says nothing about pointing at the TSBD. She says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, so she wouldn't have been pointing up at the sixth floor. In fact, she says she "never looked at the Depository because I was totally entranced by the President." Is "waving" just too dull for this Rorshach exercise? The woman in front is pretty clearly waving - as in "Yoo-hoo, Jackie, over here!"

https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553

[Charles Collins]

In Linda Willis' 1991 interview, she specifically says she was "waving like everyone else." She says nothing about pointing at the TSBD. She says she thought the first shot was a firecracker, so she wouldn't have been pointing up at the sixth floor. In fact, she says she "never looked at the Depository because I was totally entranced by the President." Is "waving" just too dull for this Rorshach exercise? The woman in front is pretty clearly waving - as in "Yoo-hoo, Jackie, over here!"

https://texasarchive.org/2010_02553

I disagree whole heartedly with your assessment Lance. JFK, Jackie, and the limo were in a significantly different direction from where Linda Willis is pointing. All you have to do is follow the panning motion of Croft and his camera to know where the limo is. If that seems too difficult, take a look at the full frame video that actually shows the limo and its occupants. Linda’s pointing motion seems to me to be a very quick instinctive reaction to the sound of the first shot. Unless she happened to look specifically at the sniper’s nest window and saw LHO aiming his rifle, she might not even remember this reaction at all. My opinion, yours may vary.