Dr. Shaw was there also and he was the thoracic surgeon who actually did the work on Connally's chest wounds. Gregory treated the wrist wound. Dr. Shaw described it as elliptical about 1.5 centimetre long and a smaller width. He was not a ballistics expert, but he had treated bullet wounds during WWII. He definitely said that it did not have the characteristics of a puncture wound striking at a right angle and he thought it could have been made by either a bullet that was tumbling or a non-tumbling bullet striking at a tangent. He said this (6H95):
"Now, you have to also take into consideration, however, whether the bullet enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance."
Yes. But it had to be moving slower because it had passed through JBC's chest.
He is describing the wound on the back of the wrist. This bullet had just exited the chest. What does that have to do with the state of the bullet entering the back?
Andrew it's time that you faced reality, Dr Shaw and Dr Gregory saw the exact same wound and gave similar descriptions, that Connally's back wound was more than twice as long as it was wide which indicates an incidence angle of greater than 45 degrees, and of course we know the entrance point on Connally so we can extrapolate back to Oswald's position and we find that there is no way that Connally's entrance wound was caused by any tangential entrance, the bullet from Oswald's position would have whacked him virtually square on.
Connally's position at the time.
So logically the sort of wound and angle received by Kennedy would have been very similar to a non tumbling bullet on Connally but from both the Dr's testimonies we know that from the wound dimensions that the bullet did indeed tumble.
JohnM
