The Wound In Gov. Connally's Back

[John Corbett]

The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day hole was enlarged twice to examine fibers for trace elements.

Even so, it is a small round hole, just large enough to accommodate a non-tumbling shot from a WC 6.5 slug.

Is that what you convinced yourself of?

[Jack Nessan]

The small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day hole was enlarged twice to examine fibers for trace elements.

Even so, it is a small round hole, just large enough to accommodate a non-tumbling shot from a WC 6.5 slug.

The wound in JBC’s back was elongated and the bullet hole in JBC’s suit was elongated and you think the shirt that was sandwiched between them is somehow going to be different? Any doubt why the FBI showed little interest in the shirt?

[Benjamin Cole]

Here is a photo of the hole in the rear of Gov. JBC's assassination-day suit. The hole was also enlarged to test fibers for metallic traces.



To be sure, if JBC's back was not at a 90-degree angle to the entering bullet, then you get a tendency to some elliptical or ovoid shaping of the bullet hole, even if the bullet is not tumbling. Different cloths react differently to bullets.

This angle-of-entry is also why JBC had a north-south ovoid wound in his back. The bullet struck JBC on a downward path. Moreover, if JBC was leaning back at the time he was struck, the angle of entry would be even steeper, enlarging the original would.

Still, most convincing is the small round entry round hole in JBC's assassination day shirt. How a tumbling bullet squirted through that small round hole in JBC's shirt is...well, a reasonable question. 

My take is Gov. JBC was struck by a straight, unimpeded shot from the TSBD6 sniper window, or close thereto, and that is also the sentiment of his surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw. 

But hey, each to his own.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Recently there was discussion in this forum regarding the shape of the wound in Gov. JBC's back.

Here is a drawing of the wound, by JBC's surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw.

[SNIP]

Shaw thought it most likely that JBC was shot from above and behind, by a slug unimpeded by any obstructions. No tumbling. So you had an elliptical or ovoid wound, north-south on JBC's body.

Shaw debrided the wound, thus enlarging the final resulting scar.

In addition, there is a small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination-day shirt.

[SNIP]

I doubt the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling.

The evidence, as seen in JBC's shirt and the doctors sketch, points away from a tumbling bullet.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

As usual, very good stuff, Ben.

Following in John Lattimer's footsteps, Gerald Posner and Dale Myers have muddied the waters by repeating Lattimer's false claim that Connally's back wound was 3.0 cm (1.2 inches) long. Myers even misrepresents the HSCA FPP's measurement of the back wound to support this falsehood, when the FPP specified it was only 1.5 cm long (7 HSCA 142-143). This is the same measurement that Dr. Shaw gave for the wound's length before he debrided it. The FBI lab noted that the holes in the back of Connally's coat and shirt were also 1.5 cm long. The 3.0 cm measurement was the wound's length after it had been surgically enlarged (debrided).

Why have so many WC apologists misrepresented the length of Connally's back wound, using the post-debridement length instead of the original length? Because they know that the damage on CE 399 (what little there is) proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling virtually sideways. Thus, in order for the SBT to work, it must have hit Connally's back while flying virtually sideways. This is why WC apologists have misrepresented the back wound's length as 3.0 cm. 

Not only does Connally's 1.5 x 0.8 cm back wound rule out a sideways-striking bullet, or even a significantly tumbling bullet, but the wound track through Connally's chest likewise rules out either scenario, because the bullet created a small tunneling wound and shattered the rib while doing only minor damage to the muscles beside it. Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

Incidentally, Connally's back wound was almost identical in size to JFK's rear head entry wound: 1.5 x 0.8 cm (Connally) vs. 1.5 x 0.6 cm (JFK). Yet, no one but no one suggests that the rear headshot bullet was markedly tumbling when it hit the head.

Many lone-gunman theorists don't even know that CE 399's damage proves it struck an object while traveling virtually sideways. Yet, other WC apologists cite this fact, along with the erroneous 3.0 cm figure for the back wound's length, as "proof" that the bullet that hit Connally was markedly tumbling. A few months ago in this forum, a WC defender cited the fact that CE 399 struck while traveling virtually sideways as evidence for the SBT because he was under the false impression that Connally's back wound was made by a markedly tumbling bullet.

For anyone who is new to this aspect of the evidence regarding CE 399, I recommend famed researcher John Hunt's superb article "Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory":

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm

And for those who are new to the subject of the important implications of the size of Connally's back wound and the nature of the wound track through his chest, I recommend Milicent Cranor's excellent aritlce "Big Lie About a Small Wound in Connally's Back" (Cranor now specializes in the medical evidence and has co-authored several peer-reviewed articles for medical journals):

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm

I’ll believe JBC’s interpretation of the Z film of being hit at 234 over yours [John Corbett's].

Yes, the idea that Connally's dramatic Z238-243 reactions were delayed reactions from a hit at Z224 or earlier is unbelievable. But, SBT apologists must float this dubious speculation because they cannot accept a hit on Connally after Z224, even though Connally himself insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229.

Forensic science tells us that when people experience a sharp, sudden pain, it takes no more than 300 milliseconds to react with a pained facial expression, and Connally's face shows a pained expression starting in Z239. There's no way this was a "delayed reaction" to a severe wounding that occurred 825 milliseconds/15 frames earlier at Z224, much less to a wound that occurred earlier than that.

Furthermore, starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward, which is not surprising since Connally said the bullet's impact felt like someone hit him very hard with their fist, saying "I felt as if someone had pounded me on the back with a fist, a blow so hard I doubled over." It is absurd to suggest that this was a "delayed reaction" from a hit at Z224 or earlier. This is why some WC apologists, such as Posner, claim that the shoulder drop is an optical illusion. Yeah, I guess Connally only imagined that the bullet's impact felt like the hard pounding of a fist.

[John Corbett]

As usual, very good stuff, Ben.

Ben is typical of he kinds of experts MTG likes to cite.

It's a perfect example of he blind leading he blind.

If you guys really had figured this all out, you would be able to answer the key questions of who, what, where , wand when. The WC answered all four of these quesstions. The where and the when are the easy parts. You guys trip all over yourselves trying to explain the who and the how.