Inexplicable Wounds made by Special Bullets

[AlanD]

I was reading Kill Zone by Craig Roberts on the ferry this morning, he was mentioning one of his suspects for one of the gun men was Lucien Sarti. He stated he liked to use "frangible" bullets as well as exploding ones and was a good suspect for a grassy knoll shooter. That could be backup for RobertP posting of the possible use of "frangible" bullets. Since they also did not want to hit Jackie, a shot from the grassy knoll using a "frangible" bullet would be the only way to ensure that no harm came to Jackie and would rule out most other types of bullet.Craig Roberts also makes the point that a FMJ bullet through Kennedy should also hit Connelly and possibly the secret service agent in front, such is it's energy.

[RobertP]

AlanD wrote:I was reading Kill Zone by Craig Roberts on the ferry this morning, he was mentioning one of his suspects for one of the gun men was Lucien Sarti. He stated he liked to use "frangible" bullets as well as exploding ones and was a good suspect for a grassy knoll shooter. That could be backup for RobertP posting of the possible use of "frangible" bullets. Since they also did not want to hit Jackie, a shot from the grassy knoll using a "frangible" bullet would be the only way to ensure that no harm came to Jackie and would rule out most other types of bullet.Craig Roberts also makes the point that a FMJ bullet through Kennedy should also hit Connelly and possibly the secret service agent in front, such is it's energy.Excellent thinking, Alan, and quite correct. This is why frangible bullets are so practical in urban environments. Maximum stopping power combined with a bullet that does not exit the intended target and go on to wound bystanders. In a way, it is hard to conceive that people intending to blow JFK's head apart would be concerned about hurting Jackie but, we all have our standards, and I guess they had to draw the line somewhere.I would venture the bullet would go through a couple of SS agents, and you would still have difficulty removing it from the firewall of the limo. And it wasn't so much the great amount of energy this bullet had, it was its long narrow design that greatly resisted being deflected or fragmenting in wounds which, of course, makes the head wound at z313 very difficult to understand, ballistics wise.I apologize for not having anything on Connally's wounds yet. The more I dig into the testimony and medical evidence regarding his wounds, the more I uncover that I have not seen before. Connally has been largely ignored, yet his wounds offer some of the most inexplicable data yet, and what I have uncovered thus far COMPLETELY sinks the Single Bullet Theory. Thank you for your patience.

[RobertP]

Here is one thing I have been able to deduce from the medical evidence. Connally either had to be turned to his right when he was hit in the back by a bullet or the shooter was at the west end of the TSBD. How do I know? It's quite simple, really. Here is a description of the wound from the WC testimony of Dr. Robert R. Shaw, the surgeon who operated on Connally's back wound at Parkland Hospital: "Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor's chest? Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade." And a diagram of the wound:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/j ... mer266.gif Further testimony from Dr. Shaw regarding the damage inflicted by this bullet: "Mr. SPECTER - What damage had been inflicted upon a rib, if any, Dr. Shaw? Dr. SHAW - About 10 centimeters of the fifth rib starting at the, about the mid-axillary line and going to the anterior axillary line, as we describe it, or that would be the midline at the armpit going to the anterior lateral portion of the chest had been stripped away by the missile." Diagram showing location of the mid axillary line:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _lines.png From further testimony by Dr. Shaw, we know the bullet exited below Connally's right nipple, indicating, from the diagrams and evidence, the bullet was travelling at a very sharp angle from the side of his thorax to under the nipple. "Mr. SPECTER - When did you first have an opportunity then to examine Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest? Dr. SHAW - After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately examine the wound entrance. We knew this was the wound exit. Mr. SPECTER - This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the body]? Dr. SHAW - Yes." And now the problem with this shot. Look at the diagram below, showing the location of the 5th rib and the scapula (shoulder blade):http://www.pwc-sii.com/Research/death/p ... _small.gif Due to the tapering of the upper ribcage, seen below:https://myhealth.alberta.ca/health/Afte ... 002_pi.jpg The 5th rib is hidden from the posterior view by the scapula. Granted, the scapula does travel laterally with the raising and lowering of the arm but, in order for the 5th rib to protrude further to the outside than the scapula, the arm must be tucked tightly to the side. Does everyone see the problem here? Once again, the wound diagram:http://www.history-matters.com/essays/j ... mer266.gif If Connally had been facing forward and the bullet entered just to the right of the scapula, as seen above, there is a very good chance it would have missed his 5th rib altogether. It certainly would not have followed the course of the 5th rib inwards and exited under his right nipple, as this would have required the bullet to make a change of course to the left, after clearing the scapula. He could only have been hit by a shot from the rear if he had been turned to his right, or if the shot had originated from a position much further west than the SE corner of the TSBD. This seriously contradicts any theory that Connally was hit in the back between the time he is first see at frame z220 and frame z239, where he is first seen turning to his right. Coincidentally, Connally is in a position to be lined up for a bullet from the rear to inflict this right to left traversing wound just after JFK suffers the fatal head shot at z313. At that moment, he is returning to face forward after looking back over his right shoulder, just as he has always claimed he was doing before he was hit in the back.

[RobertP]

Okay, time to back up a little. I just began re-reading Dr. Robert Shaw's testimony in his second appearance before the Warren Commission. Remember how I said the bullet entered Connally's back at the side of his chest, followed the outer edge of the 5th rib (stripping out 10 cm. or 4 inches of it) and exited UNDER his right nipple, and how impossible such a traverse would be unless JBC was turned to his right or the shot originated from a point further west in the TSBD than the SE corner (making it impossible to go through JFK first), due to the shoulder blade blocking the path to the 5th rib? Well, it is even worse for the SBT than I thought. Here is Dr. Robert Shaw in his second appearance before the WC: "Mr. Specter.Dr. Shaw, will you describe next the wound of exit? Dr. SHAW. Yes; the wound of exit was below and slightly medial to the nipple on the anterior right chest. It was a round, ragged wound, approximately 5 cm. in diameter. This wound had obviously torn the pleura, since it was a sucking wound, allowing air to pass to and fro between the pleura cavity and the outside of the body." For those unfamiliar with medical terminology, lateral means away from the centre midline of the body and medial means toward the centre midline of the body. If Dr. Shaw said the 5 cm. (2 inch) exit wound was medial to the right nipple, it means the exit wound was between the right nipple and the centre of the chest. I hope everyone understands the significance of this. Connally would have to be turned to his extreme right to be hit by s bullet passing through JFK`s neck or even one originating from behind the limo. JBC stated he turned to look back at JFK after the first shot, and was in the process of turning to the front and ultimately to his left when he was struck in the back by a bullet. This turn to the right can be seen in the Z film, and he is returning to facing front just after the head shot at z313, when he is hit.

[RobertP]

The problem with Connally being hit at z234, assuming, as some do, the bullet went through JFK's neck first or the shot was from behind the limo, is a matter of alignment. This bullet entered the fleshy material at the outside right edge of his chest, at a point referred to as the mid-axillary line. With JBC facing forward at z234, this bullet likely would have travelled through the fleshy material, at the side of his chest, and exited out in front of him without touching the 5th rib at all. However, Dr. Shaw told the WC this bullet followed the outside of the 5th rib for 10 cm. (4 inches), stripping the rib out for this length but NOT entering the pleural cavity, and exiting just below and slightly to the left of JBC's right nipple; leaving a 5 cm. (2 inch) exit wound. Do you see the implications here? The bullet entered at the right outside of the chest and entered at a point between the right nipple and the centre line of his chest. In other words, it was travelling at an angle from right to left from the side of his chest inwards. He could only have been turned to his right when shot, or the shooter was further to the west than the SE corner of the TSBD.

[RobertP]

The myth of the "tumbling Bullet" entering Connally's back has no evidence to support it. On the contrary, the medical evidence supports a bullet that travelled a straight and true path while transiting the outside of JBC's chest. Dr. Shaw was very careful to point out, in his WC testimony, that the bullet made a tunnelling wound that stayed on the outside of the 5th rib the entire way, and did NOT enter the pleural cavity. The open pneumothorax (sucking chest wound) suffered by Connally was caused by shattered fragments of the 5th rib being driven into the right lung.

[RobertP]

It has been noted by some that Dr. Gregory, who performed surgery on Connally's wrist, observed an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back that was 3/4 inch on its longest diameter, while Dr. Shaw, the chest surgeon, observed the longest axis of the back wound to be 1.5 cm. For those who do not use Metric daily, do not be confused.If we do the conversion, 1.5 cm. (Dr.Shaw's estimate of the longest diameter of the entrance wound) equals .59 inch. As Dr. Gregory did not operate on the chest wound, and likely never examined it: "Mr. SPECTER - Now, did you have any opportunity to observe the wound on the Governor's chest? Dr. GREGORY - I could see the wounds on the Governor's chest, but I could see them only through the apertures available in the surgical drapes, and therefore I had difficulty orienting the exact positions of the wounds, except for the wound identified as the wound of exit which could be related to the nipple in the right chest which was exposed." Dr. Gregory's estimate of .75 inch would, of course, be nowhere near as accurate as that of Dr. Shaw, who actually operated on Connally's chest wound. Coincidentally, we should think very hard before we attempt to use the long dimension of the entrance wound, 1.5 cm., as any kind of proof of a tumbling bullet entering Connally's back. The official dimension of the entrance wound on the back of JFK's skull, as determined by the Bethesda autopsy, is 15 x 6 mm. As we all know, 15 mm = 1.5 cm. Has anyone ever suggested the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head was tumbling? Further proof the bullet was not tumbling when it entered, and did not tumble in the wound, can be found in Dr. Shaw's testimony: "Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor's chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet. Mr. SPECTER. Would the shattering of the rib have had any effect in deflecting the path of the bullet from a straight line? Dr. SHAW. It could have, except that in the case of this injury, the rib was obviously struck so that not too dense cancellus portion of the rib in this position was carried away by the bullet and probably there was very little in the way of deflection." So, we have a bullet that follows the course of the 5th rib for 10 cm., is not deflected by the rib as the rib is quite soft and porous at this point, offering little resistance and, MOST IMPORTANT of all, the muscles above and below the 5th rib are completely untouched. As these intercostal muscles are also in contact with the 5th rib, perhaps someone could explain to me just what particular axis the bullet was tumbling on. This is a problem I have always had with the SBT supporters. A bullet supposedly enters the back of JFK's neck, making a neat little hole, and exits his throat; making such a neat little exit wound that, 50 years later, we are still arguing over whether it is an entrance or exit wound. Most people with any experience with bullets would tell you the bullet was on a straight and true path, and not tumbling, when it exited JFK's throat; just as you would expect a long 6.5mm bullet to be doing. Then, for no reason whatsoever, the bullet begins tumbling in the short space between JFK and Connally, striking Connally in the back and leaving an oval shaped entrance wound 1.5 cm. on its longest axis. Here is what Dr. Shaw had to say about the elliptical entrance wound on Connally's back: "Mr. SPECTER. My question would be that perhaps some tumbling might have been involved as a result of decrease in velocity as the bullet passed through President Kennedy, whether there was any indication from the surface of the wound which would indicate tumbling. Dr. SHAW. The wound entrance was an elliptical wound. In other words, it had a long diameter and a short diameter. It didn't have the appearance of a wound caused by a high velocity bullet that had not struck anything else; in other words, a puncture wound. 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. Mr. SPECTER. So, would you say in net that there could have been some tumbling occasioned by having it pass through another body or perhaps the oblique character of entry might have been occasioned by the angle of entry. Dr. SHAW. Yes; either would have explained a wound of entry." (notice that Specter, the little weasel may-he-rot-in-Hell-for-all-Eternity is really pushing the tumbling notion. He would have done well selling life insurance) Of course, if the bullet did NOT pass through JFK, as most of us with more than ten working brain cells know it didn't, why would the bullet be tumbling at all? The most amazing and inexplicable thing about the course of this bullet is that it made a 5 cm. (2 inch) exit wound just below and to the left of Connally's right nipple. At what point did it go from making a narrow tunnelling wound to blowing a 2 inch hole out of his chest? It then goes on to make a 2.5 x .5 cm. wound directly over the radius bone on the back of Connally's wrist. It shatters the radius bone and, according to Dr. Gregory, the wrist surgeon, goes THROUGH the radius bone and exits the palm side of the wrist leaving (you won't believe this) a 1.5 x .5 cm. EXIT WOUND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In short, a bullet hit Connally's wrist (travelling sideways) square on the radius bone, went through the radius bone, and left an exit wound SMALLER than the entrance wound in Connally's back. And you wonder why I call the wounds Inexplicable.

[RobertP]

Okay, now that you've had time to digest all of that, here is a real humdinger for you. We had an entrance wound that was 1.5 cm. on its longest dimension on Connally's back, a narrow tunnelling wound indicative of a non-tumbling bullet and a whopping 5 cm. (2 inch) exit wound just below and to the left of Connally's right nipple. Guess what size and shape the bullet hole in the front of Connally's coat was? Remember our friend from the FBI, SA Robert A. Frazier, the one who couldn't do math very well and told all the fibs about CE 399 to the WC? Well, it seems that Connally's suit coat, after being dry cleaned to remove any real evidence, was given to Frazier for examination. He reported to the WC he found a ROUND hole 3/8 inch or .95 cm. in diameter in the front of this coat. .95 cm.?!?! For those who don't know Metric, that is 9.5 mm, only 2.7 mm bigger than a Carcano bullet. (for those unfamiliar with Metric, the bullet hole in the coat was about 1/10th inch larger than the diameter of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet) I'd sure like to know just when and where this bullet was actually tumbling. And how, coming through the coat straight and true, it managed to hit Connally's wrist travelling sideways, leaving a 2.5 x .5 cm. entrance wound.

[RobertP]

Sorry for dumping all of this material at once. I've been researching evidence and testimony and putting all my thoughts down in print over at the Deep Politics Forum. Rather than re-writing everything, I chose to re-post the same material here.Enjoy!If I haven't explained things well enough, and you are at all confused on anything, please ask me and I will be happy to explain things better.

[JDThomas]

Hi Robert,No need to apologise, your information is excellent material.Your work, along with that of James R Gordon, Gary Murr, Pat Speer and others has demonstrated beyond doubt that the official account of John Connally's wounding is incorrect - the evidence simply does not support it.Most prior research has for obvious reasons concentrated on the wounds to JFK meaning that the detail of Connally's wounding has not received the necessary scruinty.For what its worth, here is my current take on matters (and I make no claims to be right and am ready to be corrected):1. Evidence supports that JFK and JBC were hit by different shots.2. JBC's rib injury was caused by a non tumbling bullet - much prior research is on the basis that it was tumbling.3. I do not believe that the nipple line exit wound of JBC was caused by an intact bullet: Either a) frangible bullet fragments or b) Bone fragments or c) A different bullet (thus wrist and leg injuries from a different bullet).4. From JBC's position in the car at the time he could have received his wounds, the Texas School Book Depository can be ruled-out as his shooter location and the Daltex building is highly unlikely, or else also impossible. - but where?5. It is by no means certain that JBC's wounds were caused by bullets from a Mannlicher-Carcano - I'm open to the possibility of bullets being sabot-loaded in a different rifle. Why use a junk rifle when a better one is available and you can confuse the ballistics people? (making the shot is only half the job - getting away with it is the other half) Others have previoulsy claimed that this is what was done. In any case, if we suppose that the TSBD was not the shooter location for JBC's wounds then we are discounting the rifle in evidence anyway.Taken together, nearly all prior reconstructions of the shooting are incorrect and invalid, with special distain reserved for Dale Myers' nonsense. It goes without saying that given the above, C-399 was not responsible for JBC's wounds.In short, we have not yet made sense of the wounding of Connally, but recent research has shone a whole new light on the matter - who said that there was nothing more to discuss in the case?Robert, you and the researchers above deserve a heartfelt 'Well Done' for your work, though you have also shown that there is much still to be done.