Paul O'Conners testimony on shot in back

[Ron]

I found this testimony about what Paul O'Conner saw while doing the internal
chest cavity during the autopsy about the back wound.

I think it answers a lot of questions.

I've thought for a long time that sniper that took this shot was aiming for the
presidents head but it fell short and hit him in the back.

And here it is. A statement made by Paul O'Conner the technician on duty who's
job it was to remove the brain of the president and to help Dr. Homes with the
autopsy stated this:

Paul O'Conner's testimony on the shot in Presidents Kennedy's back.

O’Connor: When we started an autopsy, the first thing we always did…was to
weigh and measure the body.

We’d check for any scars, contusions, any abnormalities, and so on.

But in this case, we didn’t turn the body over to look at the back while we were
doing that.

Finally we turned the body over, and there was a bullet wound—an entrance wound
—in his back, on the right side of his spinal column.

To emphasize where it was in proximity to the rest of his body: if you bend your neck
down and feel back, you feel a lump and that’s the seventh cervical vertebra.

This bullet wound was about 3 inches down and an inch or two to the right of the seventh
cervical vertebra.

I remember there was a big gush of surprise that nobody actually thought about turning
him over right away, you know after we had done our initial investigation of the president’s
body.

Dr Humes took his finger and poked it in the hole---the bullet wound hole, the entrance
wound hole---and said it didn’t go anywhere. There was a very big argument, a lot of
consternation, that he shouldn’t have stuck his finger in the hole.

Law: What difference would it make?

O’Connor: Well, when you take your finger and stick it into a bullet wound,you avulse the
wound.

Law: You think that happened when he stuck his finger in the back?

O’Connor: Yes.

Law: It could have created a false track.

O’Connor: Well, not necessarily a false track, as much as a false impression of the entrance
of the missile that went into his back.

Law: Who was arguing?

O’Connor: Dr. Finck strongly objected to Commander Humes doing what he did. He [Finck]
took a sound, which is a probe, a metal malleable, non-rigid probe.

We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went in so far. I’d say maybe an inch
and a quarter. It didn’t go in any further than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it
a little bit and found that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostals muscles
---the muscles between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles, didn’t touch any of
the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the pleural cavity and stopped.

So we didn’t know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That’s what
happened at the time.

We traced the bullet path down and found that it didn’t traverse the body. It did not go in one
side and come out the other side of the body.

Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?

O’Connor: Absolutely

Law: And these doctors knew that?

O’Connor: Absolutely.

Law: While it happened?

O’Connor: Absolutely. And another thing we found out while the autopsy was proceeding,
that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a
downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a
“short shot”. It didn’t have the power to push the projectile clear through the body. If it
had…it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum.

O’Connor: We were told [in the report of the Warren Commission] that he was shot in
the back and it came out his throat. That didn’t jive with what we saw, and when I say we,
I’m talking about Dr. Boswell and myself.. . . .

When LAW then showed O’CONNOR the photo of President KENNEDY’s back . . . .

O’Connor: That’s a very accurate portrayal of the entrance wound to his back, which as you
know, is quite a ways down from his neck. At the angle he was shot…the laws of physics will
not let a bullet strike there and go up and go out his throat…I helped roll him over…one of
these arms might have been mine, because I was at the head of the body and helped roll
him over.

It wasn’t rolled over until quite a ways into the autopsy, and that’s when they discovered the
bullet wound.. . . .

O’CONNOR further stated to LAW . . . . “Now I had this drawing made at the University of
Florida showing the back wound and this is exactly what happened. The bullet struck him in
the back, it passed through the outer layer of muscle and through the inner layer of muscle
between the vertebrae. These are intercostals muscles and they connect the spinal column
together.

This bullet came in, arched downward, and bulged against the pleural cavity, which is the
protective cavity around both lungs. It did not penetrate that lung area. It just bruised it
real badly.

I had it highlighted showing there was bruising on the right lung.

The back of the right lung was bruised, but wasn’t torn. It was bruised badly enough to
hemorrhage in the tissues, but not enough to tear the lung or the cavity.”"And we also
realized that this bullet is what we call in the military a “short shot” I believe that this
shot was being aimed at the back of the presidents head but because it lacked the power
to penetrate as Paul O'Conner states it feel short hitting him in the upper back. -----

[Bruce P. Brychek]

Sunday
12.27.2020
6:50 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time:

Dear JFK RFK MLK Forum Members and Readers:

01.05.2015 - Ron originally Posted and Circulated this important Headline and
Supporting Material.

Ron circulated the best, most complete, question answering Autopsy Report Covering
JFK's Back Bullet Wound that I have ever heard of, or read.

To those of you are interested in this Line of Investigation and Research you input
would be beneficial.

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material
completely yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions
and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies,
thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation
of JFK Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?
Respectfully,
BB.