Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 5, 2021 13:40:27 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.uspresidentialhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/John-Connally2.21.17g-e1489970774947.jpg
www.jfk-info.com/33-3318a.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and wounded Governor John B. Connally (JBC) by firing three shots and hitting JFK twice and JBC once. The WC had to account for seven wounds in the two men by using just ONE bullet since the third bullet was recognized to have missed the limousine all together and hit a curb near the Triple Underpass and wounding bystander James Tague.
The theory they would develop to handle this was called the “Single Bullet Theory” (SBT) and it claimed that the shot that hit JFK in the back, er, “base of the neck” exited from his throat and went on to enter JBC in the back and proceed on to cause all the other wounds he had. This theory was developed by WC lawyer Arlen Specter and WC member Representative Gerald Ford. There is NO evidence to support this claim at all.
We have seen this, but we have NOT looked at the theory, and its plausibility, solely from the wounds suffered by JBC. This post will do that.
********************************************
The WC outlined the wounds JBC suffered in their Report (WCR) for us and gave a conclusion as to what the wound in the back was.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0058b.gif
While riding in the right jump seat of the Presidential limousine on November 22, Governor Connally sustained wounds of the back, chest, right wrist and left thigh. Because of the small size and clean cut edges of the wound on the Governor’s back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was AN ENTRY WOUND. (WCR, p. 92) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm
Quote off
It is amazing how they described the wound as being one of “entry” due to its “small size” and “clean cut edges” when they have called other wounds of similar makeup EXIT wounds! Remember the comment about the “small wound” on JBC’s back too as it would change later in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0067a.gif
Moreover, the LARGE WOUND on the Governor’s back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking. (WCR, p. 109) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0067a.htm
Quote off
How did the “small wound” suddenly become a “large wound?” The explanation comes from the words and testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw who worked on JBC on November 22, 1963. In Commission Exhibit (CE) 392 we see the following by him.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0021b.gif
It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close to the axilla yet had passed through the latysmus dorsi muscle…The wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter and the wound of exit was a ragged wound approximately five cm in its greatest diameter. (CE 392, p. 16)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0021b.htm
Quote off
In this report dated November 22, 1963, we see the wound of entrance in JBC’s back was 3 cm by 5cm, but later on in his testimony he said this about the back wound.
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.
Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW - Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.
So the report said the wound was 3 centimeters (1.2”) in its longest diameter, but in his testimony he said the longest the wound was in diameter was a “centimeter and a half” (3/5ths of an inch) and it was a “small wound” with “clean cut edges” as we saw on page 92 of the WCR. Why the difference in the descriptions by Dr. Robert Shaw? Which wound did he see?
Dr. Alfred Olivier gave testimony about his own report to the WC on May 13, 1964. Here is what he said.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the wound on Governor Connally's back?
Dr. OLIVIER. The surgeon's report described it as about 3 centimeters long, its longest dimension, and it is hard for me to remember reading it or discussing it with him but I did both. Apparently it was a jagged wound. He said a wound like this consists of two things, usually a defect in the epidermis and a central hole which is small, and he could put his finger in it so it was a fairly large wound.
Dr. Olivier also said the wound in the back was a “fairly large wound”, so again, where did the small neat wound come from that Dr. Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony? Another doctor from the Edgewood Arsenal testified before the WC on the same day as Dr. Olivier and he would say this in regards to wound on JBC’s back.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the description provided to you of the nature of the Wound in the Governor's back, what is your opinion as to whether, or not, that was a pristine bullet or had yaw in it, just on the basis of the nature of the wound on the Governor's back?
Dr. DZIEMIAN. It could very well have yaw in it because of the rather large wound that was produced in the Governor's back. The wound from a nonyawing bullet could be considerably smaller.
He also said the wound on JBC’s back was a “rather large wound”, so why did Dr. Robert Shaw say it was a “small sized wound with clean edges” then during his WC testimony? Next we come to the shirt itself, designated as CE 685, and it supports a small wound.
CE 685: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0184b.jpg
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe on the back of the shirt itself?
Dr. SHAW - On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could have been due to blood.
Mr. SPECTER - How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with the wound on the Governor's back?
Dr. SHAW - It does correspond exactly.
Here Dr. Shaw says the hole in the shirt is just a “little more than a centimeter” in diameter and that the shirt hole corresponds to the hole in JBC’s back “exactly.” This is a small wound as he said in the testimony, but why did Arlen Specter NOT point out this discrepancy with his report of November 22, 1963? Is this how you search for the truth?
It is clear we have one small wound that was the result of a “non-yawing” bullet and then a larger wound that would have been caused by a “yawing” bullet. However, the WC did NOT bother to find out which one was the actual wound or if one mattered more than the other for their SBT. Since the shirt hole matched the small sized wound that is the one we have to lean with, but how is that possible if the bullet came out of JFK's throat as claimed? This lack of interest in determining which type of wound was actually on the body of JBC shows us the WC was NOT out for the truth at all but seemed indifferent to these kinds of things since they had already figured out the final conclusion.
In the WCR we see this written about what the doctors who attended to JBC said.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0060a.gif
In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all of its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound. (WCR, p. 95)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0060a.htm
Quote off
The testimony taken from Dr. Robert Shaw, Dr. Charles Gregory, and Dr. George Shires on March 23, 1964, was consistent with this comment by the WC and that is why they cited it as the source for it. What the WC didn’t tell the reader though was that both Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory testified a second time on April 21, 1964, and before their testimony was taken they were allowed to view the Zapruder film, the alleged stretcher bullet and other evidence they had not seen before. After viewing these Dr. Shaw testified to this.
Mr. DULLES - Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark or that hole in the sleeve?
Dr. SHAW - Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain. I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this position.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the right hand held close to the body?
Dr. SHAW - Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that it is the only possibility.
Senator COOPER - Why do you say you don't think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location---
Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three…He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion…If you had asked me a month ago I would have.
Mr. DULLES - Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?
Dr. SHAW - They could.
Mr. McCLOY - I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were.
Mr. DULLES - As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?
Dr. SHAW - That is correct.
What did Dr. Shaw see in the Zapruder film that made him go from being dead certain ONLY one bullet caused the wounds to JBC to saying it could have been up to THREE bullets that caused these wounds? He would go on to say the alleged “magic bullet” could have caused the chest wound, but he found it doubtful that it also caused the wrist wound.
Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet [CE 399] could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist.
Based on this answer Specter then admitted that CE 399 may NOT have been the bullet that made all the wounds as the WC was claiming!
Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.
Dr. SHAW - I see.
It was nice of Specter to admit they were assuming the WRONG bullet did the damage to JBC, huh? What other bullet could have caused all the damage to JBC then? Specter didn’t tell us this part.
Dr. Shaw agreed with the three prosectors in saying he doubted CE 399 was the bullet that caused all the wounds to JBC.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW - I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.
There you have it. The SBT is impossible based on what the three prosectors and Dr. Shaw have said, but wait, there’s more!
Dr. Gregory too would revise his statement after seeing the Zapruder film and CE 399 (i.e. stretcher bullet which we know it was NOT).
Mr. SPECTER - What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY - …the only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward…That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.
He too said it was highly doubtful that CE 399 caused the wound to the wrist on JBC. This would lead Specter into a bunch of hypotheticals that had NO support in reality.
Mr. SPECTER - Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.
Mr. SPECTER - What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?
Dr. GREGORY - I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.
Again, we see the SBT is SUNK! And therefore, the WC’s whole case is SUNK! Despite the three prosectors and the two doctors who worked on JBC on November 22, 1963, saying they found it highly improbable (if not impossible) that CE 399 (which was NEVER shown to be the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital (PH) anyway) to be the bullet that caused the wrist wound to JBC the WC wrote this in their report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0060a.gif
All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all his wounds. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains…An X ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist. (WCR, p. 95)
Quote off
This is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the prosectors (as we have seen previously in other posts) and the two doctors who worked on JBC said in their testimonies! The WC has mislead the reader by writing this as it does not mention the comments by these doctors saying CE 399 could NOT be the bullet that caused the wrist wound to JBC, thus, it could NOT be the “magic bullet.” At this point the WC is sunk, but we can imagine a submarine torpedoing them even more as they are sinking to the bottom of the ocean!
In the report they said CE 399 weighed approximately 160-161 grains before it was fired on average and since CE 399 weighed 158.6 grains in weight that it could have left the “small fragments of lead” in JBC wrist. What the WC failed to tell the reader is that FBI Expert Robert Frazier testified that it was normal for these bullets to be light by two grains!
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
This showed CE 399 could have lost NO grains or simply lost a grain or two and as Dr. Pierre Finck testified to there were simply too many fragments in the wrist for CE 399 to be the bullet that caused that wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
We see it was simply impossible for CE 399 to have been the “magic bullet” since it was NOT missing enough (or any) weight from its original amount.
This is why the reader is urged to read the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits and NOT just the WCR as they consistently misrepresented the evidence to their advantage. This is also why WC defenders ONLY use the WCR for their claims and avoid the twenty-six volumes of evidence the vast majority of time.
We also have to remember there was a small fragment in JBC’s thigh bone as well. There were also fragments found in the chest area too and they failed to mention this as well. While Dr. Shaw said he saw no metallic substance in the X-rays of the chest area there was different evidence given by Dr. Gregory Shires before the WC.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have any knowledge as to what fragments there were in the chest, bullet fragments, if any?
Dr. SHIRES - No, again except from postoperative X-rays, there is a small fragment remaining, but the initial fragments I think Dr. Shaw saw before I arrived.
This testimony shows us two things. Firstly, there were bullet fragments in the chest area as he said Dr. Shaw saw them “before he arrived.” Secondly, we see deception being used in Dr. Shaw’s testimony as he said that he saw “no metallic substance in the X-rays”, but he did NOT say that he did NOT see any himself! True, he said he saw none during “surgery”, but that does not mean he did NOT see any at any time.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?
Dr. SHAW - No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation.
The WC failed to resolve this issue for us and the two X-rays they gave us of JBC from November 22 and November 29, 1963, do not settle the matter either.
CE 681: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0182b.jpg
CE 682: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0183a.jpg
Thus, we have to consider Dr. Shires’ testimony as being accurate. This again means too much weight would be gone for CE 399 to be the bullet to cause all these wounds. The WC had one sure thing (according to them, but since proven to be a “fake science”) at their disposal to see if the fragment(s) in the chest and fragment in the thigh bone matched CE 399 or not—Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). Why did they not utilize this to find out for sure? Why did they NOT mention these fragments and instead only deal with the wrist fragments? Is this how you run an “honest” investigation and do “fact finding?”
If we look at the two samples the WC gave us from the tests performed by Dr. Alfred Olivier, U.S. Army wounds ballistic expert, we will see CE 399 looked different from them.
CE 853: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0438a.jpg
CE 856: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0438b.jpg
CE 856 was fired into a human cadaver wrist and you can see that bullet’s nose is completely FLATTENED, but we are asked to believe that in addition to hitting JBC’s dense wrist bone it also hit JBC’s dense rib bone with NO nose damage at all.
If however, we look at the sample provided by the FBI we see they look very much like CE 399.
CE 572: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
Since these were fired for comparison purposes with CE 139 (Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) it is most likely they were fired into something like water or cotton. This is evidence for showing this is what CE 399 was probably fired into as well and NOT into a person that caused it to hit two dense bones as claimed.
Finally, Dr. Pierre Finck claimed it was “typical” for a bullet to fragment when it hit bone in his testimony.
Representative FORD - From your numerous case studies, is it typical for a bullet, for a missile in this circumstance as shown in 388, to fragment to the degree that this one apparently did?
Colonel FINCK - Yes, it is quite common to find a wound of exit much larger than the wound of entrance for weapons commonly used.
Representative FORD - But is it typical for the missile to fragment to the degree that this one did as shown in Exhibit 388?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; it is.
CE 388: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
If it is “typical” for a bullet to fragment when it hits a skull, why did it NOT fragment when it hit a dense rib and radius bone? This the WC did NOT bother to explain for us.
Finally, how do we explain the total lack of blood, tissue, fabric threads and impressions on CE 399? How does a bullet cause SEVEN wounds and have NO blood or tissue on it? How does a bullet supposedly go through two DRESSED men and leave NONE of this on it? Think about this. The WC claimed it went through JFK’s shirt and jacket, nicked his tie, and then went on to JBC and again went through his shirt and jacket (front and back), and then entered his pants in the thigh area. All this and there are NO fabric threads or impressions on CE 399. What?
In fact, the WC’s own expert witness said there were no traces of a weave pattern on CE 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items, Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit [399] that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.
Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. This being 399.
Mr. NICOL. ...The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on. However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would, suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature.
So how could this bullet have gone through two FULLY CLOTHED individuals again? The WC claimed that “all the evidence” supported a SBT scenario, but in fact it SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE instead. One of the WC’s own said this in 1966 too.
Quote on
The fact that the Report says that all the evidence supports the one-bullet theory is simply not correct. The Report is wrong in that respect, and there is no doubt about it. (Wesley J. Liebeler at a public meeting on September 30, 1966, covered by WBAI-New York radio broadcast, December 30, 1966.)
Quote off
There is a lot the WCR is wrong about in this case. It was good of Wesley Liebeler to admit this to us. I think we have seen numerous evidence in this post that CE 399 could NOT have caused all the wounds in JBC, thus, it could NOT be the “magic bullet” as claimed. If it is not the bullet that wounded both men it means the whole SBT is sunk, and if the SBT is sunk, then the WC’s whole conclusion is sunk. This means other options have to be considered and given the amount of wounds JBC suffered alone there had to be more than ONE bullet involved and that means more than ONE shooter was involved. That means a CONSPIRACY took place in the murder of JFK.
www.uspresidentialhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/John-Connally2.21.17g-e1489970774947.jpg
www.jfk-info.com/33-3318a.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and wounded Governor John B. Connally (JBC) by firing three shots and hitting JFK twice and JBC once. The WC had to account for seven wounds in the two men by using just ONE bullet since the third bullet was recognized to have missed the limousine all together and hit a curb near the Triple Underpass and wounding bystander James Tague.
The theory they would develop to handle this was called the “Single Bullet Theory” (SBT) and it claimed that the shot that hit JFK in the back, er, “base of the neck” exited from his throat and went on to enter JBC in the back and proceed on to cause all the other wounds he had. This theory was developed by WC lawyer Arlen Specter and WC member Representative Gerald Ford. There is NO evidence to support this claim at all.
We have seen this, but we have NOT looked at the theory, and its plausibility, solely from the wounds suffered by JBC. This post will do that.
********************************************
The WC outlined the wounds JBC suffered in their Report (WCR) for us and gave a conclusion as to what the wound in the back was.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0058b.gif
While riding in the right jump seat of the Presidential limousine on November 22, Governor Connally sustained wounds of the back, chest, right wrist and left thigh. Because of the small size and clean cut edges of the wound on the Governor’s back, Dr. Robert Shaw concluded that it was AN ENTRY WOUND. (WCR, p. 92) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm
Quote off
It is amazing how they described the wound as being one of “entry” due to its “small size” and “clean cut edges” when they have called other wounds of similar makeup EXIT wounds! Remember the comment about the “small wound” on JBC’s back too as it would change later in the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0067a.gif
Moreover, the LARGE WOUND on the Governor’s back would be explained by a bullet which was yawing, although that type of wound might also be accounted for by a tangential striking. (WCR, p. 109) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0067a.htm
Quote off
How did the “small wound” suddenly become a “large wound?” The explanation comes from the words and testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw who worked on JBC on November 22, 1963. In Commission Exhibit (CE) 392 we see the following by him.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0021b.gif
It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to the right scapula close to the axilla yet had passed through the latysmus dorsi muscle…The wound of entrance was approximately three cm in its longest diameter and the wound of exit was a ragged wound approximately five cm in its greatest diameter. (CE 392, p. 16)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0021b.htm
Quote off
In this report dated November 22, 1963, we see the wound of entrance in JBC’s back was 3 cm by 5cm, but later on in his testimony he said this about the back wound.
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.
Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW - Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.
So the report said the wound was 3 centimeters (1.2”) in its longest diameter, but in his testimony he said the longest the wound was in diameter was a “centimeter and a half” (3/5ths of an inch) and it was a “small wound” with “clean cut edges” as we saw on page 92 of the WCR. Why the difference in the descriptions by Dr. Robert Shaw? Which wound did he see?
Dr. Alfred Olivier gave testimony about his own report to the WC on May 13, 1964. Here is what he said.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the nature of the wound on Governor Connally's back?
Dr. OLIVIER. The surgeon's report described it as about 3 centimeters long, its longest dimension, and it is hard for me to remember reading it or discussing it with him but I did both. Apparently it was a jagged wound. He said a wound like this consists of two things, usually a defect in the epidermis and a central hole which is small, and he could put his finger in it so it was a fairly large wound.
Dr. Olivier also said the wound in the back was a “fairly large wound”, so again, where did the small neat wound come from that Dr. Shaw mentioned in his WC testimony? Another doctor from the Edgewood Arsenal testified before the WC on the same day as Dr. Olivier and he would say this in regards to wound on JBC’s back.
Mr. SPECTER. Based on the description provided to you of the nature of the Wound in the Governor's back, what is your opinion as to whether, or not, that was a pristine bullet or had yaw in it, just on the basis of the nature of the wound on the Governor's back?
Dr. DZIEMIAN. It could very well have yaw in it because of the rather large wound that was produced in the Governor's back. The wound from a nonyawing bullet could be considerably smaller.
He also said the wound on JBC’s back was a “rather large wound”, so why did Dr. Robert Shaw say it was a “small sized wound with clean edges” then during his WC testimony? Next we come to the shirt itself, designated as CE 685, and it supports a small wound.
CE 685: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0184b.jpg
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the hole as you see it to exist in the shirt? Aside from what you see on the picture, what hole do you observe on the back of the shirt itself?
Dr. SHAW - On the back of the shirt itself there is a hole, a punched out area of the shirt which is a little more than a centimeter in its greater diameter. The whole shirt is soiled by brown stains which could have been due to blood.
Mr. SPECTER - How does the hole in the back of the shirt correspond with the wound on the Governor's back?
Dr. SHAW - It does correspond exactly.
Here Dr. Shaw says the hole in the shirt is just a “little more than a centimeter” in diameter and that the shirt hole corresponds to the hole in JBC’s back “exactly.” This is a small wound as he said in the testimony, but why did Arlen Specter NOT point out this discrepancy with his report of November 22, 1963? Is this how you search for the truth?
It is clear we have one small wound that was the result of a “non-yawing” bullet and then a larger wound that would have been caused by a “yawing” bullet. However, the WC did NOT bother to find out which one was the actual wound or if one mattered more than the other for their SBT. Since the shirt hole matched the small sized wound that is the one we have to lean with, but how is that possible if the bullet came out of JFK's throat as claimed? This lack of interest in determining which type of wound was actually on the body of JBC shows us the WC was NOT out for the truth at all but seemed indifferent to these kinds of things since they had already figured out the final conclusion.
In the WCR we see this written about what the doctors who attended to JBC said.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0060a.gif
In their testimony, the three doctors who attended Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital expressed independently their opinion that a single bullet had passed through his chest; tumbled through his wrist with very little exit velocity, leaving small metallic fragments from the rear portion of the bullet; punctured his left thigh after the bullet had lost virtually all of its velocity; and fallen out of the thigh wound. (WCR, p. 95)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0060a.htm
Quote off
The testimony taken from Dr. Robert Shaw, Dr. Charles Gregory, and Dr. George Shires on March 23, 1964, was consistent with this comment by the WC and that is why they cited it as the source for it. What the WC didn’t tell the reader though was that both Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory testified a second time on April 21, 1964, and before their testimony was taken they were allowed to view the Zapruder film, the alleged stretcher bullet and other evidence they had not seen before. After viewing these Dr. Shaw testified to this.
Mr. DULLES - Could you tell at all how the arm was held from that mark or that hole in the sleeve?
Dr. SHAW - Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain. I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor's arm held in approximately this position.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating the right hand held close to the body?
Dr. SHAW - Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don't feel that it is the only possibility.
Senator COOPER - Why do you say you don't think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location---
Dr. SHAW - This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. DULLES - Or whether it was one or two wounds?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - Or two bullets?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; or three…He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
Mr. McCLOY - You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
Dr. SHAW - I have no firm opinion…If you had asked me a month ago I would have.
Mr. DULLES - Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?
Dr. SHAW - They could.
Mr. McCLOY - I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were.
Mr. DULLES - As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?
Dr. SHAW - That is correct.
What did Dr. Shaw see in the Zapruder film that made him go from being dead certain ONLY one bullet caused the wounds to JBC to saying it could have been up to THREE bullets that caused these wounds? He would go on to say the alleged “magic bullet” could have caused the chest wound, but he found it doubtful that it also caused the wrist wound.
Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet [CE 399] could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist.
Based on this answer Specter then admitted that CE 399 may NOT have been the bullet that made all the wounds as the WC was claiming!
Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.
Dr. SHAW - I see.
It was nice of Specter to admit they were assuming the WRONG bullet did the damage to JBC, huh? What other bullet could have caused all the damage to JBC then? Specter didn’t tell us this part.
Dr. Shaw agreed with the three prosectors in saying he doubted CE 399 was the bullet that caused all the wounds to JBC.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW - I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.
There you have it. The SBT is impossible based on what the three prosectors and Dr. Shaw have said, but wait, there’s more!
Dr. Gregory too would revise his statement after seeing the Zapruder film and CE 399 (i.e. stretcher bullet which we know it was NOT).
Mr. SPECTER - What opinion, if any, do you have as to whether that bullet could have produced the wound on the Governor's right wrist and remained as intact as it is at the present time?
Dr. GREGORY - …the only way that this missile could have produced this wound in my view, was to have entered the wrist backward…That is the only possible explanation I could offer to correlate this missile with this particular wound.
He too said it was highly doubtful that CE 399 caused the wound to the wrist on JBC. This would lead Specter into a bunch of hypotheticals that had NO support in reality.
Mr. SPECTER - Assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances: That the 6.5 millimeter bullet traveling at the same muzzle velocity, to wit, 2,000 feet per second, at approximately 165 feet between the weapon and the victim, struck the President in the back of the neck passing through the large strap muscles, going through a fascia channel, missing the pleural cavity, striking no bones and emerging from the lower anterior third of the neck, after striking the trachea. Could such a projectile have then passed into the Governor's back and inflicted all three or all of the wounds which have been described here today?
Dr. GREGORY - I believe one would have to concede the possibility, but I believe firmly that the probability is much diminished.
Mr. SPECTER - What would your assessment of the likelihood be for a bullet under those hypothetical circumstances to have passed through the neck of the President and to have passed through only the chest of the Governor without having gone through either the wrist or into the thigh?
Dr. GREGORY - I think that is a much more plausible possibility or probability.
Again, we see the SBT is SUNK! And therefore, the WC’s whole case is SUNK! Despite the three prosectors and the two doctors who worked on JBC on November 22, 1963, saying they found it highly improbable (if not impossible) that CE 399 (which was NEVER shown to be the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital (PH) anyway) to be the bullet that caused the wrist wound to JBC the WC wrote this in their report.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0060a.gif
All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all his wounds. The weight of the whole bullet prior to firing was approximately 160-161 grains…An X ray of the Governor's wrist showed very minute metallic fragments, and two or three of these fragments were removed from his wrist. All these fragments were sufficiently small and light so that the nearly whole bullet found on the stretcher could have deposited those pieces of metal as it tumbled through his wrist. (WCR, p. 95)
Quote off
This is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to what the prosectors (as we have seen previously in other posts) and the two doctors who worked on JBC said in their testimonies! The WC has mislead the reader by writing this as it does not mention the comments by these doctors saying CE 399 could NOT be the bullet that caused the wrist wound to JBC, thus, it could NOT be the “magic bullet.” At this point the WC is sunk, but we can imagine a submarine torpedoing them even more as they are sinking to the bottom of the ocean!
In the report they said CE 399 weighed approximately 160-161 grains before it was fired on average and since CE 399 weighed 158.6 grains in weight that it could have left the “small fragments of lead” in JBC wrist. What the WC failed to tell the reader is that FBI Expert Robert Frazier testified that it was normal for these bullets to be light by two grains!
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG - In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER - There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
This showed CE 399 could have lost NO grains or simply lost a grain or two and as Dr. Pierre Finck testified to there were simply too many fragments in the wrist for CE 399 to be the bullet that caused that wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
We see it was simply impossible for CE 399 to have been the “magic bullet” since it was NOT missing enough (or any) weight from its original amount.
This is why the reader is urged to read the twenty-six volumes of Hearings & Exhibits and NOT just the WCR as they consistently misrepresented the evidence to their advantage. This is also why WC defenders ONLY use the WCR for their claims and avoid the twenty-six volumes of evidence the vast majority of time.
We also have to remember there was a small fragment in JBC’s thigh bone as well. There were also fragments found in the chest area too and they failed to mention this as well. While Dr. Shaw said he saw no metallic substance in the X-rays of the chest area there was different evidence given by Dr. Gregory Shires before the WC.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have any knowledge as to what fragments there were in the chest, bullet fragments, if any?
Dr. SHIRES - No, again except from postoperative X-rays, there is a small fragment remaining, but the initial fragments I think Dr. Shaw saw before I arrived.
This testimony shows us two things. Firstly, there were bullet fragments in the chest area as he said Dr. Shaw saw them “before he arrived.” Secondly, we see deception being used in Dr. Shaw’s testimony as he said that he saw “no metallic substance in the X-rays”, but he did NOT say that he did NOT see any himself! True, he said he saw none during “surgery”, but that does not mean he did NOT see any at any time.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any metallic substance from the bullet left in the thoracic cage as a result of the passage of the bullet through the Governor's body?
Dr. SHAW - No. We saw no evidence of any metallic material in the X-ray that we had of the chest, and we found none during the operation.
The WC failed to resolve this issue for us and the two X-rays they gave us of JBC from November 22 and November 29, 1963, do not settle the matter either.
CE 681: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0182b.jpg
CE 682: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0183a.jpg
Thus, we have to consider Dr. Shires’ testimony as being accurate. This again means too much weight would be gone for CE 399 to be the bullet to cause all these wounds. The WC had one sure thing (according to them, but since proven to be a “fake science”) at their disposal to see if the fragment(s) in the chest and fragment in the thigh bone matched CE 399 or not—Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA). Why did they not utilize this to find out for sure? Why did they NOT mention these fragments and instead only deal with the wrist fragments? Is this how you run an “honest” investigation and do “fact finding?”
If we look at the two samples the WC gave us from the tests performed by Dr. Alfred Olivier, U.S. Army wounds ballistic expert, we will see CE 399 looked different from them.
CE 853: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0438a.jpg
CE 856: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0438b.jpg
CE 856 was fired into a human cadaver wrist and you can see that bullet’s nose is completely FLATTENED, but we are asked to believe that in addition to hitting JBC’s dense wrist bone it also hit JBC’s dense rib bone with NO nose damage at all.
If however, we look at the sample provided by the FBI we see they look very much like CE 399.
CE 572: www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142b.jpg
Since these were fired for comparison purposes with CE 139 (Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) it is most likely they were fired into something like water or cotton. This is evidence for showing this is what CE 399 was probably fired into as well and NOT into a person that caused it to hit two dense bones as claimed.
Finally, Dr. Pierre Finck claimed it was “typical” for a bullet to fragment when it hit bone in his testimony.
Representative FORD - From your numerous case studies, is it typical for a bullet, for a missile in this circumstance as shown in 388, to fragment to the degree that this one apparently did?
Colonel FINCK - Yes, it is quite common to find a wound of exit much larger than the wound of entrance for weapons commonly used.
Representative FORD - But is it typical for the missile to fragment to the degree that this one did as shown in Exhibit 388?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; it is.
CE 388: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0504b.jpg
If it is “typical” for a bullet to fragment when it hits a skull, why did it NOT fragment when it hit a dense rib and radius bone? This the WC did NOT bother to explain for us.
Finally, how do we explain the total lack of blood, tissue, fabric threads and impressions on CE 399? How does a bullet cause SEVEN wounds and have NO blood or tissue on it? How does a bullet supposedly go through two DRESSED men and leave NONE of this on it? Think about this. The WC claimed it went through JFK’s shirt and jacket, nicked his tie, and then went on to JBC and again went through his shirt and jacket (front and back), and then entered his pants in the thigh area. All this and there are NO fabric threads or impressions on CE 399. What?
In fact, the WC’s own expert witness said there were no traces of a weave pattern on CE 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items, Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit [399] that was given to me as Q-1 in the original transmission.
Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. This being 399.
Mr. NICOL. ...The only other work I did on it was with respect to an examination of the nose of Q-1 to ascertain whether there was any evidence of ricochet or perhaps contact with fabric and so on. However, although there were some fine striations on there, there was nothing of such a nature that it would, suggest a pattern, like a weave pattern or anything of that nature.
So how could this bullet have gone through two FULLY CLOTHED individuals again? The WC claimed that “all the evidence” supported a SBT scenario, but in fact it SHOWED THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE instead. One of the WC’s own said this in 1966 too.
Quote on
The fact that the Report says that all the evidence supports the one-bullet theory is simply not correct. The Report is wrong in that respect, and there is no doubt about it. (Wesley J. Liebeler at a public meeting on September 30, 1966, covered by WBAI-New York radio broadcast, December 30, 1966.)
Quote off
There is a lot the WCR is wrong about in this case. It was good of Wesley Liebeler to admit this to us. I think we have seen numerous evidence in this post that CE 399 could NOT have caused all the wounds in JBC, thus, it could NOT be the “magic bullet” as claimed. If it is not the bullet that wounded both men it means the whole SBT is sunk, and if the SBT is sunk, then the WC’s whole conclusion is sunk. This means other options have to be considered and given the amount of wounds JBC suffered alone there had to be more than ONE bullet involved and that means more than ONE shooter was involved. That means a CONSPIRACY took place in the murder of JFK.