The Testimony Of Dr. Charles Petty
David Von Pein
EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES S. PETTY:
==========================================
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0190a.htm
Dr. Charles S. Petty, M.D., was one of the nine pathologists who
served on the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) when the House Select
Committee on Assassination (HSCA) re-investigated the murder of
President John Kennedy in 1977 and 1978.
Dr. Petty and the FPP came to the overall conclusion that President
Kennedy was struck by two bullets, and only two bullets, in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, with both of those bullets coming
from above and behind the President at the time they were fired (which
is the same identical conclusion reached by JFK's three autopsy
surgeons at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination
as well).
Moreover, Dr. Petty (like seven of his colleagues on the HSCA's
Forensic Pathology Panel, with Dr. Cyril H. Wecht being the only voice
of dissent among the panel's members) concluded that the so-called
"Single-Bullet Theory" (SBT) is the true scenario that explains the
initial wounding of JFK and the wounding of Governor John B. Connally.
Dr. Petty had no hesitation in stating his own personal belief that
the SBT was (and is) the correct explanation for the shooting event in
Dallas, and that both JFK and Connally were, indeed, struck by a
single bullet fired from a point above and behind the two victims.
The only portion of Dr. Petty's testimony that I firmly disagree with
is when Petty said this to the House Select Committee:
"The bullet that struck the late President in the upper right
back area...was...traveling in a somewhat upward direction,
anatomically speaking."
It's very, very difficult for this writer to believe the above
statement uttered by Charles Petty after having taken a good look at
the two autopsy photographs of President Kennedy linked below (which
are photos that were verified by the HSCA's photographic panel as
positively depicting the deceased President on the night of 11/22/63,
and are photos that show, per the HSCA, no signs of having been
altered or faked in any way):
The photographs linked above are pictures that (when viewed in concert
with one another) certainly would seem to strongly indicate and
suggest that the wound in JFK's upper back was located in a place on
his body that was anatomically HIGHER than the exit wound in the
President's throat (vs. the upper-back wound being anatomically LOWER
than the throat wound, which is what the HSCA's FPP concluded in
1978).
So, unless the above two autopsy pictures of the late President
Kennedy are depicting some kind of strange "The Throat Wound Seems To
Be Lower Than The Back Wound, But It's Really Higher" anomaly when
looking at these two-dimensional photos (which I suppose is possible,
I'll admit, but I'm wondering how likely it is that the photos are
skewing perception to the large degree that would be necessary in
order for the HSCA's conclusion to be an accurate one on this
subject), then it seems glaringly obvious, after examining those
pictures in tandem with each other, that the wound in JFK's upper back
was located ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the wound in the throat.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
To quote "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi on this matter:
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the
entrance wound in the [President's] back was definitely above the exit
wound in the throat appears in one of [the autopsy] photos taken of
the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his
head on a metal headrest. Only the wound to the throat is visible, not
the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer
from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely above the
exit wound in the throat." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE 424 OF
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Yes, the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel did conclude that the path of
Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet (Bullet CE399) was moving in an "UPWARD"
trajectory through John F. Kennedy's body when this trajectory is
examined after JFK has been placed in an erect (or "anatomic")
position.
But I have a hard time believing the forensic panel with respect to
this trajectory issue. And apparently author Vince Bugliosi has a hard
time believing it too (although Vince seems to believe that the
anatomic trajectory path through the President's body is BOTH "upward"
and "downward" at the same time, based on Mr. Bugliosi's self-
contradictory remarks on pages 423 and 424 of his JFK book).
And it's difficult to believe that even hardened Kennedy conspiracy
theorists would deny the basic common-sense determination of the upper-
back wound being HIGHER than Kennedy's throat wound after looking at
the two autopsy photos linked above.
To repeat -- If it's not a "photo anomaly" of some sort that is
causing some kind of 2D vs. 3D distortion, then Dr. Petty and the HSCA
are, in my opinion, simply incorrect with regard to this particular
topic about the relative positions of the President's back and throat
wounds.
Dr. Charles Petty's fairly-brief testimony was taken by the HSCA on
September 8, 1978, by North Carolina Congressman Richardson Preyer. It
is testimony that I find quite thorough and compelling (except, of
course, for the "higher vs. lower" matter of JFK's wounds already
discussed).
Most conspiracy theorists, who continue to try in every way imaginable
to absolve Lee Harvey Oswald of all blame for JFK's murder, will
undoubtedly disagree with me about Petty's testimony.
The conspiracists of the world who want Oswald to be innocent of this
crime (despite the vast amount of evidence that indicates those
conspiracists are kooky as all get out) probably are of the opinion
that Dr. Petty was just one of the many, many liars and cover-up
operatives who were assigned the task over the years of pulling the
wool over the collective eyes of the people of the world when Charles
Petty said these things to the HSCA----
"I believe that they [JFK and John Connally] were struck by the
same bullet .... There is nothing here that is unusual or spectacular
or unexpected. This is the behavior of a full metal jacketed bullet, a
bullet covered in all areas except the base by means of the firm,
hard, tough, not easy to deform jacket."
"There is no evidence whatsoever that the President was shot
either from the side or from the front. The only wounds that he has,
in my opinion, are the wounds from the back; one in the back of the
shoulder, one in the back of the head."
==========================================
THE 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES S. PETTY:
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON PREYER -- "Good morning, Dr. Petty. It is
good to have you with us today and I join the chairman's expression
yesterday in thanking you, and Dr. Baden, and Dr. Wecht for all of the
hard work you have put in on this and the time you have taken from
your already busy lives to work on this. Dr. Blakey has recited your
impressive credentials and I won't go through the process of
qualifying you. Suffice it to say you are one of the nine forensic
pathologists serving on the select committee autopsy panel, is that
correct?"
DR. CHARLES S. PETTY -- "Yes, sir, I am."
MR. PREYER -- "I believe you are a member of the subcommittee, the
members of which had never reviewed the evidence in this matter
before, is that correct?"
DR. PETTY -- "You are correct, sir."
MR. PREYER -- "As I understand it, there are two subpanels. One
subpanel consisting of Dr. Weston, Dr. Spitz, and Dr. Wecht had
reviewed the evidence prior to this occasion. Your subpanel members
had not reviewed it in the past?"
DR. PETTY -- "That is correct, I had no opportunity or interest in
reviewing the things, the entire information, before I was asked to
serve on the panel."
MR. PREYER -- "Had you ever expressed any opinion about the injuries
or the result of the autopsy, had you ever spoken about it or written
about it before you examined the evidence?"
DR. PETTY -- "No, sir, I have neither spoken about it, lectured about
it, written about it, or in any way uttered any opinions concerning
this assassination."
MR. PREYER -- "You had not formed any opinion about the result of the
autopsy?"
DR. PETTY -- "That is correct."
MR. PREYER -- "Were you in the hearing room yesterday and did you hear
all of the testimony of Dr. Baden and Dr. Wecht?"
DR. PETTY -- "I was here for some nine hours yesterday and listened
avidly to everything that was said."
MR. PREYER -- "Both of these gentlemen are distinguished pathologists
and they disagreed, as you know. Dr. Wecht does not believe in the
single bullet theory. He is a distinguished pathologist whose views
deserve our serious consideration. Dr. Baden is equally distinguished.
As I understand it, Dr. Wecht disagrees with the panel's conclusions
on the single bullet theory. He not only disagrees with it, as I
understand it, but he believes the evidence shows it is demonstrably
false. I would like to ask you, do you believe on the available
evidence that the single bullet theory is valid and that Governor
Connally and President Kennedy were hit by the same bullet?"
DR. PETTY -- "Yes, sir, I believe that they were struck by the same
bullet and I have so previously stated in the preliminary report of
the panel."
MR. PREYER -- "Would you summarize briefly your reasons why you
believe this to be the case?"
DR. PETTY -- "Yes, sir, I will be very glad to, Mr. Preyer. I think it
is necessary at this point to sum up, in a sense, the flight of the
bullet and its effect on those it struck. The bullet that struck the
late President in the upper right back area and then went on to
penetrate the soft structures of the neck and to exit in the front of
the neck was, as has been indicated already, traveling in a somewhat
upward direction, anatomically speaking.
"Anatomists many years ago decided--the better to
understand each other--to place a body in a specific position and to
relate all of the descriptions of the landmarks of the body to the
body in that position. That position actually is a person standing
erect facing forward with both palms turned forward. This is the
anatomic position and in tracing the in-shoot wound on the back of the
late President and connecting it with a more-or-less straight line
with the out-shoot wound on the front of the neck, the bullet will
have followed a slightly upward direction.
"But the President was not upright at the time he
was shot, he was certainly not in the anatomic position, and this
explains, I believe, the objection that Dr. Wecht had and his argument
that he could not understand how the bullet pursued a downward track
from where it was discharged, then an upward track in the President
and then a downward track into Mr. Connally.
"A second point that must be mentioned--the bullet
that penetrated the back of the President exited the front, struck no
bone. If it did strike any bone, the bone that it struck was fragile
and certainly not markedly disrupted. It did not go through his spinal
column. It did not go through bone that was solid and hard and offered
great resistance to passage. In effect; it went through several inches
of very soft tissue.
"There is no evidence on the X-rays that the bullet
broke up in passing from the back to the front. There was no
deformity, in my opinion, of the bullet as it went through the
President.
"Now, the second object that this single bullet
struck was Mr. Connally sitting somewhere in front of the President,
and this is another point that Dr. Wecht has brought up repeatedly,
and that is that there was no way to join by means of a straight line
the bullet existing from the President and striking the Governor.
"Indeed, there was one diagram yesterday that was
showing the bullet making more-or-less right angle turns, which I am
certain did not happen. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that from
looking at the films taken of the actual assassination that the
apparent relative positions of the President and the Governor are
somewhat misleading, that is, that one cannot determine by looking at
a flat two dimensional view of one side of the limousine and the
contained individuals precisely what relationship they had one to
another.
"Next, the bullet in striking Mr. Connally did not
penetrate the chest in the usual sense of the word. The bullet did
indeed enter the back and side of the chest near the armpit, and it
did follow the course of the rib on its lateral or outer aspect, and
it did indeed exit beneath the right nipple, but there is no evidence
that that bullet actually penetrated the rib.
"Indeed, one of the surgeons who cared for the
Governor, Dr. Shaw, stated to me that the bullet did not penetrate the
lung but that the rib was shattered, and it is my opinion that this
bullet in slapping against the rib shattered it in a place that the
rib is quite vulnerable, and then proceeded to follow rather closely
the slope of the rib and then finally to exit in the front of the
chest.
"The X-rays fail to show any evidence of particles
of metal in the chest. Therefore, in my opinion, the bullet was not
significantly deformed during its passage in the chest of the
Governor.
"Next, The bullet did indeed enter the wrist, and
although the reports are somewhat difficult to understand, it
apparently entered more on the back of the wrist and then exited more
on the front of the wrist, and again as in the chest wound, this was a
tangentially placed shot which shattered the bone--there is no
question of that--it shattered and caused a comminuted fracture of the
radius, and then went on to exit.
"Here for the first time, fragments of bullet
substance are found, and it is here, in my opinion, that the bullet
first significantly deformed. Then having exhausted itself, and at a
very low velocity, it continued on to bounce in and out of the thigh
of the Governor.
"Now, let me recapitulate this. The bullet
penetrated one individual without deformity, leaving none of its metal
behind. In the second person it penetrated the chest, slapping in a
tangential manner against the rib, fracturing the rib, and damaging
incidentally the underlying lung, because the rib was thrown against
the lung, and then went on again without leaving any of its substance
so as to enter the wrist where it finally left off a portion of it
substance, not much, but some.
"There is nothing here that is unusual or
spectacular or unexpected. This is the behavior of a full metal
jacketed bullet, a bullet covered in all areas except the base by
means of the firm, hard, tough, not easy to deform jacket.
"Now, the reason that this ammunition is used
militarily was explained yesterday. The reason that such ammunition is
not used by law enforcement officers, one of the major reasons, is
that such bullets do go through people and strike others, and every
law enforcement agency in the world is concerned about this.
"In conversations here with the Capitol Police,
such individuals present here in this room are carrying soft
ammunition with hollow points so that the bullets will not go through
the assailant and strike an unwary onlooker. This ammunition that was
used in the assassination was designed to go through people and it
does not surprise me nor does it surprise the remainder of the panel,
with the exception possibly of Dr. Wecht, that the bullet went on
through one person, slapping the chest of another, proceeding through
the wrist and winding up in the thigh of the individual.
"There is another point I would like very much to
make along this line, and that is there has been some surprise
indicated on the part of some individuals that there was no dropping
of the Stetson that Governor Connally was carrying.
"If one looks at the films and one looks at the
position of the governor's hand, and then realizes that the bullet was
proceeding slightly from the back of the wrist to the front, one would
realize immediately that the force of the bullet would tend to drive
the wrist further against the thigh and it would not, in my opinion,
tend to flap the wrist out to the side or laterally, as some people
have claimed.
"Also, there is some concern on the part of some
individuals that we don't know what the reaction of the total body is
to shooting, and there is some reluctance, I believe, on the part of
individuals to realize that there may be different reactions to being
struck by a bullet exhibited by different people, and yet in this same
film we see two people who were shot, we know they were shot, we can
actually see the wounding of them, and these two individuals reacted
quite differently, one from the other.
"There is great biological variation in how
individuals react to receiving wounds. This doesn't surprise me at
all. We see in our daily practice of forensic work individuals who are
wounded and don't realize they are wounded. We see other individuals
who, being struck a nonlethal wound; drop to the floor saying good
God, I am dead. Individuals struck by bullets react in different ways.
"One other thing that I must mention: the term
frangible bullet was introduced yesterday by Dr. Wecht, who I believe,
as I understand him, feels that there is a possibility that there was
a simultaneously fired or synchronized shot somewhere from the right
front or right side striking the President in the area where the skull
was already blown away.
"Now, about frangible bullets causing such injury
or causing injuries in individuals. I happen to be a coauthor of the
only paper that has ever been written about the wounding capabilities
of frangible bullets. Frangible bullets are bullets that are designed
to be used in shooting galleries. These are bullets that are
specifically designed to break up on the backdrop of the shooting
gallery, so as not to ricochet and cause injury to either the shooters
or to the people who work in the gallery.
"Such bullets usually are formed of iron filings or
small granular pieces of iron bound together by some organic
substance, so that upon breaking up they break into numerous pieces.
Such bullets and the breakup products of bullets are easy to detect in
X-rays. There are no such fragments in the X-ray of the late
President's head. There was no frangible bullet fired.
"I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in 22 caliber loads and they are not produced in larger
weapons. There is no evidence in the X-ray of the President's head of
a frangible bullet shot. If there were, I would expect to see square
appearing particles of which are not present and, furthermore, if such
a bullet were fired into the side of the head, through the aperture
caused by the exiting large bullet, I would expect those pieces of the
frangible bullet to have continued over to the left of the head and
there would be material, metallic material easily identifiable seen in
the left side of the brain. There are no such fragments present.
"It is for these reasons that I do not find it
difficult to believe in a single bullet passing through the late
President Kennedy and continuing on through the chest, wrist, and
winding up finally in the thigh of the Governor. Does that answer your
question, sir?"
MR. PREYER -- "Very definitively, Dr. Petty. You have anticipated and
answered every question I intended to ask you. Let me ask this
question: Would it be accurate, or in your opinion, did the bullet go
through the wrist bone of Governor Connally? Perhaps I am using a
layman's term and not a scientific term. You mentioned that the wrist
bone was shattered. Is it accurate to say that the bullet went through
the wrist bone?"
DR. PETTY -- "I don't believe it did. One cannot be certain by reading
the reports of Dr. Gregory, who was the attending physician at
Parkland Hospital, as to whether or not the bullet actually went
through the bone. There is no specific X-ray evidence that it did
indeed penetrate and go through or drill through, as one might say,
the bone. However, there are no, as far as I know, there are no views
of the wrist area taken from a different viewpoint, other than having
the wrist and hand spread out flat and parallel with the surface of
the X-ray film. There were none taken from the opposite--or lateral-
view, as far as I know. So, I can't tell you and answer specifically,
but I see no defect in the bone that would make me believe that the
bullet, in fact, literally passed through the bone itself."
MR. PREYER -- "Thank you. The other area I had intended to go into,
and I think you have covered it, is the question of whether the
President was struck from the side or the right front by a frangible
bullet, which I think, in fairness to Dr. Wecht, he described as a
remote possibility, but let me ask one concluding question on that. In
your opinion, does the available evidence permit the conclusion that
to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was not a shot from
the side or from the front which struck the President?"
DR. PETTY -- "From the available information, there is no evidence
whatsoever that the President was shot either from the side or from
the front. The only wounds that he has, in my opinion, are the wounds
from the back; one in the back of the shoulder, one in the back of the
head."
MR. PREYER -- "Thank you. .... I have no further questions of Dr.
Petty at this time."
CHAIRMAN LOUIS STOKES -- "...Dr. Petty, any witness appearing before
our committee is entitled under our rules to an additional 5 minutes
when he has concluded his testimony for the purpose of making any
statement he so desires relevant to his testimony. You may explain
your testimony, amplify it or expand upon it in any way you so desire.
I extend to you at this time 5 minutes for that purpose."
DR. PETTY -- "You are very kind, sir. I hope that my explanation has
been lucid, clear, short, and understandable. I would say only one
thing, I have never worked with a group of individuals, and I am
speaking now of the staff of the committee, that have shown any more
consideration and kindness to me than this group. You have all made me
feel very much at home, very much a part of Government, and I
appreciate it very much. You are extremely courteous, kind and I have
enjoyed my brief stay here. Thank you."
CHAIRMAN STOKES -- "We certainly want to, once again, thank you for
having lent yourself to the service of the U.S. Congress and to the
American people. You certainly, in a very articulate way this morning,
have been extremely helpful to this committee, this panel. We thank
you very much for your service."
DR. PETTY -- "Thank you, Mr. Stokes."
==========================================
RELATED WEBLINKS:
DR. CHARLES PETTY'S 1986 TESTIMONY AT THE TELEVISION DOCU-TRIAL KNOWN
AS "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkMnSla7E20&fmt=18
AUDIO SEGMENTS OF VARIOUS INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED BY MEMBERS OF THE
HSCA'S FORENSIC PATHOLOGY PANEL (WITH DR. PETTY AND DR. MICHAEL BADEN
BEING AMONG THE PRIMARY PANEL MEMBERS ASKING MANY OF THE QUESTIONS):
www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/HSCA_Medical_Interviews
MY CRITIQUE OF A 1978 HSCA INTERVIEW WITH DR. PIERRE FINCK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
TAKING IT TO THE "2 BULLETS" BANK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ebc27fc4b5630502
==========================================
==========================================
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. You come to this late and ill-informed. The panel said that the
LOCATION of the back wound was below the location of the throat wound IF
the body were at rest. But at the time he was shot, his position caused
the back wound to be slightly higher than the throat wound. The rest of
the downward angle was made up by IMAGINING that JFK was leaning forward
by 18 degrees, as Baden demonstrated on TV. Unfortunately for them they
were stuck with a SBT at frame 190 because of the acoustical evidence. And
even YOU can see that at frame 190 JFK is seated perfectly erect.
>
> Dr. Charles Petty's fairly-brief testimony was taken by the HSCA on
> September 8, 1978, by North Carolina Congressman Richardson Preyer. It
> is testimony that I find quite thorough and compelling (except, of
> course, for the "higher vs. lower" matter of JFK's wounds already
> discussed).
>
> Most conspiracy theorists, who continue to try in every way imaginable
> to absolve Lee Harvey Oswald of all blame for JFK's murder, will
> undoubtedly disagree with me about Petty's testimony.
>
More nonsense. No one is out to ABSOLVE Oswald.
> The conspiracists of the world who want Oswald to be innocent of this
> crime (despite the vast amount of evidence that indicates those
> conspiracists are kooky as all get out) probably are of the opinion
> that Dr. Petty was just one of the many, many liars and cover-up
> operatives who were assigned the task over the years of pulling the
> wool over the collective eyes of the people of the world when Charles
> Petty said these things to the HSCA----
>
So what if Petty lied about something? That does not absolve Oswald. He
could still be one of the shooters.
As I explained before. But an explosive bullet is different.
I'd like to see his straight line trajectory go from Connally's wrist
into his thigh. I question his opinion that Connally's wrist or clothing
did not indicate an exit wound.
David Von Pein
LOL.
"At rest"??
I guess JFK wasn't "at rest" in the autopsy photos, eh?
Anthony Marsh
Not when his body was being manipulated and held up.
David Von Pein
>>> "Not when his body was being manipulated and held up." <<<
Here too?:
Robert Harris
<f3e8aeb1-1fee-4862...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES S. PETTY:
>
> ==========================================
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_019
> 0a.htm
>
>
>
> Dr. Charles S. Petty, M.D., was one of the nine pathologists who
> served on the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) when the House Select
> Committee on Assassination (HSCA) re-investigated the murder of
> President John Kennedy in 1977 and 1978.
>
>
> Dr. Petty and the FPP came to the overall conclusion that President
> Kennedy was struck by two bullets, and only two bullets, in Dallas'
> Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, with both of those bullets coming
> from above and behind the President at the time they were fired (which
> is the same identical conclusion reached by JFK's three autopsy
> surgeons at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of the assassination
> as well).
David, it gets tiresome hearing you and your partners, continually
evaluate witnesses solely on the basis of whether they agree with you.
Neither Petty BTW, nor the autopsists stated that JFK could not have been
hit by additional shots. All they claimed was that they only saw evidence
of two shots from the rear.
Petty's claim that the SBT shot was on a rising angle, relative to JFK's
body, was of course wrong. So was his belief that the 312 headshot struck
in the cowlick area. It is errors like that, that demonstrate the
incompetence of the medical panel and provide an answer to the question of
why we need to continue to analyze this case nearly half a century later.
Have you noticed btw, that the WC, the HSCA and Posner each placed the SBT
at a different point in time, which necessarily required a different set
of angles for each theory? But every one of them expressed absolute
certainty that the angles back through the known wounds, pointed directly
at Lee Harvey Oswald.
Anyway, getting back to the main issue. Speares was wrong in claiming that
the back wound was lower than the throat wound and I am going to put out a
brief video which will prove that.
But he was absolutely RIGHT, that the angle from the alleged SN does not
work. It is too steep, as I have been saying for a long time. One bullet
did indeed, pass through both victims but that particular shot was NOT
fired by Oswald. The angles through the known wounds align perfectly, with
the third floor window on the Daltex, directly behind the fire escape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGupSng-Po
It is NOT a coincidence that the only professional criminal in DP that day
was discovered at exactly that location.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Almost all the SBT diagrams show a perfectly straight line trajectory
with the bullet going through Connally's wrist to get to his thigh.
There are only a couple which show the bullet bounce off the wrist and
go into the thigh. How do you reconcile Dr. Petty's claim that the
bullet did not go through the wrist with the HSCA's explanation of the
trajectory?
Anthony Marsh
His head is being held up by a head rest. Turn the picture 90 degrees to
the right and you can see that.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
If one bullet did cause the known wounds, then the trajectory through
JBC's body was diverted downward, probably when it struck a rib, to an
angle of about 25 degrees.
Of course the bullet went through his wrist, but at an oblique angle. It
was once again, diverted. There is really no other plausible explanation
for the thigh wound, which was obviously caused by a bullet traveling at
very low velocity.
IMO, a direct hit is out of the question for the thigh wound and a
direct hit on the wrist would have been far more devastating. The only
remotely plausible alternative explanation for Connally's wounds would
have to be a direct hit on his back, and it would have to have come from
a very high elevation.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Fine, but few SBT diagrams took that into account. Almost all require a
perfectly straight line.
> Of course the bullet went through his wrist, but at an oblique angle. It
> was once again, diverted. There is really no other plausible explanation
> for the thigh wound, which was obviously caused by a bullet traveling at
> very low velocity.
>
The thigh wound doesn't even have to be a low velocity bullet. It could
be a low velocity FRAGMENT.
Can you lay out the proof that something perforated the wrist? Is there
a distinct entrance wound and a distinct exit wound? Is there a hole on
one side of his sleeve and a hole on the opposite? If so, then how can
you account for D. Petty's opinion that the bullet did not go through
the wrist?
> IMO, a direct hit is out of the question for the thigh wound and a
A direct hit if it hit at a perpendicular angle, as all the tests were
done. No tests were done hitting it at an angle.
> direct hit on the wrist would have been far more devastating. The only
> remotely plausible alternative explanation for Connally's wounds would
> have to be a direct hit on his back, and it would have to have come from
> a very high elevation.
>
Nonsense. The angle through Connally's chest does not indicate a very
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Connally's wrist was not visible, so any attempt to illustrate its
position is just guesswork.
>
> > Of course the bullet went through his wrist, but at an oblique angle. It
> > was once again, diverted. There is really no other plausible explanation
> > for the thigh wound, which was obviously caused by a bullet traveling at
> > very low velocity.
> >
>
> The thigh wound doesn't even have to be a low velocity bullet. It could
> be a low velocity FRAGMENT.
Well, Connally said it was a "bullet", not a fragment. What reason do
you have to believe it was not?
> Can you lay out the proof that something perforated the wrist? Is there
> a distinct entrance wound and a distinct exit wound?
Tony I find it hard to understand how you could be involved in this
stuff for so long and not know the answer to such a simple question.
Dr. Gregory who examined the wrist said,
"The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the
back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
centimeters above the wrist joint.
There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist
crease."
And this is how Connally himself described it,
"Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the
inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out
almost in the center of the wrist on the underside"
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
I have no issue with that. I merely point out the different versions
some of which assume perforation and a couple of which assume ricochet.
BTW, I assume both at the same time as this is when the bullet broke up
into the pieces deposited in the front seat.
>
>
>>> Of course the bullet went through his wrist, but at an oblique angle. It
>>> was once again, diverted. There is really no other plausible explanation
>>> for the thigh wound, which was obviously caused by a bullet traveling at
>>> very low velocity.
>>>
>> The thigh wound doesn't even have to be a low velocity bullet. It could
>> be a low velocity FRAGMENT.
>
> Well, Connally said it was a "bullet", not a fragment. What reason do
> you have to believe it was not?
>
Connally? Connally never said it was and intact bullet. One doctor said
it was a bullet which stuck in his thigh and would be removed the next
day. I believe he misspoke and meant fragment.
>
>> Can you lay out the proof that something perforated the wrist? Is there
>> a distinct entrance wound and a distinct exit wound?
>
> Tony I find it hard to understand how you could be involved in this
> stuff for so long and not know the answer to such a simple question.
>
> Dr. Gregory who examined the wrist said,
>
> "The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
> assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the
> back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
> centimeters above the wrist joint.
>
> There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
> the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
> something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist
> crease."
>
If he is right. I hope he is. But you remember that they changed the
story about which was entrance and which was exit.
> And this is how Connally himself described it,
>
> "Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the
> inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out
> almost in the center of the wrist on the underside"
>
I guess that would stand as sufficient proof to convince most people.
But again he is talking about bullet when the bullet could have broken
up upon impact and only a fragment exited.
David Von Pein
>>> "His [JFK's] head is being held up by a head rest." <<<
And if we were to place JFK's head flat on the autopsy table, this would
then suddenly magically move the place on his upper back where the wound
was located to a different location many, many inches lower on his back?
Is that about the size of your silly "His Head Was On A Headrest, So I
Cannot Trust That Photo" assertion?
I think we need to break out a whole box of "LOL" icons for this one.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, it gets tiresome having to endlessly educate you about what the
witnesses said. Do you EVER read anything about the case??
This is from Connally's autobiography, *In History's Shadow*,
"A metal object fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, chest, and
wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
Haven't you learned by now that when I describe what a witness said, I can
ALWAYS back it up with verbatim cites??
> One doctor said
> it was a bullet which stuck in his thigh and would be removed the next
> day. I believe he misspoke and meant fragment.
Ok, this has to be deliberate. After endlessly accusing me of distorting
witness statements, you arbitrarily declare that a doctor didn't mean
what he said.
Without even the faintest justification, you declare that he meant what
you want him to:-)
So, the doctor said it was a bullet and Connally said it was a bullet
but Tony said it was a fragment.
Gosh, it's such a tough decision deciding who we should believe
>
> >
> >> Can you lay out the proof that something perforated the wrist? Is there
> >> a distinct entrance wound and a distinct exit wound?
> >
> > Tony I find it hard to understand how you could be involved in this
> > stuff for so long and not know the answer to such a simple question.
> >
> > Dr. Gregory who examined the wrist said,
> >
> > "The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
> > assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the
> > back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
> > centimeters above the wrist joint.
> >
> > There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
> > the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
> > something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist
> > crease."
> >
>
> If he is right. I hope he is. But you remember that they changed the
> story about which was entrance and which was exit.
>
> > And this is how Connally himself described it,
> >
> > "Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the
> > inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out
> > almost in the center of the wrist on the underside"
> >
>
> I guess that would stand as sufficient proof to convince most people.
> But again he is talking about bullet when the bullet could have broken
> up upon impact and only a fragment exited.
That's not what the evidence tells us Tony.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "His [JFK's] head is being held up by a head rest." <<<
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=YZyBJEgAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQdjmrtiefVNZZu5N4CTVpbHVHd7P92WQT_OogFubXGiaDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg
>
>
> And if we were to place JFK's head flat on the autopsy table, this would
> then suddenly magically move the place on his upper back where the wound
> was located to a different location many, many inches lower on his back?
>
> Is that about the size of your silly "His Head Was On A Headrest, So I
> Cannot Trust That Photo" assertion?
>
You were asserting that the one particular photo represents the
anatomical position. It does not.
David Von Pein
>>> "You were asserting that the one particular photo represents the
anatomical position. It does not." <<<
Near enough.
In fact, it's as close to "anatomical" as you're going to get.
Of course, Anthony realizes it's definitely "near enough" to back up the
higher back wound theory....but Tony just wants to argue. Go figure.
Anthony Marsh
You are out of the loop. I've quoted exactly the same thing dozens of times.
> This is from Connally's autobiography, *In History's Shadow*,
>
> "A metal object fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
> band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
> BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, chest, and
> wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
>
Wonderful, but that does not prove it is a fact. There are various
things in his book added by his ghost writer that are wrong.
It could have been his cuff link the nurse picked up.
> Haven't you learned by now that when I describe what a witness said, I can
> ALWAYS back it up with verbatim cites??
>
Garbage. Again, do not rely on witnesses to prove a fact.
>
>
>> One doctor said
>> it was a bullet which stuck in his thigh and would be removed the next
>> day. I believe he misspoke and meant fragment.
>
> Ok, this has to be deliberate. After endlessly accusing me of distorting
> witness statements, you arbitrarily declare that a doctor didn't mean
> what he said.
>
So, you believe the doctor was right, that he decided to wait until the
next day to remove a whole bullet? But that contradicts what you just
quoted from Connally.
> Without even the faintest justification, you declare that he meant what
> you want him to:-)
>
> So, the doctor said it was a bullet and Connally said it was a bullet
> but Tony said it was a fragment.
>
Well, there was a bullet at some time. Each of them was slightly wrong.
> Gosh, it's such a tough decision deciding who we should believe
>
Yeah, Connally or his doctor.
>
>
>>>> Can you lay out the proof that something perforated the wrist? Is there
>>>> a distinct entrance wound and a distinct exit wound?
>>> Tony I find it hard to understand how you could be involved in this
>>> stuff for so long and not know the answer to such a simple question.
>>>
>>> Dr. Gregory who examined the wrist said,
>>>
>>> "The right wrist was the site of a perforating wound, which by
>>> assumption began on a dorsal lateral surface. In lay terms this is the
>>> back of the hand on the thumb side at a point approximately 5
>>> centimeters above the wrist joint.
>>>
>>> There is a second wound presumed to be the wound of exit which lay in
>>> the midline of the wrist on its palmar surface about 2 centimeters,
>>> something less than 1 inch above the wrist crease, the most distal wrist
>>> crease."
>>>
>> If he is right. I hope he is. But you remember that they changed the
>> story about which was entrance and which was exit.
>>
>>> And this is how Connally himself described it,
>>>
>>> "Governor CONNALLY. I would say an inch above the wrist bone, but on the
>>> inner bone of the wrist where the bullet went in here and came out
>>> almost in the center of the wrist on the underside"
>>>
>> I guess that would stand as sufficient proof to convince most people.
>> But again he is talking about bullet when the bullet could have broken
>> up upon impact and only a fragment exited.
>
> That's not what the evidence tells us Tony.
>
So you claim, but you do not document.
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Really??
Then if you already knew he described an intact bullet, why did you say,
"Connally? Connally never said it was and intact bullet."
I honestly thought you didn't know Tony, or more accurately, I hoped you
didn't know. I always try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt.
>
> > This is from Connally's autobiography, *In History's Shadow*,
> >
> > "A metal object fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
> > band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
> > BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, chest, and
> > wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
> >
>
> Wonderful, but that does not prove it is a fact.
Of course not, but you claimed that Governor Connally never said it was
an intact bullet.
Why did you post that Tony?
Do you think we have a shortage of bullshit in this case??
> There are various
> things in his book added by his ghost writer that are wrong.
ROFLMAO!!
Unbelievable.
Robert Harris
Herbert Blenner
> Robert Harris wrote:
> > In article
> > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES S. PETTY:
>
> >> ==========================================
>
Dr. Perry recognized a perforating wound of the wrist.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0191b.htm
"Next, The bullet did indeed enter the wrist, and although the reports are
somewhat difficult to understand, it apparently entered more on the back
of the wrist and then exited more on the front of the wrist, and again as
in the chest wound, this was a tangentially placed shot which shattered
the bone--there is no question of that--it shattered and caused a
comminuted fracture of the radius, and then went on to exit."
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
That was not my question. How can you explain those diagrams which show
a ricochet instead of perforating the wrist?
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
He had no way of seeing the condition of the bullet. He just assumed it
was a bullet and the one which was later identified as CE 399. Again, more
fiction written by his ghost writer.
The nurse never turned in a bullet. She kept his cuff link. CE 399 was
found on a different person's stretcher by someone else. His fiction is
impossible.
>
>
>
>>> This is from Connally's autobiography, *In History's Shadow*,
>>>
>>> "A metal object fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
>>> band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
>>> BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, chest, and
>>> wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
>>>
>> Wonderful, but that does not prove it is a fact.
>
> Of course not, but you claimed that Governor Connally never said it was
> an intact bullet.
>
> Why did you post that Tony?
>
> Do you think we have a shortage of bullshit in this case??
>
>
>> There are various
>> things in his book added by his ghost writer that are wrong.
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!
>
Do not rely on eyewitness statements, even Connally. Connally also said
that the SS agents in the follow-up car jumped off and ran to the TSBD. We
don't know what is his recollection and what is hype from his ghost
writer.
> Unbelievable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>