JFK's Shallow Back Wound and Knowledge of the Throat Wound at the Autopsy

[John Iacoletti]

There’s nothing “non-subjective” about it. There’s no jacket “bunch” visible in Willis or Betzner.

[Michael T. Griffith]

One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.

On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?

Let's address this nonsense from a different angle. For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound mark on the certified autopsy face sheet and the death certificate's placement of the back wound match the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound location described (and in some cases drawn) by federal agents who saw the body matches the location of the rear clothing holes, etc. Let's just put those inconvenient facts aside and approach this issue from a different angle.

First of all, not all clothing bunches overlap. Plenty of coat and shirt bunches simply bunch upward without overlapping or with only a partial overlap. But, of course, you are talking about a bunch that overlaps, and, yes, 1 inch of an overlapping bunch would use about 2 inches of fabric.

Second, let's assume that the modest overlapping bunch seen in Organ's graphic existed when the bullet struck JFK's back (never mind that Willis 5 shows no such bunch). And we'll leave aside the point that the bunch in his graphic is not big enough and not in the right location to explain the location of the rear hole in the coat, much less in the shirt. Never mind that problem.

Okay, the bunch in Organ's graphic is an overlapping bunch (as is the bunch in one of the other photos that he's posted). The photo in his graphic shows about 1 inch of coat bunched up in such a way that it is an overlapping bunch. Now, what would have happened if a bullet had struck that bunched part of the coat? Answer: You would have had three holes in the coat, two through the two overlapping layers of the bunch and another through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

Surely this is such a self-evident point that it needs no further discussion. Even most young children can grasp this obvious fact. But, just in case you doubt this, go get a coat that you no longer want, create a bunch on the back of the coat similar to the one in Organ's graphic, and then take a nail and puncture the coat at the point of the bunch. I can positively assure you that you will see that when you flatten the coat, there will be three holes in it, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

And, holy smokes, please do explain how the back of the buttoned, tailor-made shirt, with JFK sitting back against most of it, would have bunched in such a way that it formed virtually the same shape as the coat bunch and formed directly under the coat bunch. That's just bonkers ludicrous.

Moreover, a bullet that went through such a fanciful, impossible overlapping shirt bunch would have made three holes in the shirt, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric under the overlapping layers. If you doubt this self-evident point, go get an old shirt and perform the same experiment recommended for the coat. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will see three holes in the shirt after you penetrate the bunch and flatten the shirt.

To help you visualize this fact, just grab a piece of your shirt and pull it up in a bunch so that it overlaps the part of the shirt beneath it--the top part of the bunch has two layers, naturally, while the fabric that it overlaps has just one layer.

It seems like you guys just repeat each other's arguments without pausing to really think about them. Any objective thinking person will realize that it is preposterous to assume that JFK's tailor-made shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, in both location and shape, especially given the fact that the shirt was buttoned and that JFK was sitting against most of the back of the shirt.

Similarly, even most young children can comprehend the self-evident fact that if a sharp object punches a hole through an overlapping bunch in a coat and shirt, there will be three holes in the coat and three holes in the shirt.

[Jack Trojan]

One inch of bunch actually uses up a little more than two inches of clothing. Two inches of bunch uses a little more than four inches of clothing.

On edit: I see that Jerry has already posted the graphic. Why have you ignored it? Do you not understand it?

Is line C supposed to be 17 degrees from horizontal? How would you know from your oblique graphic? Ans: you can't know because you are not a photogrammetrist and your graphic is worse than misleading.

The entry hole should be at the bottom of C6 and out the throat at the bottom of C7. The entry wound must be above the exit wound by 17 degrees. No amount of jacket bunching or slouching is going to change that fact. There were no holes anywhere near C6 on the jacket or the body. The jacket would not have been bunching that high on the collar. The jacket bunching is a red herring.

Show us a graphic in skeletal profile showing the correct trajectory thru JFK or concede the MB was truly magical. Use some simple geometry for a change.

[Richard Smith]

Readers will note that Griffith and you have countered non-subjective photographic evidence with vapid platitudes like "LN faithful" and "brainwashed WC apologist, immune to fact and logic."

Where is Caprio now that we need him?  He used to claim that because JFK wore expensive suits from Brooks Brothers that they would never "bunch" to rebut the evidence visible with his own eyes.  If a time machine were invented to allow some of these kooks to sit in Oswald's lap as he pulled the trigger, they would gouge their own eyes out to avoid acknowledging his guilt and proclaim his innocence while the shots were still ringing in their ears. 

[Jerry Organ]

Is line C supposed to be 17 degrees from horizontal? How would you know from your oblique graphic? Ans: you can't know because you are not a photogrammetrist and your graphic is worse than misleading.

The Left-Lateral Autopsy Photo, when tilted upright as in my graphic, is not how JFK's head, neck and shoulders were at the time the Croft photo was taken. Kennedy's head is fairly vertical in Croft, but he's slightly turned away from Croft and not as full-profile as his head appears in the autopsy photo. In Croft, it appears to me that his neck has more curvature or angle to it than is seen in the autopsy photo, and that his left shoulder is slouched forward.

But Croft and the autopsy photo are all we have to work with, so the caveat about the "slope angle in this view may differ from slope angle between victim and sniper perch." In any event, there's no reason not to apply the Clark Panel's measurements to that autopsy photo, as they used the very same photo. Adding in the vertical values for the clothing resulted in a one-inch-high bunch being all that's needed.

I'm sure no matter how expert the photogrammetrist or 3D re-constructionist was, you would automatically rule out any results that supported the Single-Bullet Theory.

The entry hole should be at the bottom of C6 and out the throat at the bottom of C7.

Entry at C7-level; exit at T1-level. The missile goes by the spine at C7/T1; the T1 transverse process had a non-displaced fracture, possibly caused by the passing of the bullet. See how it just nicks the side of the necktie.

The entry wound must be above the exit wound by 17 degrees. No amount of jacket bunching or slouching is going to change that fact. There were no holes anywhere near C6 on the jacket or the body. The jacket would not have been bunching that high on the collar. The jacket bunching is a red herring.

Kennedy exhibits quite a bit of slouching in the motorcade photos. Sometimes the nape-area bunch is near the collar; sometimes away. Seems to depend on how far forward his raised right arm was. There's no bunching at all over the left shoulder.

Show us a graphic in skeletal profile showing the correct trajectory thru JFK or concede the MB was truly magical. Use some simple geometry for a change.

You're not capable of being open-minded about this. If it didn't match your fantasy trajectory, any 3D I would provide would be "inaccurate" or be attacked on the level of my skills. In the meanwhile, help out Griffith by supplying at-least something graphical. Show us your version of a skeleton profile and trajectory slope on the Left-Lateral Autopsy Photo.

[Tim Nickerson]

Let's address this nonsense from a different angle. For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound mark on the certified autopsy face sheet and the death certificate's placement of the back wound match the location of the rear clothing holes, that the back-wound location described (and in some cases drawn) by federal agents who saw the body matches the location of the rear clothing holes, etc. Let's just put those inconvenient facts aside and approach this issue from a different angle.

The bunch-up seen on Turtle Creek and elsewhere is rather significant. Perhaps as much as a couple of inches. Maybe a inch and a half. The jacket is bunched in the Croft photo but it's hard to tell just how much. I can't imagine that it would have dropped since Turtle Creek. Notations on the Facesheet place the wound 14 cms below the tip of the right mastoid process. You're saying that matched the holes in the clothing? How about the autopsy photo? Are we supposed to just disregard that?

First of all, not all clothing bunches overlap. Plenty of coat and shirt bunches simply bunch upward without overlapping or with only a partial overlap. But, of course, you are talking about a bunch that overlaps, and, yes, 1 inch of an overlapping bunch would use about 2 inches of fabric.

Second, let's assume that the modest overlapping bunch seen in Organ's graphic existed when the bullet struck JFK's back (never mind that Willis 5 shows no such bunch). And we'll leave aside the point that the bunch in his graphic is not big enough and not in the right location to explain the location of the rear hole in the coat, much less in the shirt. Never mind that problem.

Okay, the bunch in Organ's graphic is an overlapping bunch (as is the bunch in one of the other photos that he's posted). The photo in his graphic shows about 1 inch of coat bunched up in such a way that it is an overlapping bunch. Now, what would have happened if a bullet had struck that bunched part of the coat? Answer: You would have had three holes in the coat, two through the two overlapping layers of the bunch and another through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

Surely this is such a self-evident point that it needs no further discussion. Even most young children can grasp this obvious fact. But, just in case you doubt this, go get a coat that you no longer want, create a bunch on the back of the coat similar to the one in Organ's graphic, and then take a nail and puncture the coat at the point of the bunch. I can positively assure you that you will see that when you flatten the coat, there will be three holes in it, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric that lay under the overlapping layers.

Moreover, a bullet that went through such a fanciful, impossible overlapping shirt bunch would have made three holes in the shirt, two through the overlapping layers and one through the fabric under the overlapping layers. If you doubt this self-evident point, go get an old shirt and perform the same experiment recommended for the coat. I can absolutely guarantee you that you will see three holes in the shirt after you penetrate the bunch and flatten the shirt.

To help you visualize this fact, just grab a piece of your shirt and pull it up in a bunch so that it overlaps the part of the shirt beneath it--the top part of the bunch has two layers, naturally, while the fabric that it overlaps has just one layer.

It seems like you guys just repeat each other's arguments without pausing to really think about them. Any objective thinking person will realize that it is preposterous to assume that JFK's tailor-made shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, in both location and shape, especially given the fact that the shirt was buttoned and that JFK was sitting against most of the back of the shirt.

Similarly, even most young children can comprehend the self-evident fact that if a sharp object punches a hole through an overlapping bunch in a coat and shirt, there will be three holes in the coat and three holes in the shirt.

I can't believe that this would have to be pointed out to you but , neither Jerry nor I have the bullet passing through the bunched up portions of the clothing. 

And, holy smokes, please do explain how the back of the buttoned, tailor-made shirt, with JFK sitting back against most of it, would have bunched in such a way that it formed virtually the same shape as the coat bunch and formed directly under the coat bunch. That's just bonkers ludicrous.

Even tailor made shirts like Kennedy's do bunch up. The jacket is seen bunched up in photos. If you want to try to make a case that the shirt wasn't, then perhaps you should try your hand at standup comedy.

[Tim Nickerson]

Where is Caprio now that we need him?  He used to claim that because JFK wore expensive suits from Brooks Brothers that they would never "bunch" to rebut the evidence visible with his own eyes.  If a time machine were invented to allow some of these kooks to sit in Oswald's lap as he pulled the trigger, they would gouge their own eyes out to avoid acknowledging his guilt and proclaim his innocence while the shots were still ringing in their ears.

Caprio is on Facebook. He's posting in several groups under a fake identity.

[Tim Nickerson]

For now let's put aside the crucial points that no photo or footage shows JFK's coat bunched enough to account for the location of the rear clothing holes,

What would be the height in inches that JFK's coat would need to be bunched up in order for the hole in it to match up with the entry wound as seen in the autopsy photo(s) or as described on the Facesheet(14 cms below the tip of the rt. mastoid process)?