Why was Connally's suit laundered?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Where was that documented?

It's in the WC's report in the blandest form possible--one sentence is devoted to it, and no explanation is given for this surreal failure to properly examine Connally's clothing (p. 94).

Dr. McKnight discusses this in much more detail in Breach of Trust (pp. 142-144).

[Sean Kneringer]

It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.

[Michael T. Griffith]

It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.

I agree. I would have kept the clothes as they were. But, Nellie felt it would be better if they were cleaned. Go figure.

[Joe Elliott]

This is one of the more obvious proofs of the cover-up. The FBI knew full well that Connally's shirt and coat were crucial forensic evidence, yet for months--not weeks, but months--both the FBI and the Secret Service acted as though Connally's clothes did not exist and showed no interest in them. 

Nellie Connally notified the FBI and the Secret Service that she had her husband's bloody clothes, but, she said, "nobody seemed interested." She waited two months after notifying the FBI and the Secret Service, and then she decided to have them cleaned because she logically thought that for some reason there was no interest in them.

Finally, the FBI went and got the clothes from Mrs. Connally, and the FBI lab received them on April 1, 1964, but, as mentioned, Mrs. Connally had already had them cleaned, so they were of very limited forensic value. The holes could not be tested for metallic residue, not even by super-sensitive methods, and the value of the fabric and shape of the clothing holes was diminished.

Why the keystone-cop lack of interest? One reason was that the FBI was aware that both of Connally's surgeons suspected that the bullet that hit Connally had fragmented, which would explain the weird H-shaped tears in the front of the shirt and the dimensions and nature of the wrist wounds.

Another reason for the astonishing months-long lack of interest was that the FBI knew that spectrographic testing of the Connally clothing holes could reveal metallic residues that were different in composition from the residues found on the edges of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, which of course would prove that Connally and JFK were hit by different bullets.[/size]

Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.

I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.

The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?

Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.

The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.

The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.

Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.

I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.

The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?

Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.

The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.

The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.

Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.

This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.

Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected.

[Joe Elliott]

This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.

And this is typically done in murder cases? In 1963? Checking the clothes for metallic traces.

Are bullet the only things that can add metallic traces to clothes? Are these tests run on both the areas around the bullet holes and other parts of the clothes, to check for the possibility that something else might have added these traces?

Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected. [/size]

Yes. Being hit by a fragment can explain why the damage to Connally’s wrist was not greater. As can being hit by an intact bullet, which was slowed by a neck and torso. I have never heard a ballistic expert say otherwise.


And, of course, what good would the examination of Connally’s clothes do? The examination of JFK’s clothes indicate that he was hit in the back by a bullet, which exited his throat. But this has not affected your opinion about the shot coming from the front in the slightest.

Nowhere, have I heard that the opinion of some Parkland doctors about the throat wound being an entrance or exit wound, was based on any kind of examination of his clothes, which they could have done, but didn’t. Of course, there job was not to examine the clothes. Their job ended when it was determined he had died. But their opinions would carry some weight if these opinions were based, in part, of their careful evaluation of his clothes, which they did not do.

[Michael T. Griffith]

And this is typically done in murder cases? In 1963? Checking the clothes for metallic traces.

You're kidding, right? Why do you suppose the FBI was so quick to test the JFK clothing holes for metallic residue?

Are bullet the only things that can add metallic traces to clothes? Are these tests run on both the areas around the bullet holes and other parts of the clothes, to check for the possibility that something else might have added these traces?

Huh? Did you just start studying the JFK case last month? What else but a bullet would leave metallic residue around the edges of the holes? When bullets enter and exit clothing, they typically leave metallic traces on the edges of the holes they create. Those traces can be tested and their chemical composition can be compared with the composition of the bullets that are suspected of having caused the holes. This is Forensics 101 stuff.

Yes. Being hit by a fragment can explain why the damage to Connally’s wrist was not greater. As can being hit by an intact bullet, which was slowed by a neck and torso. I have never heard a ballistic expert say otherwise.

You have no clue in Kentucky what you are talking about. The projectile that struck Connally's wrist shattered--shattered--the radius bone, which is one of the hardest bones in the body. So whatever hit the wrist did a great deal of damage. That is why even the autopsy doctors, as late as April 1964, before they knew what they were supposed to say on the matter, insisted that CE 399 could not have been the missile that hit Connally's wrist.

Dr. Charles Gregory, the surgeon who operated on the wrist, told the WC that the wrist damage indicated that an "irregular missile" had hit the wrist:

In attending this wound, it was evident early that clot had been carried into the wound from the dorsal surface to the bone and into the fracture. This would imply that an irregular missile had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect. (6 H 98)

The WC's most experienced and highly qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told WC staffers that there was no way CE 399 could have shattered the radius bone without suffering substantial deformity.

And, of course, what good would the examination of Connally’s clothes do?

Once again the problem is that you have not done the necessary homework to discuss the subject credibly. Go get two or three basic forensic handbooks and read up on why ballistics and forensic experts examine clothing when there's been a shooting.

The examination of JFK’s clothes indicate that he was hit in the back by a bullet, which exited his throat.

Wrong. It indicated no such thing. If a bullet or bullet fragment had made the front shirt slits, there should have been metallic residue around the slits. But even when the slits were tested with NAA, no metallic traces were detected. Also, if a bullet or fragment had made the slits, there would be fabric missing from them, but there is none. And, we know a bullet or fragment did not cause the slits because there is no hole through the tie knot--only a small nick made by one of the Parkland nurses, and the nick is clearly inward from the left edge of the knot.

When are you guys going to deal with the powerful evidence that we now have that at the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point?  When?  We now know that the doctors removed the chest organs so that they could look through the chest cavity to see the back wound's tract, and that when they did this, they could see the end of the tract--they could see that the tract did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. That's when Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and said the back wound had no exit point. And now we know that others at the autopsy were aware of this as well, including one medical technician who witnessed the probing.

Nowhere, have I heard that the opinion of some Parkland doctors about the throat wound being an entrance or exit wound, was based on any kind of examination of his clothes, which they could have done, but didn’t.  Of course, there job was not to examine the clothes. Their job ended when it was determined he had died. But their opinions would carry some weight if these opinions were based, in part, of their careful evaluation of his clothes, which they did not do.

Huh? Who has ever claimed that the Parkland doctors examined JFK's clothes, much less that they used the clothing as the basis for their conclusion that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

The Parkland doctors concluded that the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm), because it was neat, and because it was punched in, not avulsed.

You guys wave aside the size of the wound because you can't abandon your brainwashing that only 6.5 mm ammo was used and that the throat wound was an exit wound, never mind all the evidence that we now have that the back wound had no exit point. Several other kinds of ammo could have caused an entrance wound that was 3-5 mm in diameter, but you guys ignore this fact because you insist on basing everything on your false paradigm that the only ammo used was 6.5 mm ammo.

And of course you are also waving aside Dr. Carrico's clear, repeated assertion that the throat wound was above the collar, even though that location is supported by his 11/22/63 medical report. You won't even seriously consider his account because it destroys your house of cards. So you reflexively look for any excuse, no matter how lame or arbitrary, to reject it.

[Joe Elliott]

You have no clue in Kentucky what you are talking about. The projectile that struck Connally's wrist shattered--shattered--the radius bone, which is one of the hardest bones in the body. So whatever hit the wrist did a great deal of damage. That is why even the autopsy doctors, as late as April 1964, before they knew what they were supposed to say on the matter, insisted that CE 399 could not have been the missile that hit Connally's wrist.

But those doctors were not ballistic experts, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.

Dr. Charles Gregory, the surgeon who operated on the wrist, told the WC that the wrist damage indicated that an "irregular missile" had hit the wrist:[/size]

Again, a doctor who was not a ballistic expert, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.

The WC's most experienced and highly qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told WC staffers that there was no way CE 399 could have shattered the radius bone without suffering substantial deformity.

Once again the problem is that you have not done the necessary homework to discuss the subject credibly. Go get two or three basic forensic handbooks and read up on why ballistics and forensic experts examine clothing when there's been a shooting.

Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.


And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:

My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination
By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS

http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter

As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullet s from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.

Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.

So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.

Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.


What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.

They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.

Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.

Wrong. It indicated no such thing. If a bullet or bullet fragment had made the front shirt slits, there should have been metallic residue around the slits. But even when the slits were tested with NAA, no metallic traces were detected. Also, if a bullet or fragment had made the slits, there would be fabric missing from them, but there is none. And, we know a bullet or fragment did not cause the slits because there is no hole through the tie knot--only a small nick made by one of the Parkland nurses, and the nick is clearly inward from the left edge of the knot.

So, I take it, your theory is the “slits” in the shirt were not made by a bullet, but by a scalpel, used by a doctor or nurse to hurriedly help remove the shirt.

The slits, whether made from a bullet or from a scalpel, were cut from the inside. This would not be the case if made by a scalpel. No medical professional wound slide the blade of a scalpel between the tight fit of the shirt and the neck to somehow cut the shirt from the inside. Causing the threads to be pushed outward. Only a bullet would do that.

Also, I don’t think the doctor or nurse would cho0se to cut the shirt directly over the wound, although, I am not a medical professional of any sort so I don’t know. But I don’t think they would do that.

I think those “slits” were caused by an exiting bullet alright.

. . .

Huh? Who has ever claimed that the Parkland doctors examined JFK's clothes, much less that they used the clothing as the basis for their conclusion that the throat wound was an entrance wound?

The Parkland doctors concluded that the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm), because it was neat, and because it was punched in, not avulsed.

At a minimum, for the Parkland doctors who thought the neck wound was an entrance wound, for their opinions on this matter to be taken seriously, they would have to examine the clothes. One cannot make a good, professional analysis, without checking the clothes. This provides the definitive evidence for the direction of the bullets. Any expert, who declared the direction of the bullet, from the wounds alone, and chooses not to make a close examination of the clothes as well, when readily available, is not behaving in a professional manner. Of course, the Parkland doctors are excused, because this was not part of their jobs. But this still greatly diminishes their conclusions.

And of course you are also waving aside Dr. Carrico's clear, repeated assertion that the throat wound was above the collar, even though that location is supported by his 11/22/63 medical report. You won't even seriously consider his account because it destroys your house of cards. So you reflexively look for any excuse, no matter how lame or arbitrary, to reject it.

I trust what the autopsy photographs show, not the memory of a doctor.