A logical approach to the location of
Kennedy's back wound
February 2001
Considering the clarity of the available evidence, there has been an incredible amount of unnecessary discussion about the position of Kennedy's back wound. The debate is about whether it is in the "high" position above the scapula as indicated at the autopsy, which technically places it in the neck, or whether it is some two inches lower, as suggested by the holes in his shirt and suit coat. At stake is often thought to be the single-bullet theory versus conspiracy because the high position is above the throat wound and gives a downward angle close to the 17 degrees expected from the sixth floor of the depository, whereas low position gives an upward angle incompatible with the SBT (and compatible with a shooter in the trunk or lying in the street?). What really is at stake, however, is a sensible view that knits together various pieces of evidence versus a nonsensical, fragmented view of the evidence that goes nowhere. Our logical approach to questions in the assassination [problem or question > all possible hypotheses > evidence >strong evidence > all hypotheses consistent with strong evidence > simplest hypothesis consistent with strong evidence] resolves this question quickly and expeditiously.
The question:
Was Kennedy's back wound in his back (the low position) or in his neck (the
high position)?
Possible answers
1. In his back (low).
2. In his neck (high).
Strong, validated evidence
1. There was only one wound in Kennedy's "back."
[Autopsy]
2. It was just to the right of his spine and above the
scapula. [Autopsy]
3. It was about 14 cm (5-1/2 inches) below the tip of the
right mastoid process and the same distance from the tip of the right acromion
process (the tip of the right shoulder joint). [Autopsy]
4. There is one hole in the back of Kennedy's shirt and one
in the back of his suit jacket, each about the same size as the one in his back.
5. Each of these holes is about the same distance from his
spine as the hole in his back, but about two inches lower.
6. The fibers around the holes in the shirt and suit coat are
both bent forward.
7. The hole in Kennedy's back has the characteristics of an
entrance wound.
8. Photographs of Kennedy in Dealey Plaza show that his
suit coat is riding up his back (bunched upward), as is normal for persons who
wave.
9. The Croft photo #3 shows that the jacket can be folded
back over itself until the fold (the bunched portion) is higher than the top of
the coat's collar. (See essay by John Hunt,
especially its Part III.)
10. This amount of bunching can be equivalent to as much as 4 to 5 inches of
lifting of the jacket (simple geometry and math).
11. The downward line of damage from the neck wound to the
throat wound. (See diagram
by Dr. John K. Lattimer and associated article.)
Note: The statement by Admiral Burkley that "a second wound [the back wound] occurred at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" is strong evidence but not validated. It's just an error that puts it well below the throat wound. Burkley's placement is also strongly disputed by Dr. Humes.
Hypotheses consistent with this evidence
1. The hole is located, as measured on the body, at the high position,
and the jacket and shirt have bunched upward by about two inches.
Note: The commonly posed alternative explanation, "The hole is at the lower position, the shirt and coat didn't bunch so much, and the measurements at the autopsy were wrong," cannot be considered any more because it is incompatible with the observed bunching in Dealey Plaza. See article on bunching by John Hunt.
Simplest (and only) hypothesis consistent with this evidence
1. The hole is located at the high position on the
body, just as measured at the autopsy, and the jacket and shirt have bunched upward by
about two inches.
Even so, this answer must be considered provisional. It is subject to challenge by additional evidence.
Possible challenges
1. Shirts and jackets don't bunch upward by two inches.
Comment: May be true in other
circumstances, but not at Dealey Plaza that day [photos
in John Hunt's article].
2. The face sheet drawn by Dr. Boswell shows the hole lower
on the back.
Comment: True, but face sheets are
memory aids only, and are not intended to be drawn to scale [Humes
testimony to ARRB]. Anyhow, this one contains the exact measurements to get
to the wound.
3. The HSCA endorsed the lower position for the back wound.
Comment: They used photos, not the
real body. The measurements taken at the autopsy outweigh the photos, as does
the clear autopsy statement "above the scapula."
Does the position of the back wound matter?
Obviously, it does. A low position and a "slightly
upward trajectory" wound be incompatible with the TSBD, and would mean a
second shooter and conspiracy.
Do we have to know the answer?
No. We can work around it by invoking the rest of the
physical evidence, which is so strong and redundant. Consider, for example,
these pieces of reliable evidence:
1. There is one entrance wound in the neck/back.
2. There are no bullets in the body.
3. There is a wound in the throat that must be an exit wound.
4. There is a downward line of sites of damage that extends
through the neck to the exit in the throat.
5. There is one entrance wound in Connally's back, which is
nonpristine because of its size and shape and because of the lessened degree of
damage done by the bullet.
6. The fragment in Connally's wrist is tied by NAA to the
stretcher bullet, which is tied by ballistic markings to Oswald's rifle
to the exclusion of all other rifles.
These six pieces of evidence collectively mean that Oswald's rifle was responsible for all the damage to the men's bodies. This makes the height of the back wound immaterial to this reasoning. Thus, we do not have to know it in order to draw the right conclusion.