"Respect" for the clothing evidence?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Hi Cliff

If you want to discuss a low back wound, I agree with you 100%. A wound 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line at T3 is squarely lined up with the top section of JFK's right lung. There is enough in the medical evidence, presented in Appendix VIII of the WCR, about obvious signs of pneumothorax and the placement of a chest tube into JFK's right pleural cavity to more than confirm, in my mind, that JFK had a serious wound to his right lung.

I also believe a "shallow" back wound is preposterous, as rifle bullets simply travel at too high of velocities to cause a wound in flesh less than an inch deep.

Hi Bob

You're assuming JFK was struck in the back with a conventional weapon.

That's an assumption that cannot be made.

Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. However, I have looked very closely at all of the theories involving exotic non-lead projectiles doing the damage in the JFK assassination, and I have come to two conclusions about them.

1. I have yet to see any of these exotic weapons that do not have a chance of leaving some exotic projectile (or part of a projectile) behind for some curious bystander to pick up and start asking embarrassing questions about.
2. You can't beat a high speed lead bullet for efficiency in killing, and the mess this bullet leaves behind makes the resulting death very believable to the public. If JFK had died, and the only wounds visible were a tiny hole in the neck and a "shallow" wound in the back, how long would it take for reporters to start speculating about exotic CIA based toxins as the cause of death?