JFK's Tie Knot

[Drew Phipps]

So, since we know that the torn piece of tie could not have been located on the front of the tie knot (assuming a bullet or bullet fragment caused the tear), what are the possibilities that the torn area was on the top edge of the knot? Would it be possible for a projectile to graze the knot on the top outside and leave that tear?

[Ray Mitcham]

So, since we know that the torn piece of tie could not have been located on the front of the tie knot (assuming a bullet or bullet fragment caused the tear), what are the possibilities that the torn area was on the top edge of the knot? Would it be possible for a projectile to graze the knot on the top outside and leave that tear?

Drew,that would mean that to line up with the hole/tears in the tie, the tie would have been loose and hanging low around JFK's neck. It wasn't.

[Drew Phipps]

Now that I've had a look at the full picture of the tie in the Archives, it is apparent to me that the torn area is too far toward the tail end of the tie to be the top of the knot, or any part of the knot. In a Windsor knot, or double Windsor knot, the last "bend" of the tie material (as it passes over the top and then thru the horizontal bit of tie that holds it in) is closer to the fat front end of the tie, than the rest of the knot. If the nick was the top of the knot, or even the front of the knot, when you undo the knot, the nick would be closer to the fat front than halfway for sure. The tail end of the tie in the Archives, on the contrary, has the nick in it.

The tail end of the tie passes almost straight thru the knot. It is the axis around which the fat side of the tie is woven to create the knot. If the nick/bloodstain is where the Archives photo seems to indicate, then it appears that the nick is roughly where the narrow end of the tie would enter a Windsor knot. I note that the tie has been cut clean into 2 pieces, which perhaps lends support for the nick being a part of that cutting activity.

Here's what I'm wondering. Why would you cut the narrow end of the tie below the knot? You'd still have to pull part of the narrow end of the tie through the bulk of the knot to remove it, possibly still having to apply force to the back of the patient's neck to get the job done. Why not loosen the tie (enough to avoid cutting the patient) and slice it ABOVE the knot, making the removal of the whole thing easier?

If CE394 was sliced in two above the knot, then that nick/bloodstain is truly in the wrong place (by 3-4 inches) to be a part of the neck wound. IF CE394 was sliced in two below the knot, and if the nick/bloodstain can't be INSIDE the knot (or else other parts of the tie would be damaged), then the nick would have to where the thin part of the tie emerges from the knot. To the right side (as you face JFK), which seems to me to be out of line to the proposed magic bullet path... and the projectile would have to travel through the shirt!

[Drew Phipps]

Here's a quote from David Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard":

"When it came time for the commissioners to examine JFK's gore-soaked clothing, Dulles stunned his fellow investigators with an inappropriate quip: "By George," he exclaimed, as he inspected Kennedy's tie, which had been clipped off with surgical scissors by the Parkland doctors, "the president wore a clip-on tie." "

Now, the picture from the Archives looks nothing like a clip on. But if it appeared that way when Dulles was enjoying himself, you got to wonder if the tie still had a knot, and had in fact been severed above the knot, as I have speculated above.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Now that I've had a look at the full picture of the tie in the Archives, it is apparent to me that the torn area is too far toward the tail end of the tie to be the top of the knot, or any part of the knot. In a Windsor knot, or double Windsor knot, the last "bend" of the tie material (as it passes over the top and then thru the horizontal bit of tie that holds it in) is closer to the fat front end of the tie, than the rest of the knot. If the nick was the top of the knot, or even the front of the knot, when you undo the knot, the nick would be closer to the fat front than halfway for sure. The tail end of the tie in the Archives, on the contrary, has the nick in it.

The tail end of the tie passes almost straight thru the knot. It is the axis around which the fat side of the tie is woven to create the knot. If the nick/bloodstain is where the Archives photo seems to indicate, then it appears that the nick is roughly where the narrow end of the tie would enter a Windsor knot. I note that the tie has been cut clean into 2 pieces, which perhaps lends support for the nick being a part of that cutting activity.

Here's what I'm wondering. Why would you cut the narrow end of the tie below the knot? You'd still have to pull part of the narrow end of the tie through the bulk of the knot to remove it, possibly still having to apply force to the back of the patient's neck to get the job done. Why not loosen the tie (enough to avoid cutting the patient) and slice it ABOVE the knot, making the removal of the whole thing easier?

If CE394 was sliced in two above the knot, then that nick/bloodstain is truly in the wrong place (by 3-4 inches) to be a part of the neck wound. IF CE394 was sliced in two below the knot, and if the nick/bloodstain can't be INSIDE the knot (or else other parts of the tie would be damaged), then the nick would have to where the thin part of the tie emerges from the knot. To the right side (as you face JFK), which seems to me to be out of line to the proposed magic bullet path... and the projectile would have to travel through the shirt!

Hey Drew

Awfully sorry, old chap, haven't been here in ages. I just happened to be reviewing this thread and came upon your penultimate post above.

All I am able to say about your deduction is: Bloody brilliant bit of work, man! Bravo!

From my perspective, you have found the last piece of the puzzle, and not only destroyed the Single Bullet Theory but solved the mystery of what became of the projectile that exited the throat.

If the throat wound was caused by a part of a frangible bullet that grazed the rear base of JFK's skull and impacted and broke up at the C3/C4 vertebrae, with a fragment continuing on through the 2nd/3rd tracheal rings, is it inconceivable to think such a downward ranging fragment could make two "slits" below the collar band through the shirt and nick the tail of the tie as it passed just BELOW the tie knot? Would the tail of the tie not be curled inward by the tie knot, placing the 2nd icon (where the nick was) at the outer edge of the tail?

[Drew Phipps]

Thank you for the compliment Bob. I have a question. These are photos from WC 395.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk7/ce395.htm



That's why Allen Dulles makes his sick "joke" about clip-on ties.

Here's this from presumably the FBI:



Once the tie is completely untied, here's what it looks like:



Which one of those white dots are they supposing is the "nick" pictured above?

If your answer was the white spot towards the top of the picture, then what accounts for the apparent through and through down at the bottom of the picture? Here's the back side of that tie:


See what I mean?

[Bob Prudhomme]

Hi Drew

I measured the scale on each of these photos and found them to be the same, meaning the photographer must have taken both photos from the same distance.

The nick you pointed out on the front of the tie, on my screen, is 23 mm from where the tie was severed. The nick you pointed out on the back of the tie is 30 mm from where the tie was severed. It does not appear the two were connected.

However, look at the photo below:



We can clearly see the nick on the back of the tie in this photo, plus what appears to be the small bloodstain. The only problem is that it IS on the back of the tie, and on the opposite side of the tie from what we have been led to believe. How did it come to pass that we all believed this nick was on the front surface of the tie? I wonder who planted that gem in our minds?

As you stated earlier, the tail of the tie (narrowest section) is the part the knot of the tie knot is tied around, using the wide end of the tie to make the knot. This means that the narrow end of the tie goes straight through the knot, and is used to adjust slack on the tie.

If the scale beside the laid out tie is in inches, my measurements show that the nick on the back of the tie is about 3.5 inches from where the tie was severed. Would it not make sense that the nick in the tail section was, prior to the assassination, either

1. just below the tie knot or
2. just to JFK's anatomical left of the tie knot

and that the nurses loosened the tie 2-3 inches before cutting the tail of the tie just beside the left side of the knot?

Either scenario is a death sentence for the SBT, as it would mean the projectile was either travelling downward too steeply or too far to JFK's left to be able to impact John Connally's right armpit.

[Bob Prudhomme]

As the nick is roughly 3.5 inches from where the tail of the tie was severed, it is very obvious the nurses pulled 2-3 inches of slack on the tail of the tie before cutting the tail just to the left of the tie knot, either with scissors or a scalpel, although a scalpel is definitely not the customary tool for this job.

That being said, if a scalpel was used to sever the tail of the tie where it came out the left side of the tie knot, the knot would have been nowhere near the shirt collar, and I believe we can eliminate the tie-cutting-with-a-scalpel as the culprit for the vertical slits in the shirt.



If the nurses did not make the slits in the shirt with a scalpel as they were cutting the tie off, when did they make them?

The only other possibility is the slits were made by the nurses while attempting to cut the collar button off, in an attempt to open JFK's collar. However, this doesn't really work either.

If someone was trying to cut the button off, wouldn't they lay the scalpel blade flat under the button and cut the threads? How would you end up with the button still attached, and vertical slits well below and nowhere near the button?

I think we have been had, and the matching "slits" are actually either the exit or entry point of a projectile.

[Drew Phipps]

I think we've definitely "been had" as you phrase it, because, in the black and white FBI photo that labels that area a "nick", I see 6 of those little patterns in a row, immediately to the rick of the white mark the FBI labels the "nick." On the other hand, the tie photo with the visible bloodstain has but 5 icons (and no partials) in a row to either side of the "nick."



Also, I think that the color photo with 5 icons and a bloodstain has to come from the "forward facing" side of the tie. In all my ties, the "body-facing" side of the tie has a clear line down the middle (a seam) where the fabric of the tie has been folded to overlap and sewn together, which isn't visible of that close up photo. Bob is of course correct that close to the knot, the sideways end of the fabric are curled in toward each other.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I think we've definitely "been had" as you phrase it, because, in the black and white FBI photo that labels that area a "nick", I see 6 of those little patterns in a row, immediately to the rick of the white mark the FBI labels the "nick." On the other hand, the tie photo with the visible bloodstain has but 5 icons (and no partials) in a row to either side of the "nick."



Also, I think that the color photo with 5 icons and a bloodstain has to come from the "forward facing" side of the tie. In all my ties, the "body-facing" side of the tie has a clear line down the middle (a seam) where the fabric of the tie has been folded to overlap and sewn together, which isn't visible of that close up photo. Bob is of course correct that close to the knot, the sideways end of the fabric are curled in toward each other.

You're absolutely right, Drew. I looked again at the photo I posted of the tie in two pieces. The back seam you mentioned is clearly visible on the wide portion of the tie but not on the narrow portion with the nick; meaning we are looking at the front side of the tie and the nick is on the front side.

I'm thankful for this, actually, as it is very difficult to get that part of the back of the tie exposed to a projectile.