See the following link for the web version of this entire article.
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginThe discussion by the Forensic Pathology Panel on the relationships between an abrasion collar, entrance perforation, bullet trajectory, striking angle and undermining of tissues shows evasion of the issues raised by their descriptions of the back wound based upon the autopsy photographs.
Source: House Select Committee on Assassinations, Vol VII p. 164
"(424) The characteristics of the abrasion collar surrounding the entrance perforation reflect the direction of the bullet at the instant of impact with the skin and the angle of the trajectory prior to contact with the skin, as well as the shape of the missile itself. If the trajectory is perpendicular to the surface of the skin, the hole is usually round and the abrasion collar correspondingly symmetrical around it. (See fig. 45, a picture of an abrasion collar when the missile was perpendicular to the target.) If the angle of the trajectory of the missile to the skin surface is other than perpendicular, the abrasion collar may be asymmetrical, that is, more prominent on the surface with the most acute angle between the skin and the bullet, and less apparent on the opposite surface, where there may be undermining of the tissues. (See fig. 46 showing an abrasion collar produced by a missile striking at an acute area.)"
A round abrasion collar surrounding a round entrance perforation shows that the trajectory of the properly aligned bullet was perpendicular to the skin. This definitive statement flows from a forensic analysis that starts with the characteristics of the wound. When the abrasion collar is oval or elliptical it surrounds an elliptical entrance perforation and shows that the trajectory of the bullet was not perpendicular to the surface of the skin. Since an elliptical abrasion collar has two axes of symmetry, it lacks a prominent portion. However, an oval abrasion collar with one symmetry axis has an asymmetry and a more prominent portion. So an oval abrasion collar always has it's more prominent portion nearer the side of the wound with the most acute angle and undermining on the opposite side. In reality the Forensic Pathology Panel evaded the particulars of Kennedy's back wound by discussing general contingencies of wounding and in their next paragraph they had the audacity to misrepresent the elliptical wound in Governor Connally's back as virtually rectangular.
Source: House Select Committee on Assassinations, Vol VII p. 166
"(425) If a missile strikes an intervening target, its normal yaw may be exaggerated, or it may begin to tumble. The entry wound in subsequent target might reflect this distortion in trajectory by anything from a very slight asymmetry to an ovoid or virtually rectangular entry wound. The latter would be the case if the missile were to strike sideways and is somewhat similar to what was described in some of the initial medical reports on the wound in the posterior thorax of Governor Connally. (See fig. 47, a drawing showing yawing or tumbling.) Such a subsequent entry wound might show no wipe residue in the skin because of the missile's prior passage through skin and tissue. Some small fragments of the metal from the missile's surface might break off as the missile strikes, however, and adhere to the margins of the defects in either the clothing or skin."
In perhaps the most outrageous obstruction of understanding published by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the Forensic Pathology Panel presented a graphic entitled, "Figure 46. - Drawing of a typical entry wound, displaying an asymmetrical abrasion collar from a distant rifle shot with a trajectory at an acute angle to the skin surface."
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginTheir graphic combined a wildly tumbling bullet entering a target at normal incidence with an oval abrasion surrounding an elliptical hole. The panel complemented their contradictions of the foundations of forensic analysis in their following graphic labeled, "Figure 47. - Drawing of an entry wound caused by a tumbling or yawing missile."
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or
LoginThis graphic showed a bullet with negligible yaw entering a target with a considerable incidence angle and an oval abrasion surrounding a rectangular hole with rounded corners.
The Forensic Pathology Panel did not initiate this obstruction of understanding. Instead they continued and expanded the obstruction practiced by the Warren Commission. Both groups sought to attribute elongation of a wound to entry by a bullet with a considerable yaw angle. Their common purpose was to dispute the relationship between a tangential entry by a bullet and the elongation of an elliptical hole as expressed by James J. Humes in his testimony before the Warren Commission.
Source: Warren Commission, Vol II, page 357
"Mr. McCLOY - Was the bullet moving in a direct line or had it begun to tumble?
Commander HUMES - To tumble? That is a difficult question to answer. I have the opinion, however, that it was more likely moving in a direct line. You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck. We believe that rather than due to a tumbling effect, this is explainable on the fact that this missile struck the skin and skull at a more tangential angle than did the other missile, and, therefore, produced a more elongated defect, sir."
