Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Gary Craig]

How does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon? Olivier himself acknowledged that the only other possible explanation for a wound being 3 cm in length is if it was a tangential wound. Meaning a glancing, non-penetrating, wound.

Sturdivan knew what he was talking about. He still does.

"How does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?"


It was 1.5cm. It became 3cm after Dr Shaw trimmed the jagged edges of the wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe Governor Connally's condition, Dr. Shaw, directing your attention first to the wound on his back?

Dr. SHAW - When Governor Connally was examined,, it was found that there was a small wound of entrance, roughly elliptical in shape, and approximately a cm. and a half in its longest diameter, in the right posterior shoulder, which is medial to the fold of the axilla.

[Tim Nickerson]

First of all, the 3cm stated in his initial report was not correct.  This was corrected by Dr. Shaw who said that it was roughly elliptical and 1.5 cm in its largest diameter (4H104):

"Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade."

Such a wound can only be created by a non-yawing 6.5mm bullet (its long axis aligned with its direction of motion) striking at an angle. If the bullet hit sideways, it would look like the bullet profile and would not tunnel into the underlying tissue with a nice round hole.
Olivier never said that it was a "glancing, non-penetrating, wound".  Olivier referred to the entrance wound being caused by a "tangential" strike he was obviously aware that the bullet that made that entrance wound had penetrated Gov. Connally's chest.  He was using "tangential" in the sense of "large angle" (an angle with a "large tangent").  How can a wound at 60 degrees be "non-penetrating"?  The only way it could not penetrate would be if it was deflected.  What is going to deflect it and prevent it from just plowing through in the same direction it was travelling before it entered?
Are you saying that Dr. Olivier did not know what he was talking about?

Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?

The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.

If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet.

[Gary Craig]

Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?

The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.

If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet.

"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."

It's not accurate.

Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.

It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

"If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet."

This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.

[Tim Nickerson]

"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."

It's not accurate.

Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.

It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

"If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet."

This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.

I'm not currently arguing here that the wound was actually 3 cm long. I'm merely pointing out that Olivier was using that description of it when opining on it. Quit being so dense.

[Tim Nickerson]

Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.

So, Andrew was wrong to use Olivier in the way he did?  OK.   

[Andrew Mason]

Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?

The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.

The "glancing" "non-penetrating" adjectives are yours not Dr. Olivier's.  Besides, no one said that the bullet wound looked like it entered side-on. That would make the bullet wound look like the shape of the bullet. In order to make an elliptical entry wound 3 cm long the bullet would just have to enter at an angle of 75 degrees (cos(75)= .25) from the perpendicular to the surface (15 degrees to the surface).

If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had  to have been caused by a yawed bullet.

Since you seem to be avoiding trying to answer it, perhaps Larry Sturdivan can explain how an elliptical entrance wound could be made by anything other than a pristine bullet striking at an angle from the perpendicular but, more importantly, why he thinks it wasn't.  He still has never explained why "elliptical" means to him "ovoid", "egg-shaped" or, as you are suggesting, bullet-shaped.

[Andrew Mason]

Does that look like the shape of a bullet?

It depends on what the bullet looked like and its dimensions and its condition.  It did not necessarily hit sideways.  If the bullet was large diameter and yawing it could have made that kind of entry wound - or if the bullet was deformed.  In the case of CE399 which is 2.8 cm long and undamaged, in order to make a 3 cm wound BC's back wound due to tumbling it would have to hit side-on.

I'm sorry but I don't see where you get 3 cm from. Yes, the Cosine of 75? is 0.25. Well, closer to 0.26 really. How are you applying that to get 3 cm?

A pristine bullet striking at an angle x to the perpendicular to the surface will make an elliptical entrance wound whose length to width is in proportion to:1/cos x.  The wound was described as roughly 1.5 cm long. If the width was roughly .75cm it was roughly twice as long as the width so it could be made by a bullet striking at an angle of 60 degrees. 3 cm is 4 times the width which makes the angle cos ^-1(.25) = 75 deg.  If we had accurate measurements we could be more accurate in the angle.

Sturdivan doesn't need to explain it. The above photo speaks for itself.  Also, "elliptical" and "ovoid" are synonymous with one another.

Synonyms for ovoid
Synonyms

elliptical (or elliptic), oval, ovate

An egg shape or ovoid shape is not symmetrical. An ellipse is.  If you don't care about being accurate you can use them any way you want. If you want to say that an egg is an ellipsoid or a sphere go ahead. But it is incorrect.