LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Michael T. Griffith]

MG: You're quoting from my section on whether FMJ bullets leave numerous fragments inside a skull, not whether they ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull.

I'm quoting the document that you referred me to, specifically the section titled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays." The one that sayd things like:

"Ballistics expert and court-certified firearms expert Howard Donahue pointed out it was highly unlikely the 6.5 mm object seen in the x-rays could have come from the kind of ammunition allegedly used by Lee Harvey Oswald"

"Donahue interviewed several forensic pathologists about this subject, including Dr. Thomas Smith. All of them said they had never heard of an FMJ bullet behaving in this manner and that they considered such a scenario highly unlikely"

"(via Dr Fillinger) One can appreciate the fact that going through bone, which is not as hard as steel, may etch or scratch it, but it's not going to peel off much metal."

And the question you asked of Drs Green and Berg, ". Have you ever heard of an FMJ missile depositing a sizable bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull near the entry wound (i.e., as a result of the fragment being scraped off the jacket as the bullet entered the skull)?" To which Green replied "I think that it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone."

Given all that, how on God's green earth could I have ever mistakenly thought that the section of text entitled "Shearing, FMJ Missiles, and the 6.5 mm Fragment in the JFK Autopsy X-Rays" would have anything to do with a bullet "ever deposit a fragment at/near the entry point on a skull?"

Do you not actually know what you wrote right there?

The point is that you ignored DiMaio's point that on those rare occasions when an FMJ bullet will deposit anything at the entry wound on a skull, it will be from the tip--not from the cross-section. The point is also that you ignored DiMaio's clear, unambiguous point that if an x-ray shows a cluster ("snow storm") of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo. My two previous replies quote DiMaio on these points (see also below).

MG: I will charitably assume that you made an honest mistake here and simply failed to read the surrounding paragraphs and did not realize you were misrepresenting what DiMiao said.

I misrepresented nothing. DiMaio said, "In gunshot wounds of the skull, a large fragment of lead may be deposited between the scalp and the outer table of the skull at the entrance site. (...) Rarely, the tip of the jacket of a full metal jacketed bullet is so deposited." This statement is self-contained and does not rely on any other statement in his book. It is direct, consicse...and inescapable. Your attempt to shoehorn  a "snowstorm" and these other things into the conversation is nothing more than your attempt to create a smokescreen by burning a pile of red herrings. Even then, DiMaio's Figure 11.4 shows a bullet that generated something like a 100 fragments, maybe more, even though it penereated the soft tissues of the abdomen and didn't strike bone. JFK's x-rays, on the other hand, reveal ~20-30 fragments, even though the bullet struck the hard bone of the skull on entry. The two cases really aren't comparable other than they both involve a fragmenting bullet. Figure 11.5, shows the result of a .357 Magnum round hitting some poor soul right square in the noggin. .357 Magnum is considerably less energetic than 6.5x52 Carcano (~700 ft*lbs vs 1700 ft*lbs, respectively). However, even this less-energetic pistol round generated more fragmentation than what we see in the JFK x-rays. If anything, the example figures in DiMaio's book argue for the head wounds being caused by an FMJ bullet rather than the other way around.

This is downright delusional. Let's read, yet again, what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving fragments:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,
they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point
the bullet perforated bone. (p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone.

One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of
weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting
ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4].
In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine
“dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle
ammunition or a shotgun slug. (p. 318, emphasis added)

Man alive, are we clear now? Is there any doubt about what DiMaio said on this key point? Or are you going to keep pretending not to understand DiMaio's plain English?

In the JFK skull x-rays, we see a snow storm of some 40 tiny fragments in the right frontal region, the exact opposite of what DiMaio says we'll see with FMJ bullets. It is just that simple and that devastating. The fragmentation pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays is typical of what we'd expect to see from the impact of a high-velocity frangible bullet, not an FMJ bullet. 

DiMiao himself was retained as a medical forensics expert by the ARRB. What did he say then about the case?

The three ARRB forensic consultants were Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, and Dr. Robert Kirschner. DiMaio is not listed as an ARRB contact in the ARRB materials.

MG: I thought we all already knew that the nose and tail of the alleged Oswald FMJ headshot bullet were recovered and that therefore any fragments deposited near/at the entry site would have to come from the bullet's cross-section (composed of lead).

In the immortal words of Tonto: "What you mean by 'we,' Kimo Sabe?" CE567 represents part of the forward section of the bullet, but not all off it. Most of the tip and the adjacent areas thereto are missing, enough to account for the 6.5mm opacity.

These arguments are years behind the information curve.

One, even Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n, a devout WC defender, acknowledges that the 6.5 mm object would have to be from the cross-section if it came from the FMJ bullet whose nose and tail were reportedly recovered from the limo.

Two, the 6.5 mm object is not a fragment at all but a ghosted image placed over the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment and several particles. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate how the image was ghosted. OD measurements of the 6.5 mm object prove it is impossibly dense and cannot be metallic, which is why the object does not appear on the lateral x-ray. There is a fragment on the lateral x-ray, but its density is much lower than that of the 6.5 mm object. Indeed, the 6.5 mm object's OD measurements prove that if it were metallic, it would be even thicker/denser than JFK's largest dental fillings.

MG: In his 2005 book The JFK Myths, S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n explains the 6.5 mm "fragment" seen on the autopsy x-rays cannot be from an FMJ bullet

So what? the issue at hand is where you go the notion that "No FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited a fragment, much less multiple fragments, at/near the entry point when striking a skull." Whether or not S+erdivan ever saw such a thing is immaterial if others, i.e. DiMaio or the FPP, have.

The FPP did not cite a single case to support their claim, and DiMaio said that on the rare occasions when an FMJ bullet will leave a fragment at the entry point on a skull, it will be from the tip.

Furthermore, DiMaio's statement does not describe what we're talking about with JFK's skull. There are two fragments on the back of the skull in the JFK skull x-rays--the McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. There are also tiny particles near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, which are also inside the 6.5 mm image. The McDonnel fragment and the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment are not at the entry site but are 1 cm below it, and one of them (McDonnel frag) is not only below it but also horizontal to it. This has nothing to do with what DiMaio was talking about.

What's more, the cowlick entry site has been debunked, as S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has proved. The nearest entry site to the 6.5 mm object is nearly 4 inches lower on the skull. The back-of-head fragments can only be ricochet fragments from the bullet that struck the pavement early in the shooting.

I defy you to find me a single case in forensic history where an FMJ bullet approaching at a downward angle "sheared off" two fragments and several particles 1 cm below the entry point. It is sheer fiction (pun intended).

MG: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) majority were aware of this problem in relation to the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. They had to address the issue thanks to Howard Donahue and Dr. Wecht.

I doubt the FPP had any idea who Donahue was at the time. And Wecht's contemporaneous views are recorded in his testimony to HSCA as well as his dissenting screed appended to the FPPs report. I do not recall him bringing up this particular issue in either.

You are again misinformed. Donahue spoke with four members of the FPP (Baden, Davis, Rose, and Spitz), had extensive contact with HSCA staffers, and his theory received news coverage shortly after the HSCA was formed. Donahue devoted an entire chapter to his dealings with the HSCA in his book Mortal Error (chapter 11). The FPP were completely aware of Donahue's points about the problems with assuming a downward-traveling FMJ bullet would deposit a fragment from its cross-section 1 cm below the entry point. They were also aware of his valid point that a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet would not and could not create a 6.0 mm entry wound but would create a larger entry wound (the autopsy report says the entry wound was 6 mm in diameter).

MG: I trust you're no longer wondering about this.

The only thing I'm wondering is, where you keep your head at.

You should be wondering how you can keep making the same claims in the face of so much contrary determinative evidence.

Just to recap the facts:

-- The history of forensic science knows of no case where an FMJ bullet striking a skull at a downward angle has "sheared off" two fragments and several particles and somehow left them 1 cm below the entry point--not at the entry point, but 1 cm below it, with one of the fragments being both below and lateral to it. Basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing from a bullet striking at a downward angle would occur at the top of the entry point, not below it.

-- Forensic experts tell us that an FMJ bullet will never, ever, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and leave a cluster ("snow storm") of numerous small fragments inside a skull. There is still no known case where an FMJ bullet has done this.

-- The test skull x-rays of the WC's wound ballistics test alone refute the idea that an FMJ bullet struck JFK's skull. Those x-rays show minimal fragmentation and a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like what we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

-- The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis wound ballistics tests failed to shatter into dozens of fragments, much less leave two or more fragments below and lateral to the entry point.

-- Lattimer's wound ballistics test, for what it's worth given Lattimer shady record, failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. None of his FMJ bullets deposited two fragments and several particles 1 cm below and lateral to the entry point. Also, his FMJ bullets' fragmentation pattern was the exact opposite of the pattern described in the autopsy report.

I should add that Lattimer, oblivious that he was making a fatal admission, stated that his FMJ bullets removed "almost the entire right hemisphere of the brain," which he said was what the JFK skull x-rays show (p. 30)! But Dr. Michael Baden swore up and down that the autopsy brain photos show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter! Moreover, neither the autopsy doctors nor the HSCA FPP said the x-rays show most of the right hemisphere of the brain missing.

But Lattimer was correct: The x-rays do in fact show most of the right hemisphere of the brain missing, but government-hired experts have refused to admit it because the brain photos show a virtually intact brain. The brain photos show a large cut in the brain along the length of the brain from front to back, but they show virtually no missing tissue, which is why Baden insisted to Bugliosi that only "an ounce or two" of brain tissue was missing from the brain. And, Dr. Mantik has confirmed via OD measurements that the x-rays show a large portion of the right side of the brain to be missing. Obviously, those brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain.

We know that brain matter from JFK's brain was blown onto over a dozen surfaces. Brain matter and blood hit Officer Hargis so hard that he initially thought he had been hit. There was brain matter all over the inside of the limo. There was also brain matter splattered onto the windshield of the follow-up car. Some brain matter was even splattered onto one of the agents riding in the follow-up car. Yet, the autopsy report says the brain weighed an impossible 1,500 grams, and the brain photos show no more than "an ounce or two" of missing brain matter.

[Tim Nickerson]

The three ARRB forensic consultants were Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, and Dr. Robert Kirschner. DiMaio is not listed as an ARRB contact in the ARRB materials.

https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/S-ADM-G/GUNN/CORRESP/DIMAIO.B11.pdf

[Michael T. Griffith]

https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/S-ADM-G/GUNN/CORRESP/DIMAIO.B11.pdf

Gunn's letter makes it clear that DiMaio did not comment on the cause of the wounds but only on the quality and nature of the autopsy photos, which is perhaps why he was not listed in the index of ARRB interviews. It is odd that he was not listed in the next of interviews. Even though he didn't offer forensic observations about the wounds, he was interviewed and should have been listed.

[Michael T. Griffith]

You claimed that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls. I proved that claim to be false. The 40 or so fragments from the Edgewood Arsenal test alone prove it.

You keep repeating this false claim without addressing the contrary facts that I've presented to you. Dr. Olivier himself, the guy who conducted that test, said the FMJ bullets only broke up into a few fragments. The test skull x-rays alone debunk your claim, but you just keep ignoring them. Those x-rays also strongly suggest that those "40 or so fragments" did not all come from one bullet but from several bullets. And, the fragmentation pattern from the Edgewood Arsenal test bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

Instead of acknowledging that you were wrong , you ignore the results of the Edgewood test and throw in some text that you cherry picked from DiMaio's book.

No, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you repeated your bogus claims without addressing a single contrary fact that I presented to you, and now you're making the equally bogus claim that the quotes from the DiMaio book were "cherry picked." Dr. Eric Berg, a forensic pathologist, when asked if FMJ bullets will shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, said, "No," and he cited DiMaio's book as his source (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view).

DiMaio's quoted statements are not cherry-picked at all, as anyone who reads them in his book can see. You just don't like them because they destroy your version of the shooting.

Humes acknowledged in his ARRB testimony that the "6.5 mm" object was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that he removed. It wasn't a definitive statement but it was close enough.

You must know this is false. As I have proved, when Humes was specifically asked about the 6.5 mm object, he plainly and clearly said he didn't see or remove any fragment that large. Let's read what he said yet again, since you keep repeating your false claim:

_______________________________________
Page 212

Q. Dr. Humes, you're now looking at X-ray 5-B No. 1. I'd like to ask you whether you have previously
seen that X-ray.
A. I probably have. It's antero-posterior view of the skull and the jaw. . . .
________________________________________
Page 213

Q. Did you notice that what at least appears to be a radio-opaque fragment during the autopsy?
A. Well, I told you we received one--we retrieved one or two, and--of course, you get distortion
in the X-ray as far as size goes. The ones we retrieved I didn't think were of the same size as this
would lead you to believe.
Q. Did you think they were larger or smaller?
A. Smaller. Smaller, considerably smaller. I mean, these other little things would be about the size
of what--I'm not sure what that is or whether that's a defect. I'm not enough of a radiologist to be
able to tell you. But I don't remember retrieving anything of that size.
Q. Well, that was going to be a question, whether you had identified that as a possible fragment
and then removed it.
A. Truthfully, I don't remember anything that size when I looked at these films. They all were more
of the size of these others.

So, once again, let's hear no more of the false claim that Humes told the ARRB that he saw the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. He made it clear that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy. 

Reed and Custer both stated definitively that the semi-circular object in the AP X-Ray was seen by them on Nov 22, 1963 and that it was a metal fragment located in the area of the right orbital ridge.

As I have pointed to you several times, Reed and Custer said nothing about seeing the 6.5 mm object when they were interviewed by the HSCA or by private researchers. Custer said nothing about seeing the object in his many hours of discussions about the skull x-rays with Dr. David Mantik. If Reed and Custer saw the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays during the autopsy, why isn't the object mentioned in the autopsy report? Why did Humes tell the ARRB that he neither saw nor removed a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object? Why didn't the radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, see it? Why didn't the autopsy doctors mention it in their report after they reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in 1966?

Reed also changed his story about the location of the large head wound. He told the HSCA the wound was “located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region” (HSCA interview transcript, 5/2/1978, p. 2), but he told the ARRB that it was above the right ear. Custer did a similar flip-flop, after stating clearly in two recorded interviews that the large head wound was right-occipital-parietal, he changed his tune when interviewed by the ARRB. Only two of the autopsy witnesses who told the HSCA or private researchers in recorded interviews that the large wound was in the right-rear of the skull changed their story when interviewed by the ARRB: Reed and Custer. Gee, what a coincidence.

When are you going to address the scientific evidence that the 6.5 mm object is an artifact and not a bullet fragment? Even S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n admits it must be an artifact. Dr. Mantik was even able to duplicate the method that was used to ghost the object's image onto the AP x-ray. Multiple OD measurements prove the object cannot be metallic--if it were, it would show up on the lateral x-ray.

The 7mm x 2mm fragment was not removed from the frontal skull bone. It was removed from the brain behind the right eye. The "6.5mm" object is that 7mm x 2mm fragment. That you maintain that it was removed from the frontal skull bone is indicative of how pathetic your case really is. The case of "fragments on the back of the skull" is dead in the water.

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh, or both. This is just bizarre. I've never seen such self-delusion in any online discussion.

First off, the 6.5 mm object is 1.5 inches below and slightly to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray. This alone refutes your baffling fiction that the 6.5 mm object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Two, the 7 x 2 mm fragment was behind and above the right eye, as is plainly visible on the skull x-rays, which indisputably puts it in the frontal bone. Three, most of the bone behind the right eye is frontal bone. Four, even Lattimer said the 6.5 mm object was a separate fragment from the 7 x 2 mm fragment, as did the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, and the ARRB medical panel.

How on Earth can you look at the AP x-ray and not easily and clearly see that the 6.5 mm object is well below the 7 x 2 mm fragment? I mean, what is going on with you on this issue? This is just bonkers crazy.

Has Dr Arthus Haas personally examined the X-Rays in the National Archives? Where can one read his peer-reviewed paper?  Chesser, Aguilar, and Livingston are/were all guilty of looniness. I'm not familiar with Henkelmann. Wecht certainly peddled looniness but I doubt that he believed in the stuff he was peddling.

LOL! "Looniness" Give your lunacy that the 6.5 mm object is the 7 x 2 mm fragment, you're in no position to be accusing anyone of "looniness."

Dr. Haas did not need to examine the autopsy x-rays at the National Archives to properly peer-review Dr. Mantik's research and methodology. Dr. Mantik provided all of his OD measurements for examination. Reasonably usable copies of the skull x-rays were already available in the 1990s when Haas proof-read Mantik's article, but he already had the key evidence, the OD measurements.

FYI, Dr. Chesser is an experienced, board-certified neurologist who has studied the autopsy photos and skull x-rays at the National Archives and also studied JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays in Boston. Dr. Chesser has also done OD measurements on the skull x-rays.

Dr. Aguilar is a board-certified ophthalmologist and a professor of ophthalmology at the University of California. He has examined the autopsy photos and skull x-rays at the National Archives.

Dr. Livingston was a combat surgeon in WW II. He then became a professor of physiology at Yale University and at the University of California. In 1964, he founded the neuroscience department at the National Institutes of Health. He was famous for his research in the computer mapping and imaging of the human brain.

[Tim Nickerson]

You keep repeating this false claim without addressing the contrary facts that I've presented to you. Dr. Olivier himself, the guy who conducted that test, said the FMJ bullets only broke up into a few fragments. The test skull x-rays alone debunk your claim, but you just keep ignoring them. Those x-rays also strongly suggest that those "40 or so fragments" did not all come from one bullet but from several bullets. And, the fragmentation pattern from the Edgewood Arsenal test bullets bears no resemblance to the pattern we see in the JFK skull x-rays.

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
.......
Mr. SPECTER. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask you if that is designated in any way to identify it.
Mr. DULLES. This is the test we are talking about now, is it?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857.
.....
Dr. OLIVIER. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the bullet, the fragments which are marked 857.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440a.htm

[Michael T. Griffith]

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph marked Commission Exhibit 859 and ask you what that depicts?
Dr. OLIVIER. These are the smaller fragments that have been labeled, also, Exhibit 857. This picture or some of the fragments labeled 857, these are the smaller fragments contained in the same box.
Mr. SPECTER. Are all of the fragments on 859 contained within 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are supposed to be, photographed and placed in the box. If they dropped out they are supposed to be all there.
.......
Mr. SPECTER. For that purpose I hand you Commission Exhibit 860 and ask you if that is designated in any way to identify it.
Mr. DULLES. This is the test we are talking about now, is it?
Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; where the bullet fragmented into pieces in 857.
.....
Dr. OLIVIER. This photograph is the skull that was shot with the bullet, the fragments which are marked 857.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440a.htm

LOL!!! Holy cow!!! Now compare that test-skull x-ray with the JFK skull x-rays!!! The test-skull x-ray has fragments scattered from a point just above the EOP to the right orbit. The JFK skull x-rays show no fragments anywhere near the EOP but shows fragments at least 2 inches higher in the top part of the skull, i.e., the cloud of fragments high in the right-frontal region and trailing to/from and upward to/from a sparse trail that courses toward the upper back part of the head and ending at a point at least 4 inches above the EOP! Furthermore, there is no cluster of dozens of fragments in the test-skull x-rays, but there is an obvious one in the JFK skull x-rays.

Yes, as I've said repeatedly, the fragmentation pattern seen in the test-skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

And I notice you again ignored Olivier's comment that CEs 857 and 859 were "supposed" to contain the same number of fragments. But, clearly they do not. And this is where Specter took Olivier "off the record." Gee, I wonder why, hey?

I also notice that you only showed CE 859 and ignored CE 857. Is that because CE 859 contains more fragments than CE 857, even though they're supposed to contain the same fragments? You won't address the indications that CEs 857 and 859 contain fragments from more than just one bullet.

I also notice that you only used one of the test-skull x-rays. Why was that? Why didn't you also use the other one? I think we both know why. I think you know better than the falsehoods you are peddling.






[/b]

[Tim Nickerson]

LOL!!! Holy cow!!! Now compare that test-skull x-ray with the JFK skull x-rays!!! The test-skull x-ray has fragments scattered from a point just above the EOP to the right orbit. The JFK skull x-rays show no fragments anywhere near the EOP but shows fragments at least 2 inches higher in the top part of the skull, i.e., the cloud of fragments high in the right-frontal region and trailing to/from and upward to/from a sparse trail that courses toward the upper back part of the head and ending at a point at least 4 inches above the EOP! Furthermore, there is no cluster of dozens of fragments in the test-skull x-rays, but there is an obvious one in the JFK skull x-rays.

Yes, as I've said repeatedly, the fragmentation pattern seen in the test-skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

And I notice you again ignored Olivier's comment that CEs 857 and 859 were "supposed" to contain the same number of fragments. But, clearly they do not. And this is where Specter took Olivier "off the record." Gee, I wonder why, hey?

I also notice that you only showed CE 859 and ignored CE 857. Is that because CE 859 contains more fragments than CE 857, even though they're supposed to contain the same fragments? You won't address the indications that CEs 857 and 859 contain fragments from more than just one bullet.

I also notice that you only used one of the test-skull x-rays. Why was that? Why didn't you also use the other one? I think we both know why. I think you know better than the falsehoods you are peddling.

[/b]

I acknowledged that Olivier said that CE-857 and CE-859 contained the same fragments. As I just showed you above, Olivier stated that the fragments in CE-859 were all from one bullet. That disproves your own claim that they were not.

The tests done at Edgewood Arsenal for the WC prove that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.