JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
Mitch Todd:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 15, 2025, 01:42:51 PM ---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. This is another severe problem with the lone-gunman scenario: FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls. The FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics test did not do this. Nor did the FMJ bullets in Lattimer's test. Nor did the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test.
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 DiMaoi said. Here's what DiMaoi said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small
jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed
centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be
fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-
seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic
x-rays and one that will indicate thetype 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.
(Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).
Did you just miss this? He specifically says that when FMJ bullets do fragment inside skulls, they leave "few" fragments, and that if the x-rays show numerous fragments ("lead snowstorm") this "rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition."
So Berg was not misrepresenting DiMaio. You are. DiMaio said that on those rare occasins when FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls they will produce "few" fragments, and that if x-rays show numerous fragments in the skull, this "rules out" FMJ ammo as the culprit. JFK's skull x-rays show a "snowstorm" of some 40 small fragments in the right-frontal area, which rules out FMJ ammo.
Now, as for DiMaio's statement about fragments being left at the entry site on skulls, he is clearly focusing on lead bullets fired from pistols. Then, he says that in rare cases ("rarely") the tip of an FMJ bullet will be deposited at the entry site, which has nothing to do with the fragments deposited on the outer table of JFK's skull because the nose and tail of the alleged offending FMJ bullet were recovered, which means those fragments would have to be from the cross-section of an FMJ bullet, a physical impossibility, as even wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has acknowledged.
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).
Here's what S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n said about this in 1998 in explaining why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment:
I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is not is a cross-section
from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed,
after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces,
but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. (David Mantik, JFK Assassination
Paradoxes, KDP, 2022, p. 21)
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 in response to Dr. Michael Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence for the debunked cowlick entry site:
It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the
obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's]
proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not
fragment on the outside of the skull.
When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete
enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot
break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (pp. 184-185)
I trust you're no longer wondering about this.
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. They said it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a fragment at/near the entry site on a skull, yet they did not cite a single case where this had occurred, either in their own experience or in cases documented in forensic literature. The FPP consisted of nine experienced forensic pathologists, yet none of them said they had ever seen an FMJ bullet behave in this manner, and they did not cite a single case published in forensic literature where this had occurred.
To avoid strained nit-picking, I guess I should clarify that never in the history of forensic science has an FMJ bullet deposited a fragment from its cross-section at/near the entry site on a skull. According to the lone-gunman theory, an FMJ bullet performed this impossible feat, and later its nose and tail were recovered from the limousine.
--- End quote ---
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?
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.
DiMiao himself was retained as a medical forensics expert by the ARRB. What did he say then about the case?
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.
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.
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.
MG: I trust you're no longer wondering about this.
The only thing I'm wondering is, where you keep your head at.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 19, 2025, 11:38:20 AM ---As we both know, I have already answered every single one of these arguments earlier in this thread and proved they are invalid. You have ignored my responses and have simply repeated your debunked claims.
Again, as anyone with two functioning eyes can plainly see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both clearly visible and easily distinguishable from each other on the AP x-ray. It is astounding that you keep denying this readily observable fact.
The two objects are shaped very differently, as anyone can also see. The 6.5 mm object is circular with a small notch in its lower-left edge--that's why it is identified with a single measurement. The 7 x 2 mm fragment looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object, which is why its dimensions are described with two measurements, one for its length and the other for its width. Are you seriously claiming that you cannot see this?
BTW, if you're going to quote Dr. Riley, you should advise readers that Riley also insisted that the skull x-rays prove that two bullets hit JFK's head and that the alleged cowlick entry site is bogus. I just thought I'd mention these facts, since you did not.
Yet again, you repeat arguments that I've already answered. As anyone can see in our previous exchanges, I've pointed out to you that the 6.5 mm object is a ghosted image and that inside that image is a smaller genuine bullet fragment measuring 6.3 x 2.5 mm and that near this fragment there are several tiny particles. This fragment is visible on the lateral x-ray and has been confirmed by OD measurements by Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser.
I've also pointed out that the McDonnel fragment is near the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, and this fragment has also been confirmed via OD measurements. This is hard science that you just sweep aside because it destroys your shooting scenario.
Do you remember the following exchange about Humes and the 6.5 mm object?:
Remember? Ring a bell? Does this refresh your memory?
Are you posting from a parallel universe in the 1980s? These arguments were excusable in the 1980s, but they are hollow and disingenuous in our day. Here, too, readers can see that I've already answered these arguments earlier in this thread, but you have once again chosen to ignore my replies and have simply repeated your claims.
But, tell me, was Dr. Arthus Haas, chief of medical physics at Kodak, guilty of "fringe looniness" when he peer-reviewed Dr. David Mantik's first article on evidence of alteration in the skull x-rays and found no issues with it? How about Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist, who has examined the autopsy materials and has confirmed Dr. Mantik's findings with his own OD measurements--another peddler of "fringe looniness"? How about Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Robert Livingston, etc., etc.--all of whom have found evidence that the skull x-rays have been altered? More peddlers of "fringe looniness"?
If the autopsy skull x-rays are unaltered, where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report and confirmed by the autopsy doctors in their five-hour 1966 examination of the autopsy materials? Huh? Where is it? Why is the high fragment trail seen on the current skull x-rays not mentioned in the autopsy report? Did all three autopsy doctors "miss" it? Or, did they somehow "mistake" it for a trail that started at a point 4 inches lower on the skull, at the EOP, and that coursed at a totally different angle?
I see in your reply regarding FMJ bullets leaving fragments in skulls that you have simply ignored DiMaio's observation that FMJ bullets will NEVER shatter into dozens of fragments when penetrating a skull. DiMaio specifically said that if an x-ray--any x-ray of any part of the body, skull or otherwise--shows a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo.
You quoted DiMaio's statement on p. 337 of Gunshot Wounds but ignored my observation that DiMaio said that only on rare occasions will an FMJ bullet deposit a fragment at the entry site on a skull and that if it does so it will deposit the tip of the FMJ round, not lead from the cross-section. Why did you ignore this?
And let's read again where DiMaio says that on the rare occasions when an FMJ bullet does leave fragments, they are "very sparse in number":
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)
Yet, 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. Let's read him again on this point:
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)
It seems you just can't bring yourself to face these facts. If an FMJ bullet had hit JFK's head, we would not see several small fragments in the back of the skull and would not see a snow storm of tiny fragments in the right frontal region of the skull.
--- End quote ---
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---DiMiao himself was retained as a medical forensics expert by the ARRB. What did he say then about the case?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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).
--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on July 20, 2025, 01:52:19 AM ---MG: I trust you're no longer wondering about this.
The only thing I'm wondering is, where you keep your head at.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 21, 2025, 01:56:47 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/S-ADM-G/GUNN/CORRESP/DIMAIO.B11.pdf
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 21, 2025, 10:49:28 PM ---https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/S-ADM-G/GUNN/CORRESP/DIMAIO.B11.pdf
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version