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

[Michael T. Griffith]

I'm just bumping this thread to serve as a reminder that WC apologists cannot explain the bullet fragments on the back of JFK's skull. They could not possibly have come from an FMJ missile. There is not even an entrance wound within 2 inches of them, and bullet fragments do not magically move that far after they are deposited. The three ARRB forensic experts could not find any rear head entry wound on the skull x-rays. The fragments are clearly ricochet fragments from the bullet that struck the pavement near the limo early in the shooting sequence, but this obvious and forensically credible explanation is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

Before I respond to your jaw-dropping arguments, I will note that your reply suggests that you are either something of a newcomer to the case or that you have read few of the primary sources and few sources that do not support the lone-gunman position.

LOL! Uh, so just never mind that Riley included the lambda, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture in his diagram and that he put the cowlick site right around 1 inch above the lambda and 0.75 inches to the right of the sagittal suture?! Just never mind that? Is this whacky reasoning how you rationalize your absurd claim that Riley put the cowlick site "twice as far forward as the HSCA did"? He did no such thing, and the fact that you won't admit this shows you're not to be taken seriously.

Of course the lambda and the sagittal suture are not visible in the top-of-head photos! Sheesh! Duh! But Riley included those features in his diagram to pinpoint the location of the cowlick site, and he put it exactly where the HSCA did, as anyone with two eyes can see. Plus, when the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp, they would have seen those landmarks.

When Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist, examined the autopsy photos for the ARRB, he reached a different conclusion:

-----------------------------------------------------
On the photographs showing the back of the head (#s 15 16 42 and 43) it was observed that the red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph. (Meeting Report: Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant--Forensic Anthropologist, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 1)
-----------------------------------------------------

And if you're still going to cling to the debunked cowlick site (the red spot), then you need to explain

-- how this site can explain the two bullet fragments that are 1 cm below it (one in the outer table and the other between the outer table and the galea).

-- how this site could be associated with the high fragment trail given that this trail starts/ends nowhere near the site, is nearly 2 inches above it, and ranges downward from its left/rearward end.

Oh my goodness. I'll start by repeating the fact, which you ignored, that the autopsy photographer who took this photo, John Stringer, said that the red spot was not the entry wound and that the photo was not taken to show the entry wound.

Also, I take it you haven't read Humes and Boswell's HSCA testimony, have you? Humes flatly rejected the suggestion that the ruler was placed to be centered on the red spot and that the red spot was therefore the entry wound. After noting that the entry wound was lower on the skull, he explained that the ruler was placed there simply to establish scale and not to identify the red spot as the entry wound:

-----------------------------------------------------
Dr PETTY Then this is the entrance wound The one down by the margin of the hair in the back.
Dr HUMES Yes, sir.
Dr PETTY Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more.
Dr HUMES Exactly.
Dr PETTY It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something.
Dr HUMES No way no way. (1 HSCA 246)
-----------------------------------------------------

A few minutes later, in further commentary on the main back-of-head photo, Humes noted that they reflected scalp at the cowlick site and that there was no wound there:

-----------------------------------------------------
I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point I don't know what that is It could be to me clotted blood I don't I just don't know what it is but it certainly was not any wound of entrance. (1 HSCA 254)
-----------------------------------------------------

And I take it that you're unaware that when the HSCA FPP showed Finck the main back-of-head photo, he questioned the photo's origin--indeed, he asked how the photo had been determined to have been taken at the autopsy. Gee, now why did he do that?

You are kidding yourself. You have autopsy photos that contradict each other and that drastically contradict the skull x-rays. When the autopsy forensic pathologist was shown the main back-of-head photo, he disputed its origin and insisted that it did not show the entry wound that he personally examined and that he had had photographed from both sides.

"35 years before"? The autopsy report was written hours after the autopsy. Finck wrote his report to Blumberg barely a year after the autopsy. The autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy photos and x-rays in late 1966 and reported that they confirmed the autopsy report. The autopsy doctors testified before the HSCA in 1978, 15 years after the autopsy.

Every single autopsy witness who has commented on the location of the rear head entry wound has said it was near the EOP and the hairline.

I might add that 35 years ago is not such a long period that no one can remember events that occurred at the time. 35 years ago, I was stationed at Hellenikon Air Force Base in Athens, Greece. I can still clearly remember all kinds of events and other things from my time there. I can still name many of the people I worked with. I can still remember the name of the street that I lived on. I can provide detailed accounts of many events that I experienced while I was there--what happened, who was there, when they happened, where they happened, etc., etc.

Uh, no, it's not the Rockefeller Commission's report. Can you read? It's the report that Dr. Hodges submitted to the Rockefeller Commission (RC). The RC buried his report. It did not surface until years later.

And, no, Hodges did not agree with Spitz on this issue. Where do you get that? Did you suffer a flash of amnesia and forget about Hodges' report when you wrote this?

FYI, the RC medical panel itself did not comment on the location of the rear head entry wound. The RC medical panel was asked only to determine "whether the movements of the President's head and body following the fatal shot are consistent with the President being struck from (a) the rear, (b) the right front, or (c) both the rear and the right front" (RC report, p. 261). Thus, the panel did not reach or issue a formal conclusion regarding the wound's location.

I might add that Dr. Hodges was the only radiologist on the RC's medical panel.

Yeah, I should have known better than to think that for once you were actually dealing credibly with the evidence. My bad.

So, tell me, where do you get this silly claim that the scalp was not reflected? Where does Jerry Organ get it? Reflection of the scalp in an autopsy involving a headshot is basic, standard procedure. The HSCA FPP did not deny that the autopsy doctors reflected the scalp. The autopsy report says the scalp was reflected. The autopsy doctors referred to their reflecting of the scalp in their WC testimony, HSCA testimony, and ARRB testimony. The chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, said the scalp was reflected. And, autopsy photo F8 is labeled "Missile Wound of Entrance in Posterior Skull, Following Reflection of Scalp."

So where in the world do you get this nonsense that the autopsy pathologists did not reflect the scalp? You don't want to admit that they reflected the scalp because you know this makes it impossible to believe that they "mislocated" the rear head entry wound by 4 inches, that they mistook a wound above the lambda for a wound slightly above the EOP.

LOL! What a load of hogwash. So according to you, the terms "occipital region" and "occipital bone" may refer to an area outside the occiput! Go to any medical dictionary and you'll discover that those terms always and only refer to bone in the occiput and to scalp above the occiput. Finck would have never used those terms to describe damage that was not in the occiput. If the wound had been in the parietal bone, he, of all people, would have specified this--he was known for being a stickler for exactitude and precision.

Finck not only told Blumberg that he "found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone" but that he based his conclusion about the direction of the bullet on the "pattern of the occipital bone perforation."

When Finck was asked about the cowlick site during the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, he adamantly rejected it:

-----------------------------------------------------
I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it. (Clay Shaw trial transcript, 2/26/69, p. 23, HSCA record number 180-10097-10185)
-----------------------------------------------------

When Finck appeared before the HSCA FPP, he specified that by "slightly above" he meant that the wound was right around 1 cm or 0.39 inches above the EOP.

Really? You're really "not sure" what I'm "actually talking about here"? I find that hard to believe, unless you are truly that poorly read on the case.

Anyway, let me spell it out for you: You and many other WC apologists claim that Humes, Boswell, and Finck made the mind-boggling blunder of mislocating the rear head entry wound by a whopping 4 inches, even though they had the EOP and the hairline as reference points. Given that the back of the head is only about 7 inches in height, and given that the pathologists reflected the scalp and would have had the lambda and lambdoid suture as additional reference points, this would have been an astonishing, incomprehensible error, an error that even a first-year medical student would not make.

I should add that not all WC apologists make this absurd argument. Some WC apologists, such as Dr. Larry SPersonivan, reject the cowlick site.

Virtually all WC apologists (at least all the ones I've read, and I've read dozens) argue that Humes, Boswell, and Finck committed the equally astounding gaffe of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail (1) that was at least 2 inches lower, (2) that ranged upward instead of downward, and (3) that began near the EOP instead of above the cowlick site. You guys have to make this argument because the existing autopsy x-rays do not show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.

Conspiracy theorists have criticized the autopsy doctors on several points, but no conspiracy theorist in the last 25 years has accused them of committing those two surreal blunders.

Right. You're "not sure" what I'm talking again. Okay. Go back and read our previous exchanges.
 
So you've ditched your farcical paper-tear explanation and are now repeating Jerry Organ's jostled-brain theory. Again, why do you suppose that neither the Clark Panel nor the HSCA FPP floated this theory to explain the subcortical damage? And, again, why do you suppose they did not even try to explain the subcortical damage?

Moreover, Fackler never claimed that any of those bullets created two separate, unconnected wound paths, and you know it. You are merely drawing an unfounded inference from his finding about cavitation forces. We both know that you cannot cite a single known case where cavitation forces created two separate, unconnected wound paths in a brain, much less a case where this occurred without causing substantial damage to other parts of the brain.

Furthermore, you seem to keep forgetting those troublesome, impossible autopsy brain photos, which show a virtually intact brain except for the right-side front-to-back laceration and with only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing. They also show an intact cerebellum that doesn't even exhibit any premortem bleeding, and they show no damage whatsoever to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, as the HSCA FPP noted. In addition, they show no damage to the entire left side of the brain, not even any cortical damage--not even to the top-left gyri and lobulus.

Conjure up a theory where cavitation forces could have created two separate and distinct wound paths, one much lower than the other, on the right side of the brain, while causing no damage to the cerebellum, no damage to the rear area of the right occipital lobe, and no damage to the entire left side of the brain. It's just nonsense.

We're not talking about expertise in gunshot wounds but expertise in neuroanatomy and in reading skull x-rays. This is why forensic pathologists will have a radiologist on hand during an autopsy, and why forensic pathologists will often consult with neurologists to describe brain damage.

Why do you suppose that no expert on your side has responded to Dr. Riley's research? Oh, that's right: You guys don't have an expert who has anything close to Dr. Riley's credentials in neuroscience. Nor do you have anyone who has Dr. Mantik's dual qualifications of being a physicist and a radiation oncologist. Doug Horne tried to get Dr. John Fitzpatrick to respond to Dr. Mantik's optical density analysis, and he declined to do so.

Uh-hu. Yeah. Right. Menninger just "misunderstood" Donahue and/or Donahue lied about what Fisher told him. Of course. FYI, I knew Howard Donahue. Anyone who knew him can tell you that he was a straight shooter. Donahue carefully reviewed every page of Mortal Error before he allowed it to be published.

LOL! Uh, well, the problem is that, as Dr. SPersonivan, one of your own experts, noted, the 6.5 mm object would be a circular slice if it were a bullet fragment. Except for a small notch on its bottom-right area, it is circular. Did you just not understand Dr. SPersonivan's point? You realize that he's an ardent WC apologist, right? Right? Yet, to his credit, he's had the integrity to admit that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and cannot be a bullet fragment.

Uh, actually, I did. Can you read? I noted that there's no defect seen in the autopsy materials that leads to the 6.5 mm object.

What?! Who said anything about the "inner table"? The inner table is on the opposite side of the skull cap from the outer table. You don't even know what in the world you're talking about.

Anyway, the Clark Panel, the HSCA FPP, and a host of private experts from both sides have said that the 6.5 mm object as seen on the x-rays is in the outer table. But according to you they're all wrong and the object could be "lying against the outer table."

You said that the 6.5 mm object could be a fragment that exited the skull, then caught the edge of the intact scalp at the rear of the wound, and then got trapped against the outer table when this supposed scalp flap fell back down. In short, you said it was deposited by hitting an alleged scalp flap and then getting trapped against the outer table when the scalp flap fell back onto the skull. Let me quote what you said:

Now let me repeat and then expand on why your theory is ludicrous: One, there is no wound leading to the 6.5 mm object from any direction, whether horizontal or vertical. Two, multiple sets of OD measurements have proved beyond any doubt that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic (but its image was superimposed over a smaller genuine fragment, which is visible on the lateral x-rays). Three, your own side's best wound ballistics expert, Dr. SPersonivan, has admitted that the object could not be a bullet fragment (because it has no partner image on the lateral x-rays). Four, it boggles the mind to imagine how a bullet fragment ejected from the alleged exit wound above the right ear could have magically hit an alleged scalp flap that was 1 cm below the cowlick site. Five, there is no evidence of detached scalp at the cowlick site or 1 cm below the cowlick site.

I think you're describing your answer, not mine. You ignored everything I'd said before that sentence and then acted like I was avoiding your question. To cut through your smokescreen, I'll pose two simple questions:

One, can you name a single forensic or wound ballistics expert who has said that an FMJ missile can deposit a fragment, much less two fragments, from its cross-section on or in the outer table of the skull as it enters the skull? (Here's a hint: Dr. SPersonivan has stated this is impossible.)

Two, can you name a single case in known of history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet behaved in this manner?

You're once again decades behind the information curve. Although Humes and Finck later contradicted Boswell's description, they did not initially do so but indicated they agreed with it.

And you know that Dr. Ebersole revealed to the HSCA that one of the large late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone, right? Right? You know this, right?

Oh, wow. "Bozo"? Are we in high school?

This is another howler. I guess you were trying to deflect from your Captain Obvious comment that, gee, the high fragment trail is incompatible with the EOP site. Are you just hoping that no one who reads your reply will have read or will read the autopsy report? Or has it been a long time since you read the autopsy report?

The autopsy report specifically describes a fragment trail that begins near the EOP and ends at a point just above the right orbit. Now, why would the autopsy doctors have described this trail but not the obvious high fragment trail? The high fragment trail is at least 2 inches above the highest point of the low fragment trail--moreover, the high fragment trail goes downward from its left/rearward end, whereas the low fragment trail is described as going upward from its left/rearward end.

And, BTW, the high fragment trail is not really compatible with the cowlick site either, given that it's nearly 2 inches above the site, given that it does not start/end anywhere near the site, and given that it ranges downward from its left/rearward end.

Wow. Really? Again, you don't have to be an expert in gunshot wounds to read x-rays and to identify damage and wound paths, but you do have to have expertise in reading x-rays. And if you're going to do optical density analysis, it greatly helps if you have a background in physics and radiation oncology (especially if you use optical density measurements as part of your job). Nor do you need to have expertise in gunshot wounds to analyze autopsy photos to determine brain, scalp, and skull damage, but you do have to have expertise in neuroscience to fully describe that damage.

Now theorizing about the type of bullet that caused the damage, the bullet's velocity, the bullet's behavior in the skull, etc., does require expertise in wound ballistics.

This being said, how about Dr. Roger McCarthy, a wound ballistics expert? How about Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences? How about Dr. Doug DeSalles, who has conducted wound ballistics experiments? These experts have argued that two bullets hit JFK in the head.

IOW, you're going to trash any expert who doesn't agree with you, even though your side has uncritically gobbled up claims made by medical doctors and scientists who had no formal training in gunshot wounds (e.g., Lattimer [M.D.], Artwohl [M.D], Nalli [M.S. in Science Education and PhD in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences], etc.).

Finally, just on a point of basic English, I didn't say "dozen's of scholars" but "dozens of scholars." In grade school, they teach youngsters that to make a word plural in English, you add an s, not an apostrophe and an s.

Yeah. Uh-huh. See above.

[Tim Nickerson]

I'm just bumping this thread to serve as a reminder that WC apologists cannot explain the bullet fragments on the back of JFK's skull. They could not possibly have come from an FMJ missile. There is not even an entrance wound within 2 inches of them, and bullet fragments do not magically move that far after they are deposited. The three ARRB forensic experts could not find any rear head entry wound on the skull x-rays. The fragments are clearly ricochet fragments from the bullet that struck the pavement near the limo early in the shooting sequence, but this obvious and forensically credible explanation is fatal to the lone-gunman theory.

There were no bullet fragments on the back of JFK's skull.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There were no bullet fragments on the back of JFK's skull.

I've already proved, in this thread, that there were bullet fragments on the back of the skull. Dr. Gerald McDonnell, an HSCA medical consultant, identified a bullet fragment near the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. He noted it was embedded between the galea and the outer table of the skull (the galea is a tough fibrous layer of tissue in the lower part of the scalp):

A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, p. 2, reprinted in 7 HSCA 217-220)

The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.

Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays.

Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have identified the McDonnell fragment and also two other fragments on the back of the skull on the AP and later skull x-rays, and have confirmed their existence with optical-density (OD) measurements. The two other fragments are within the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object, and those two fragments are the main subject of this thread, since their presence and metallic content have been confirmed by OD measurements.

People can go back and read my attempts to get you to explain how an FMJ bullet could have deposited a single bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less three.

The majority on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) said that it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a single fragment at/near the entry wound on a skull, and, revealingly, not one of them cited a single case where an FMJ bullet has done so. No wonder the FPP ignored the McDonnell fragment. They knew they could not explain it.

[Tom Graves]

I've already proved, in this thread, that there were bullet fragments on the back of the skull. Dr. Gerald McDonnell, an HSCA medical consultant, identified a bullet fragment near the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. He noted it was embedded between the galea and the outer table of the skull (the galea is a tough fibrous layer of tissue in the lower part of the scalp):

The McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.

Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, identified a bullet fragment on the back of the skull on the lateral skull x-rays.

Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have identified the McDonnell fragment and also two other fragments on the back of the skull on the AP and later skull x-rays, and have confirmed their existence with optical-density (OD) measurements. The two other fragments are within the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object, and those two fragments are the main subject of this thread, since their presence and metallic content have been confirmed by OD measurements.

People can go back and read my attempts to get you to explain how an FMJ bullet could have deposited a single bullet fragment on the outer table of the skull, much less three.

The majority on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) said that it was "rare" for FMJ bullets to deposit a single fragment at/near the entry wound on a skull, and, revealingly, not one of them cited a single case where an FMJ bullet has done so. No wonder the FPP ignored the McDonnell fragment. They knew they could not explain it.

Dear Mike,

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Just to be clear, as I've explained before: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm (0.40 inches, or 4/10ths of an inch) below the debunked cowlick entry site. OD measurements confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet (pp. 184-186).

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . . A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table.

The discovery of the McDonnell fragment was significant. The HSCA FPP simply ignored this crucial discovery. Since the fragment is to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, it is also 1 cm below the cowlick site. Three questions come to mind:

One, how would a bullet striking the skull at a downward angle have sheared off two fragments below the entry site? As firearms expert Howard Donahue noted, basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing would have occurred at the top of the entry site, since the bullet was striking at a downward angle.

Two, how would either of these supposedly sheared-off fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry site if the bullet struck the skull at a downward angle?

Three, how would one fragment end up on the outer table of the skull and the other fragment end up between the outer table and the galea? The area between the galea and the outer table is the pericranium. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table (they are a separated by the loose areolar layer, a weak and flexible layer). One of the fragments plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded in the outer table, while the other plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. How in the world could this have happened if both fragments were sheared off?

Obviously, the two fragments were not sheared off but hit the skull at different velocities and at a perpendicular angle, causing one to penetrate more deeply than the other, which is exactly what you'd expect from ricochet fragments.

It is obvious why the HSCA FPP majority did not want to deal with the McDonnell fragment. Only Dr. Wecht raised the issue that FMJ bullets do not shear off fragments at the entry point. This is undoubtedly why the FPP majority felt obliged to make the awkward claim/admission that it is "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this manner. Revealingly, they failed to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done this. None of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics tests did this, and no FMJ bullet in any subsequent test has done this. It is simply unheard of. As Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has said,

A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull. (pp. 184-185)

Surely the FPP majority knew this as well. They knew that claiming that two fragments sheared off the alleged FMJ bullet and then somehow ended up in different layers would be untenable and non-credible, so they ignored the McDonnell fragment.

[Tom Graves]

Just to be clear, as I've explained before: There is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm (0.40 inches, or 4/10ths of an inch) below the debunked cowlick entry site. OD measurements confirm that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Dr. Larry S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet (pp. 184-186).

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

The discovery of the McDonnell fragment was significant. The HSCA FPP simply ignored this crucial discovery. Since the fragment is to the left of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment, it is also 1 cm below the cowlick site. Three questions come to mind:

One, how would a bullet striking the skull at a downward angle have sheared off two fragments below the entry site? As firearms expert Howard Donahue noted, basic physics and common sense tell us that any shearing would have occurred at the top of the entry site, since the bullet was striking at a downward angle.

Two, how would either of these supposedly sheared-off fragments have ended up 1 cm below the entry site if the bullet struck the skull at a downward angle?

Three, how would one fragment end up on the outer table of the skull and the other fragment end up between the outer table and the galea? The area between the galea and the outer table is the pericranium. The galea and pericranium are both dense, tough fibrous membranes that cover the outer table (they are a separated by the loose areolar layer, a weak and flexible layer). One of the fragments plowed through both the galea and the pericranium and embedded in the outer table, while the other plowed through the galea but stopped in the pericranium. How in the world could this have happened if both fragments were sheared off?

Obviously, the two fragments were not sheared off but hit the skull at different velocities and at a perpendicular angle, causing one to penetrate more deeply than the other, which is exactly what you'd expect from ricochet fragments.

It is obvious why the HSCA FPP majority did not want to deal with the McDonnell fragment. Only Dr. Wecht raised the issue that FMJ bullets do not shear off fragments at the entry point. This is undoubtedly why the FPP majority felt obliged to make the awkward claim/admission that it is "rare" for FMJ bullets to behave in this manner. Revealingly, they failed to cite a single case where an FMJ bullet had done this. None of the FMJ bullets in the WC's wound ballistics tests did this, and no FMJ bullet in any subsequent test has done this. It is simply unheard of. As Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n has said,

Surely the FPP majority knew this as well. They knew that claiming that two fragments sheared off the alleged FMJ bullet and then somehow ended up in different layers would be untenable and non-credible, so they ignored the McDonnell fragment.

Dear Michael,

How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

-- Tom

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dear Michael, How many bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up? Just a few, or oodles and gobs? -- Tom

This is your response to the hard scientific evidence that the bullet fragments in the back of the head could not have come from the kind of ammo Oswald allegedly used?

[Tom Graves]

This is your response to the hard scientific evidence that the bullet fragments in the back of the head could not have come from the kind of ammo Oswald allegedly used?

Dear Mike,

Why are you afraid to answer the question?

It was a conspiracy, right?

Well, how many people, plus-or-minus 10 or so, do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the escaping, and the all-important cover up?

-- Tom

PS Okay, plus-or-minus 100.