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

[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.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.
All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.
Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.
It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

What expertise of DiMaio's was he called upon to employ when asked to view the autopsy photos and X-Rays? He was a forensic pathologist, specializing in gunshot wounds. He was asked to inspect the images for the information contained within them.

[Tim Nickerson]

In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.

That is FALSE.

All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.

That is FALSE.

Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.
It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.

Wecht was wrong. So was Donahue.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

That is FALSE.

That is FALSE.

Wecht was wrong. So was Donahue.

Allso, Olivier's ten tests were at Z313 sniper range, where the 2,200 fps was much reduced.
Hickey's 3,200 fps auto burst was at say 21 ft from muzzle to jfk.
Allso, only one of Olivier's heads were blasted offa the stand. All 10 would have blasted off if Olivier had used a hollow point AR15.

[Michael T. Griffith]

In 1964 Olivier found no Carcano fragmentation inside 10 test human skulls filled with jelly.
In just one test the Carcano broke into 3 large pieces, after passing throo the skull.
All 10 tests were made 4" lower than the actual trajectory in 1963.
Some of the 10 tests exited via thick eye or nose bone.
Cyril Wecht agreed that a Carcano will not explode or disintegrate into dozens of pieces but can break into 2 or 3 pieces, and that the 1963 bullet behaved like a soft point or hollow point.

The give-away is the test skull x-rays from Olivier's test. Even a layman can see that the fragmentation caused by Olivier's FMJ bullets bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays, as I've explained previously.

In the Failure Analysis wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullets only broke into a few fragments.

And, as proved earlier, DiMaio categorically ruled out FMJ bullets in cases where x-rays show a large concentration of dozens of small fragments (he used the term "snow storm").

It was an accident, Hickey was just doing his job.

But if Hickey fired and hit the skull, the snow storm of tiny fragments would be near the entry point, not on the opposite end of the skull. The right-frontal snow storm seen on the JFK skull x-rays is a clear indication that a high-velocity frangible bullet struck JFK in the right front (just beyond the hairline).

The morticians saw a small hole in the front part of the right frontal bone and just inside the hairline. Mortician Tom Robinson noted it but assumed it was an exit hole made by a fragment. The JFK skull x-rays show an apparent wound notch right in this area, in the correct place to have caused the right-frontal snow storm, as several doctors have noted.

In a revealing and important admission, Dr. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n, the HSCA's wound ballistics consultant, in arguing against a right-frontal shot, stated that if a frangible bullet had struck in the right front, the skull x-rays would show a concentration of fragments near the entry point. S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n was unaware that the skull x-rays show just such a right-frontal concentration because he was misled by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP). The FPP published an enhanced version of the skull x-rays that washed out the right-frontal snow storm, but did not publish the unenhanced version in which the snow storm is plainly visible.

However, when this fact was brought to S-t-u-r-d-i-v-a-n's attention, he still rejected a right-frontal shot. He is a good example of an expert who lets his bias get in the way of his analysis when the facts overturn his preferred version of the shooting. He felt confident in citing the enhanced skull x-rays as proof there was no right-frontal shot. He did not imagine that the FPP would so blatantly manipulate crucial evidence. Yet, when he learned the facts of the matter, he still refused to acknowledge the evidence of a right-frontal shot, even though he had previously said that such a shot would produce a snow storm of fragments near the entry point.

I devote an entire chapter to the evidence of a right-frontal shot in my 2023 book A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy.