JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

You really show your ignorance with this one.

Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.

The reason exit wounds are usually larger than entrance wounds is because lead bullets will deform when striking a body whether they hit bone or soft tissue. A deformed bullet will not make a nice neat round exit wound. Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet. These bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue. They make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone. Lead or lead nosed bullets are more common and an experienced ER doctor like Perry would have seen more exit wounds caused by soft lead bullets than FMJ bullets. It's amazing that somebody who has been at this as long as you have needs that explained to you.

Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.

Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.

I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."

I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible".

Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet.

You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.

You don't get to dictate what options WC defenders have. We get to decide that.

You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum. You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.

The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.

The back wound was unquestionably an entrance wound. If the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there was no exit for either wound. That means there should have been two bullets in the body. There were none. These bullets apparently vanished inside JFK's body. That requires not one but two Magic Bullets.

I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:

(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.

(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.

(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.

(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.

(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.

And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding. 

[John Corbett]

Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.

This is the dictionary definition of the word "ignorance".
ig·nor·ance
[ˈɪɡnər(ə)n(t)s]

noun
ignorance (noun)
lack of knowledge or information

This is exactly what you exhibit when you argue that the only possible explanation for the neat round exit wound in JFK's throat could be it was shored up by JFK's shirt collar and tie. You seem not to know that FMJ bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue and as a result, will make small neat exit wound similar to an entrance wound. That lack of knowledge on your part is ignorance.

Your continued focus on my typos, which we all make, shows how lacking you are in substantive arguments. You think you score points with this petty practice of yours. All you accomplish with such childish observations is that you prove horse's asses outnumber horses.

 

Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.

Now you are proving that one can be a smartass and a dumbass at the same time. Of course all the other wounds caused by the single bullet did not make neat round holes because the bullet yawed upon exiting JFK's throat. I guess you were ignorant of that fact as well.

Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.

Oh, I'm the one who is behind the information curve? That's funny coming from someone making the same lame arguments you were making on the Prodigy forum back in 1991. Your objections to the WCR are the same ones you and your cohorts were making back then. Those objections have been explained and refuted countless times on many forums since. But you continue to make the same stale arguments over and over as if your fallacies haven't been pointed out to you countless times. Your arguments were lame back in 1991 and they haven't improved with age.

I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."

I guess you are ignorant of Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial that the failure of the probe to pass through the bullet channel is not proof the bullet had no exit. Not that this will do you any good because you will simply ignore it, but I post this passage just to expose your ignorance......again:

Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

What sense does it make to cite the observers of the autopsy instead of the ones performing the autopsy? Why do you choose to ignore the unanimous finding of the FPP, including that of Dr. Cyril Wecht, that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat? Do you think you are more knowledgeable of forensic medicine than they were? Do you think you have better information than they did? These are of course rhetorical question that answer themselves. Of course you don't. You are just an amatuer hack pretending you know more than people who are qualified to make these judgements.

I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible".

The clothing proves no such thing. That is just a conclusion reached by a know nothing such as yourself. The fibers in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket were pushed inward in the back and pushed outward in the front collar of the shirt. How does that happen if the throat wound was caused by a frontal shot?

You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.

I know he was firing FMJ bullets because two FMJ bullets were recovered and they were both matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Another fact you are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum.

The funny part is that you think you are.

You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.

I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth. That doesn't obligate me to defend every claim ever made by LNs. We have at least one LN on this forum who has posted a whole lot of nonsense which I have refuted countless times.

The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.

Just because you dispute the statements I have made does not make them gaffes. The fact that you dispute them indicates they are most likely correct. I would have to rethink some of my positions if you actually agreed with any of them.

I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:

(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.

Oh really. Just what is your evidence for that fantastic claim?

(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.

OMG. Your nonsense has reached a new low. You don't think a FMJ bullet could make a neat round exit wound in the throat, but you think a glass shard could make a neat round entrance wound. That is dumb and dumber.

(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.

You seem to have a vast knowledge of things that simply aren't true. Where do you get these ideas from? The voices in your head?

(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.

You just keep making shit up. It isn't helping your cause.

(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.

So once again you pretend to be an expert in forensic medicine. Every time you do, you make a fool of yourself. The autopsy team originally thought the bullet that entered the back did not exit because they were unaware that a tracheostomy had been performed over the throat wound. They took x-rays of the body and found no bullet which puzzled them until they spoke with Dr. Perry the next morning.

And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding.

The throat wound was obliterated by the tracheostomy. There is no evidence of an abrasion collar. Just another one of your many factoids. It's amazing somebody who has studied the JFKA as long as you have could know so little about it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Dr. Joseph Dolce was never called to testify to the Warren Commission (WC), even though he was one of the WC's wound ballistics consultants and was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics at the time. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, so, needless to say, he had dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. WC staff attorney Arlen Specter never arranged for Dr. Dolce to testify because Dolce had already told him that the single-bullet theory (SBT) was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this. Michael Green explains:

When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not. 

Because it was impossible to avoid consulting him on the matter of CE 399 after the autopsy report had been completed, Joseph Dolce, M.D., was part of a staff conference April 21, 1964, chaired by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg and attended by Dr. Alfred Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dr. F. L. Light of the Wound Assessment Branch at Edgewood Arsenal; Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw from Parkland Hospital; and later in the conference, Governor John Connally and his wife, J. Lee Rankin, and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy.

Dr. Dolce told the Commission personnel emphatically that it was impossible for CE 399 to have made those wounds. The Commission lawyers and staff tried to muscle him into changing his professional opinion, but he refused, so he was never called as a witness and the test findings were distorted and suppressed.

Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986,

“The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [CE 399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that". . . .

In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. . . in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet, was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. They did not accept this.” (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp.298-299) (Green, "Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)

Green continues by discussing the fraud that Specter committed in leading Olivier through his testimony, and that even then Olivier provided some damaging information:

Instead of Dr. Dolce, Arlen Specter called as his expert witness Alfred G. Olivier, D.V.M, and a supervisory research veterinarian at Edgewood Arsenal. Specter had Dr. Olivier compare CE 399 with a test bullet, CE 853, which was fired through a goat, x-rays of which showed a broken rib. I note that Specter fails to establish that CE 853 broke the rib shown in the x-ray of the goat only because he immediately engages in two other forensic frauds. The first fraud is to have Olivier compare a bullet that testimony implies broke a goat rib with a bullet that allegedly broke both a rib and a radius as though that were a relevant comparison. Even so, Olivier testified that CE 853 was much more badly damaged than CE 399, and was “quite flattened throughout [its entire length, with] lead core extruding somewhat from the rear.” The extruded core looked like a nipple at the base of the bullet. By contrast, Dr. Olivier noted that CE 399 showed only “a suggestion of flattening” and only at its base. The FBI concealed how much more badly damaged CE 853 was by photographing it only along its side, with the flattening symmetrically distributed along its axis so that no damage can be observed. Dr. Olivier testified of CE 399, “Also, the lead core has extruded from the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even broken from the rear” (5H80).

Arlen Specter’s second fraud, with Dr. Olivier’s complicity, is to pretend that the base of CE 399 has been damaged. The “extrusion” and the part “broken from the rear” is merely the divot that the FBI cut out to perform its analysis of the bullet core. No forensic expert could testify about a bullet that is the basis for comparison for all its tests and not know that the FBI cut a tiny nick from the tip and a substantial divot from the base for its tests. The divot is visible in the National Archives photo of CE 399 above, and a very clear photo of the divot will be given later in this essay. FBI agent Robert Frazier testified that visual inspection of CE 399 did not demonstrate loss of material from the base. Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, 1985, provides a pre-divot photograph of CE 399 without extrusion or loss of material, which is one of many reasons why the honest Dr. Dolce stated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests proved it could not have smashed both rib and wrist bones.

Specter and Dr. Olivier address the capacity of a single bullet to cause all the damage done to Kennedy and Connally, and they address a possible bullet flight pattern. In between we see a bullet that shattered a radius bone, and it is “very severely flattened on the end,” looking like a cigarette stubbed out hard in a glass ashtray (5H82, see also CE 856). Specter leads Olivier to testify that CE 399 was “capable” of producing all the wounds – but in that context they ignore whether breaking the bones would leave CE 399 so little blemished (5H90).

Specter never asks the obvious:

“Dr. Olivier, is CE 853 the bullet that broke the goat’s rib shown in this x-ray?”

“How many times did you have to fire bullets through goats’ ribs to obtain a bullet so little damaged as CE 853?”

“Did you ever break a goat’s rib with a bullet that was as little damaged from the impact as CE 399?”

“Dr. Olivier, let us put aside the pretense that the FBI divot was actual damage to CE 399. Even assuming it were possible that CE 399 had been so considerably less damaged after breaking Governor Connally’s rib than CE 853 was after breaking the goat’s rib, would you expect its going on to shatter a radius bone to leave it no more deformed?”

Neither Specter nor Olivier ever alluded to the other nine bullets from the Edgewood Arsenal tests that were grossly deformed from smashing only a radius bone. ("Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)

[John Corbett]

Dr. Joseph Dolce was never called to testify to the Warren Commission (WC), even though he was one of the WC's wound ballistics consultants and was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics at the time. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, so, needless to say, he had dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. WC staff attorney Arlen Specter never arranged for Dr. Dolce to testify because Dolce had already told him that the single-bullet theory (SBT) was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this. Michael Green explains:

When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.

Whenever MTG quotes a single word out of context rather than a complete quote, it's a safe bet he is misrepresenting that the person he cited actually said.

Because it was impossible to avoid consulting him on the matter of CE 399 after the autopsy report had been completed, Joseph Dolce, M.D., was part of a staff conference April 21, 1964, chaired by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg and attended by Dr. Alfred Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dr. F. L. Light of the Wound Assessment Branch at Edgewood Arsenal; Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw from Parkland Hospital; and later in the conference, Governor John Connally and his wife, J. Lee Rankin, and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy.

Dr. Dolce told the Commission personnel emphatically that it was impossible for CE 399 to have made those wounds. The Commission lawyers and staff tried to muscle him into changing his professional opinion, but he refused, so he was never called as a witness and the test findings were distorted and suppressed.

Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986,

“The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [CE 399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that". . . .

At last, an in context quote. Dolce says the bullet should have been deformed. The fact is, it was deformed. There was a flattening of the base and the bullet was also bent. The nose was not severely deformed because the nose never struck a solid object. It only hit soft tissue before it yawed.

There are a few questions a critical thinker would apply to Dolce's observations.

1.In treating wounded soldiers during WWII, had Dolce ever come across a FMJ rifle bullet that struck only soft tissue but remained in the body?

2. If so, was such a bullet deformed?

3. Did Dolce ever come across a bullet in a soldier's body that he knew had first passed through another soldier's body first?

If the answers to these questions are no, then who is Dolce to say what would happen to a FMJ military round that had passed through one soldier and gone on to wound another?

In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. . . in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet, was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. They did not accept this.” (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp.298-299) (Green, "Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)[/font]

Not pertinent because Oswald did not fire one of his rounds directly into JBC's wrist, striking it nose first. The bullet that struck JBC's wrist had first been slowed by passing through the torsos of two men and had yawed so that it was no longer traveling nose first when it struck the wrist.

In the Australian produced documentary Inside the Target Car, the team used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies of JFK and JBC. It took them several tries before they got a bullet to strike bone as Oswald's shot would have, but they did get a round to pass through soft tissue, strike rib cage, and then a bone simulating the wrist. It came out looking very much like CE399. The bullet's nost was intact and there was a bend to the bullet, similar to CE399, thus disproving Dolce's contention that it was impossible for CE399 to have caused all the wounds and emerge as it did.

'

Green continues by discussing the fraud that Specter committed in leading Olivier through his testimony, and that even then Olivier provided some damaging information:

Instead of Dr. Dolce, Arlen Specter called as his expert witness Alfred G. Olivier, D.V.M, and a supervisory research veterinarian at Edgewood Arsenal. Specter had Dr. Olivier compare CE 399 with a test bullet, CE 853, which was fired through a goat, x-rays of which showed a broken rib. I note that Specter fails to establish that CE 853 broke the rib shown in the x-ray of the goat only because he immediately engages in two other forensic frauds. The first fraud is to have Olivier compare a bullet that testimony implies broke a goat rib with a bullet that allegedly broke both a rib and a radius as though that were a relevant comparison. Even so, Olivier testified that CE 853 was much more badly damaged than CE 399, and was “quite flattened throughout [its entire length, with] lead core extruding somewhat from the rear.” The extruded core looked like a nipple at the base of the bullet. By contrast, Dr. Olivier noted that CE 399 showed only “a suggestion of flattening” and only at its base. The FBI concealed how much more badly damaged CE 853 was by photographing it only along its side, with the flattening symmetrically distributed along its axis so that no damage can be observed. Dr. Olivier testified of CE 399, “Also, the lead core has extruded from the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even broken from the rear” (5H80).

CE853 did not fully mimic what CE399 had done which was to pass through the soft tissue of two men's bodies before striking rib bone and then wrist. The aforementioned Australian team was able to achieve that and the test bullet sustained damage very similar to CE399.

Arlen Specter’s second fraud, with Dr. Olivier’s complicity, is to pretend that the base of CE 399 has been damaged. The “extrusion” and the part “broken from the rear” is merely the divot that the FBI cut out to perform its analysis of the bullet core. No forensic expert could testify about a bullet that is the basis for comparison for all its tests and not know that the FBI cut a tiny nick from the tip and a substantial divot from the base for its tests. The divot is visible in the National Archives photo of CE 399 above, and a very clear photo of the divot will be given later in this essay. FBI agent Robert Frazier testified that visual inspection of CE 399 did not demonstrate loss of material from the base. Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, 1985, provides a pre-divot photograph of CE 399 without extrusion or loss of material, which is one of many reasons why the honest Dr. Dolce stated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests proved it could not have smashed both rib and wrist bones.

It proved no such thing. It didn't mimic what CE399 had done.

Specter and Dr. Olivier address the capacity of a single bullet to cause all the damage done to Kennedy and Connally, and they address a possible bullet flight pattern. In between we see a bullet that shattered a radius bone, and it is “very severely flattened on the end,” looking like a cigarette stubbed out hard in a glass ashtray (5H82, see also CE 856). Specter leads Olivier to testify that CE 399 was “capable” of producing all the wounds – but in that context they ignore whether breaking the bones would leave CE 399 so little blemished (5H90).

Specter never asks the obvious:

“Dr. Olivier, is CE 853 the bullet that broke the goat’s rib shown in this x-ray?”

“How many times did you have to fire bullets through goats’ ribs to obtain a bullet so little damaged as CE 853?”

“Did you ever break a goat’s rib with a bullet that was as little damaged from the impact as CE 399?”

“Dr. Olivier, let us put aside the pretense that the FBI divot was actual damage to CE 399. Even assuming it were possible that CE 399 had been so considerably less damaged after breaking Governor Connally’s rib than CE 853 was after breaking the goat’s rib, would you expect its going on to shatter a radius bone to leave it no more deformed?”

Neither Specter nor Olivier ever alluded to the other nine bullets from the Edgewood Arsenal tests that were grossly deformed from smashing only a radius bone. ("Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)[/font]

Of course bullets that smashed only radius bone would be much more deformed than CE399.  That's a no-brainer. Again I reference the tests done for the documentary Inside the Target Car. No shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables, but the tests done showed it was possible for a Carcano bullet to have passed through as much flesh and bone as CE399 did and emerge in the condition it did.