Fourth Edition of "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

[Stewart Fillmore]

Why would you expect you reenactment of the shooting to produce exactly the same result as the actual shootiing?

I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting.  I never claimed it did.  But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.  Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests. 

I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally.  I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with.  The work is actually fun to me.  I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions.  I’m currently working on the head shot.  Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony. But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg.

I recall reading that there was one small fragment in Connally's chest, but I can't remember the source off the top of my head.

The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants.  Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record.  For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range.  Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape.  And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires.  The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.

Very interesting. I agree that your research raises further doubts about the claim that the alleged bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) shattered the wrist bone.

Are you familiar with the 1967 CBS wound-ballistics test that tried to validate the SBT? They fired FMJ bullets through a block of ballistics gelatin to see if they would then shatter cadaver wrists and then penetrate into a simulated thigh. They did not include a rib bone in the test. Yet, not one of the bullets had enough velocity to penetrate the simulated thigh. In fact, some of the bullets even failed to leave the wrist. And this, even though the bullets were not required to smash 4 inches of rib bone before hitting the wrist.

Yes, forensic literature indicates that the only time an FMJ bullet may shear off its jacket is if it is fired from a very short distance from a high-velocity rifle and does not have time to stabilize its flight.

I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).

In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.

The FMJ bullet deposited fragments from its lead core and from its copper jacket. On a side note, the solid copper bullet only left one fragment in the gelatin block.

Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments.  Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud. In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.

The scientists who conducted the test were surprised that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact: "This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact." The scientists attributed this to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

Researchers who are familiar with the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head will see a number of important parallels between the JFK head ammo and the high-velocity frangible ammo in the 2023 test.

[John Corbett]

I recall reading that there was one small fragment in Connally's chest, but I can't remember the source off the top of my head.

Very interesting. I agree that your research raises further doubts about the claim that the alleged bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) shattered the wrist bone.

Are you familiar with the 1967 CBS wound-ballistics test that tried to validate the SBT? They fired FMJ bullets through a block of ballistics gelatin to see if they would then shatter cadaver wrists and then penetrate into a simulated thigh. They did not include a rib bone in the test. Yet, not one of the bullets had enough velocity to penetrate the simulated thigh. In fact, some of the bullets even failed to leave the wrist. And this, even though the bullets were not required to smash 4 inches of rib bone before hitting the wrist.

No shooting can be perfectly replicated because each shooting has its own set of variables. Shooting through ballistic gel into a cadaver's wrist does not replicate what CE399 did on 11/22/1963. It's an apples to oranges comparison. [/quote]

I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).

In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.

The FMJ bullet deposited fragments from its lead core and from its copper jacket. On a side note, the solid copper bullet only left one fragment in the gelatin block.[/quote]

What does that have to do with the JFKA. Shooting replications can only show what might happen. They can't prove what always happen.

Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments.  Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud. In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.

Still more apples to oranges comparisons.

The scientists who conducted the test were surprised that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact: "This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact." The scientists attributed this to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

The distance is irrelevant. What matters is the velocity a bullet strikes the object at. For those interested, I found this article which explains the forces at work but the calculations make my head spin.

https://modern-physics.org/bullet/

I won't even attempt to calculate the velocity Oswald's bullets struck JFK in the back and the head even though the average muzzle velocity (2265 fps) and approximate distances are know. Suffice it to say that the bullet would have slowed from its muzzle velocity when the two shots struck JFK.

Researchers who are familiar with the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head will see a number of important parallels between the JFK head ammo and the high-velocity frangible ammo in the 2023 test.

The only example I know of that tells us how a Carcano bullet would behave is the JFKA. Do you know of any other case studies that show what happens when a 6.5 x 52mm Carcano bullet strikes various parts of a human body or are you just guessing?

[Michael T. Griffith]

I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting.  I never claimed it did.  But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.

Exactly. As you note, it is an impossible standard (many would say a very unreasonable standard) to expect that wound-ballistics tests will always duplicate every single aspect and every single result of an alleged shooting incident.

Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests.

Yes, indeed. And, conversely, if repeated wound-ballistics testing fails every single time to replicate most or all of the results of an alleged shooting incident, this is a solid basis for doubting it, if not for rejecting it.

Two SBT wound-ballistics tests (one of Lattimer's tests and an Australian test) actually duplicated all the wounds posited by the SBT, but in both cases the bullets emerged visibly more damaged than CE 399.

And, of course, both of those tests assumed that JFK and Connally were aligned in a way to make the wounding possible in the first place, when in fact the most advanced, sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the 2023 Knott Lab analysis, found that the two men were not aligned in a way that would make the SBT theoretically possible. In addition, the few pro-SBT trajectory analyses have had to make demonstrably invalid assumptions about the size of Connally's back wound (doubling its size), the size and nature of the wound path through Connally's chest (ignoring the fact that it was rather narrow), and JFK and Connally's positions and rotations (putting the men in positions and/or rotations that are wholly unsupported by the photographic evidence). 

I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally.  I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with.  The work is actually fun to me.  I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions.  I’m currently working on the head shot.  Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.

This is very interesting to hear. You are joining a long list of experts who initially believed in the lone-gunman theory but who changed their minds after doing more research into the case. These experts include Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist, radiologist, and physicist), Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist), Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroanatomist), Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound-ballistics expert), and Howard Donahue (firearms and ballistics expert).

I, too, grew up believing in the WC's version of the shooting, since that's what I was taught in school. Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused me to start reading about the case, partly because I thought "this just can't be true."

The first big doubt that I formed involved Oswald's alleged shooting feat. I did 21 years in the Army and qualified at all three marksmanship levels (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). When I became aware of the details of the alleged shooting performance, I recognized right away that it would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, highly skilled rifleman, and far beyond the ability of someone whose best day at the Marine Corps rifle range was to barely qualify in the sharpshooter category using a semi-automatic rifle against targets he'd practiced against for hours and with vastly more time to fire than the alleged lone gunman would have had.   

[John Corbett]

I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting.  I never claimed it did.  But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.  Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests. 

I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally.  I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with.  The work is actually fun to me.  I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions.  I’m currently working on the head shot.  Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT.  Does that mean it didn’t happen?  No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.

Elements of a shooting can be replicated individually to demonstrate what is possible. For example the Haag forensic team demonstrated by firing a Carcano round through ballistic gel that such a round tends to yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove the bullet that left JFK's throat yawed upon exiting but combined with the fact that the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated, it seems highly likely that is what happened. Likewise, an Australian documentary team used animal carcasses to simulate JFK's and JBC's bodies. It took them a number of tries before they got the bullet to pass through the simulated soft tissue and bone that the single bullet would have but when they did, the bullet ended up looking very similar to CE399. The nose was intact and there was flattening at the base. The bullet was bent more than CE399 but it is unreasonable to expect such an experiment could perfectly replicate CE399.

[John Corbett]

I, too, grew up believing in the WC's version of the shooting, since that's what I was taught in school. Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused me to start reading about the case, partly because I thought "this just can't be true."

So you learned much of what you think you know about the JFKA from watching Oliver Stone's fictional account of the JFKA. That explains a lot. It's no wonder you were led astray. That was about time you and I both started posting on the old Prodigy forum. 35 years later you are still parroting some of the same myths Ollie created in his crappy movie:

The Warren Commission said Oswald fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or less.
The WC did allow for that possibility but it was not a conclusion of theirs and they gave no indication they favored that scenario over other scenarios. The timeframe for the three shots is dependent on which shot missed. They concluded, correctly, that the two shots that hit JFK struck between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart. Only if the second shot was the missed shot did all three shots have to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less.

The Warren Commission said Oswald hit JFK by firing 88 yards through heavy foliage.
The headshot was 88 yards but it was not fired through heavy foliage. By the time the headshot struck JFK, he had been in the clear for 5.6 seconds. Oswald had a clear line of sight for both the shots that hit JFK

In addition, when Garrison's assistant told Garrison (Costner), "I'm Oswald. Time me." and dry fired the rifle 3 times, Garrison said it took between 6 and 7 seconds. In reality, if you time that sequence yourself, it takes less than 5.6 seconds. When I made that point on Fred Litwin's podcast, he overlaid an electronic timer to that sequence and showed it took only 5.2 seconds.

These are just a few of around 100 outright lies Ollie presented in his movie. If I were a CT, which I was for a short time back in the 1980s, I would be embarrassed to admit that Ollie's movie was the basis for my skepticism of the WCR. At the very least you should find a little more honest presentation of the JFKA to point to as the basis for your beliefs but maybe you couldn't find any.

The first big doubt that I formed involved Oswald's alleged shooting feat. I did 21 years in the Army and qualified at all three marksmanship levels (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). When I became aware of the details of the alleged shooting performance, I recognized right away that it would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, highly skilled rifleman, and far beyond the ability of someone whose best day at the Marine Corps rifle range was to barely qualify in the sharpshooter category using a semi-automatic rifle against targets he'd practiced against for hours and with vastly more time to fire than the alleged lone gunman would have had.

The longest of Oswald's 3 shots was 88 yards. To qualify in the USMC at any of the three levels, he had to consistently hit a target at ranges of 200 yards or more without the aid of a scope. Oswald completely missed with one of his three shots and the two they struck were about 10-12 inches apart. How well do you think he would have scored in the USMC if he replicated that performance throughout his qualifying session. Tell us what about the shooting was so difficult that it made you doubt Oswald could have done the shooting.