Sherry Gutierrez

Project Honey Pot? Interesting name. (deleted) Hope nobody finds this historical etymology offensive. Jack Well Jack, I DO find your post offensive. This is not the Navy, a bar, or your livingroom. It is an educational forum. Young persons interested in the Kennedy assassination read the post here. Women read and post here. Your crude addition was uncalled for and you owe the forum, and especially the women here, an apology.

dhg: here's a basic question, can you prove [or convince me beyond a reasonable doubt] JFK was hit by one, two, or three 6.5mm FMJ rounds and from where, based on available DP photo's and film? We can go from there.... spg: David, to state you will discuss the issues ONLY if I prove or convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of (1) the type of projectile used in the Kennedy assassination (2) the number of projectiles that struck Kennedy (3) location of shooter(s) in the Kennedy assassination and that it all be completely "based on available DP photo's and film" is paramount to saying you won't discuss the issues. Who can meet that standard? Whay not just admit you won't discuss the issues? dgh: when there's valid points of evidentary value I'll chime in with them -- what I see is pure opinion spg: No, David, you are wrong. In my first post I offered sources to reference the documented information. Then, based upon the information, I offered an expert opinion. That is what experts to - they offer opinions. dgh: nor will there be a peer review of "blood spatter analysis" -- just unsubstantiated best case single source opinion, period! spg: David, (1) my techniques were for analysis published in workbook form where reviewed in 1990 by the International Association for Identification prior to their approval of my being listed as a qualified intructor of this subject. (2) I taught advance techniques in this subject to my peers during the years of 1990 - 1999; guess that should called "peer review" (3) and before my first article was published, I had an expert in Canada review it for content. (4) In 1995 Herbert MacDonnell reviewed by work on the Kennedy assassination and was in agreement with my findings. Now that, my friend is MAJOR "peer review". So you are wrong, my work is NOT unsubstantiated, not a single source opinion, and has been peer reviewed. dgh: Sherry, best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction. spg: I am not presenting this information during that time slot. And, this can be understood by even simple minded persons. But, only if they read the published information - why won't you do that, David? Warm regards, Sherry

The skill of a magician is in getting an audience to focus its attention where he wants it at a specific instant. And the success of magic lies in the ability to create illusions that have the appearance of reality. David, you are a magician – getting everyone to focus on the messenger instead of the message. Because if they did focus on the message, the magic of Costella would be exposed as an illusion.

dgh: if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent... SPG: Holding a Ph.D. in one area does not qualify a person to speak as an expert in another. Or perhaps the next surgery you have should be done by an attorney, and judicial courts can allow a professor of physical education to serve as judge, or perhaps you'd like a dentist to serve as the pilot on the next 747 you travel on. Dr. Herbert MacDonnell IS the the bloodspatter expert equilivant of a Ph. D. in bloodspatter analysis and he peer reviewed my analysis in the early 1990s before I spoke at COPA. Oh, I forgot - foreign term ... Peer review is the process of submitting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. Publications that are not peer reviewed are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. That's why my work was peer reviewed before publication. And his in this area was peer reviewed by... who? dgh: if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways, SPG: why can't you? This is just a small sampling of sites describing middle and high school students being taught bloodspatter analysis. Check this out: INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—Junior high and high school science classes used to mean dissecting frogs and learning the periodic table. But some teachers—inspired by the popularity of crime scene television shows—want to get younger students interested in science by using DNA and blood spatter instead. http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_06...ents_blood.html FLANAGAN - Biology teacher Jodi Delheimer will teach the biology topics, such as analyzing DNA samples, while Francis will focus on the physics of forensics, such as calculating bullet trajectory or blood spatter patterns. http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2006/07...news/116591.txt Rox-CSI is an interdisciplinary project involving high school and junior high school level students. Students participated through their math and science classes. Students in the high school trigonometry class investigated blood spatter evidence. The students modeled blood spatters using simulated blood on a variety of surfaces commonly found at crime scenes. They were able to develop a quantitative understanding of the relationship between the impact angle of a blood droplet striking a surface and the shape of the resulting stain. The students analyzed a group of blood stains in order to determine the approximate position of the victim when the blood exited the body and to determine a sequence of events for the crime. The students collected length and width data for the blood spatters and used this data to determine the impact angles. They then used their results and further trigonometric calculations to determine additional distance and height data used to solve the crime. http://revitalise.ncsa.uiuc.edu/WebModule/...php?id=18#Grade http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../511280313/1019 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497716/ http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=169&sid=323901 http://wardsci.com/article.asp?ai=107&sid=NL200503 http://nvps.net/npsnhs/Curriculum%20Maps/T...0Resources.htm# http://www.corpus-delicti.com/wsj_021902.html dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see... SPG: I am that person, I did take it apart, but you still don't see. dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....? SPG: I am not addresssing optics and film ... And Costella's qualified expertise in bloodspatter analysis is ..... ? Right, just what I thought; maybe he should have stuck to what he knows. (David, they are leaving you to defend the indefensible and thereby hanging you out to dry. Check it out for yourself.)

Hi Ron, Thanks so much for pointing this out. The correct text should read: The majority of the droplets would have a diameter of 1mm or less. The detail of such a small object would be lost to the viewer at a distance. For an example, the text of a book becomes lost at a distance and it is impossible to read at 10 feet. Imagine reading that book with the letters widely disbursed at over 30 feet. This is another reason the droplets are hard to distinguish. My warm regards to you, Sherry

Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not start with a pre-disposed idea (like the Zapruder film is altered) and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all information possible and then form conclusions based upon your findings. If we know something to be in error are we to just ignore it? For years, this community sought experts in various fields to enter the research of the Kennedy assassination. But, if their findings are in opposition to long held, and vested theories - what shall we do? Find someone else to present themselves as an opposing expert, even if the person selected is not experienced or even well read in the subject at hand? That's what I think happened with John Costella; because the scientific basis for information contained at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html the JFK Assassination Film Hoax part 7 - The Blood Mistake is incorrect. It is very misleading, and borderline unethical to insinuate scientific work when there has been none. Even a casual read through forensic topics for high school students on the internet would disprove most of the erroneous claims on this page. Moreover, there are numerous publications available that address this subject and collaborate my statements. Or, perhaps the writers could publish their credentials for making such wild claims. Since one necessary component for using scientific material as evidence is that the results of testing are consistent and reproducible; perhaps their study and results could be published so we can see how they come to conclusions hundreds of other bloodspatter experts would be at odds with. I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to determine the validity of their claims. And I encourage the writers and publishers of JFK Assassination Film Hoax: The Blood Mistake to reconsider the contents of that page. The excuse that Costella can not make corrections to his work is ridiculous, and if true – then just remove the page. Because if you allow that to go uncorrected, I’ll have to wonder what else might be incorrect that you knowingly allow to stand? In fact, can anything you publish be trusted? Here are the claims made and my rebuttal to them: JFK Assassination Film Hoax: Part 7 - The Blood Mistake Hoax Claim: “More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds: In the years 1969 to 1971, Herbert L MacDonnell did research for the government under the Department of Justice. In 1971, the U.S. Department of Justice published his work as Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood. Shortly after that publication, MacDonnell began teaching this investigative tool to law enforcement officers, prompting an interest in the characteristics of shed blood and how it related to crime scenes. Prior to this, most publications addressed only the most general of characteristics of spatter analysis. Therefore, even if the technology to fake the blood spatter in the Zapruder film existed, the knowledge of what it would look like and how fast it traveled did not. Hoax Claim: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! “ Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds: Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Data collection by experts in this field is accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers. Videotape is routinely used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. Currently videotape records approximately 30 frames per second. This speed videotape utilizes approximately 4-5 frames to capture forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacts a large volume of blood. This means a pattern is created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second; faster projectiles result in patterns being created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at approximately 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6th of a second - a time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. This timeframe for a pattern being created and dissipating is reproducible and consistent. A lead weight falling is being acted upon by gravity; blood expelled from a wound is forcefully expressed and moves much faster. Hoax Claim: The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds: When filming, Zapruder’s camera captured 18.3 frames each second, but not everything that occurred was captured, since spatter can be expelled between frames and/or travel outside the area recorded before being captured by the camera. In frame 313 there is an object believed to be bone or tissue traveling from the President’s head in an upward and forward direction. Bone fragments and pieces of tissue are commonly found in forward spatter. This object is traveling fast enough for approximately 5 feet of movement to have been recorded in one frame equaling 1/18th of a second in duration. This is a good visual demonstration of the speed of forward spatter as it is leaving the exit wound at over 160 feet per second. At that speed, forward spatter could be created and move out of the area being photographed faster than the speed of the film could record it. The size of the forward spatter must also be considered. The majority less than of the droplets would have a diameter of 1 mm. If the detail The velocity and volume of the blood leaving the impact site as backspatter has much less velocity than blood leaving exit wounds as forward spatter; and the backspatter droplets only travel about 3-4 feet from the source. When Bill Newman described the blood visible in front of the President’s face, it he said it was like a mist. Back spatter does not travel more than 3 or 4 feet and is often described as a multitude of minuscule blood droplets that resemble an atomized spray or mist. Hoax Claim: The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all: Blood Pattern Analyst, Sherry Gutierrez responds: In addition to this single frame of the Zapruder film, there are other sources available to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Consider the following statements documenting blood landing both within and outside the limo. Nellie Connally; from Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees. "I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Testimony of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service beginning at 2H61; Agent Kellerman was in the right front seat of the Presidential limo. Mr. Kellerman: Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over. Senator Cooper: What was that? Mr. Kellerman: Body matter; flesh. Mr. Specter: When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter? Mr. Kellerman: When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat. Robert A. Frazier testimony, Feb 21st and 22nd 1969, Criminal District Court Parish of Orleans State of Louisiana State Of Louisiana Vs. Clay L. Shaw 198-059 1426 Section "C" "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area." ABC Television station WFAA reporter Bill Lord In an interview with Chaney stated that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "[Chaney] was so close his uniform was splattered with blood". Officer William Joseph "B J" Martin Warren Commission Testimony Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet? Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet. Clint Hill 3/9/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (H 2 132-44) "There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car." Why I am qualified to respond: I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. When I retired, I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on the International Association for Identification subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was also a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. Last time I ask for this to be corrected, I answered alot of questions with as much detail as possible, and as graciously as I could. Finally the post failed because the Costella supporters gave up. Since their opposing views are often rebutted with " show me your expert or shut up" attitude I'm not jumping throught the same hoops this time. Just make the corrections or pull the page.

JFK Lancer Productions and Publications is proud to announce the imminent publication of Larry Hancock’s book Someone Would Have Talked. JFK Lancer is offering a unique opportunity to thirty persons; an opportunity to own an autographed advance copy of Larry's book. Advance copy readers will be required to submit a written review of the book and grant JFK Lancer permission to publish review quotes. Interested persons can purchase the advance copy of the book for $35 with free shipping; shipping for overseas orders will be added. The advance copies will not be available for shipping for 4 weeks; however, orders for advanced copies must to submitted to the printer within the next 10 days. Details for obtaining an advance copy of the book are in the JFK Lancer Newsletter. Interested parties should respond immediately as this offer is limited to the first 30 request. Warm regards to all, Sherry

Hi Ron, May I ask you to do something for me? Draw an oval (skull) and mark where you (personally) believe Kennedy's entry and exit wounds to be. Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where in the limo Kennedy was facing (disregard the downward nod for a moment). For instance was he facing the limo hood ornament, the steering wheel, the left side mirror, etc.? Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where the limo facing or headed at the time of the headshot; the grassy knoll, the underpass, the south knoll? Take a overhead photo or map of Dealey Plaza and draw in the limo. Draw a line showing where the limo was facing. Now draw a line where Kennedy was facing. Now using your wound locations draw a line from the skull out into the plaza. You have just determined where you believe the shooter was located. Repeat the above steps with the entrance wound near the center or midline of the head, exiting just behind the ear. Where is the shooter now? Sherry Hi Ron, I'm asking you again to do the little exercise I detailed above, but please allow me to provide you with a little assistance. This is a graphic of possible trajectories with trauma restricted to the right side of the head. Next is this graphic that indicates the location of the limo at 313 and the direction Kennedy was facing. Canning's study found JFK was "turned partially away from Zapruder - approximately 25 degrees past the 90 degree, or profile, direction. (6HSCA38) Dale Myers's computer recreation found the orientation of JFK's head at Zapruder frame 312 to be turned away from Zapruder by 25.7 degrees. (jfkfiles.com) So, if we place the limo in Dealey Plaza, draw a line from the place the President was seated, using those measurements...we get this: The dark pink line is the approximate direction Kennedy was facing. The shaded pink triangle represents the trajectory cone, or the possible location of the shooter. The cone I created is very conservative. Extreme shots (such as entering almost center of the head and exiting behind the ear) would widen the trajectory cone somewhat and encompass the postal building. I do not know where the shooter was located, but I do know he had to be within that trajectory cone. (I love math; it can't lie, forget, change its mind or be intimidated) Ron, I am working on a more detailed, inclusive study I hope to publish in the fall. I’m going to be addressing the head flap and the forward and backward movement of the head in addition to the spatter and trajectory analysis. I may not post much more on the subject until that work is finished, but I perhaps I’ve given you some food for thought in reaching your own conclusions. Warm regards, Sherry

Hi Jack, The vantage point of the witness has a big impact on what is visible to them. Obviously there was also blood projected in front of the President. Why should the blood seen in Zapruder be discounted as the origin of any of that blood? Nellie Connally - in front of the President - spoke of tiny bits of matter being deposited in the car. "I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Nellie Connally; Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees, http://rtb.home.texas.net/connally.htm Robert Frazier testified on 2-21 & 2-22-1969 in the Clay Shaw trial. During his testimony he discussed what was found when the limo was searched at 1am on 11-23. "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area." Testimony Of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service Beginning At 2H61 Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over. Senator COOPER. What was that? Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh.. Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter? Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat. Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice it flying past you at any time prior to your arrival at the hospital? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; I know there was something in the air. Mr. SPECTER. When, in relation to the shots, Mr. Kellerman, did you notice the substance in the air? Mr. KELLERMAN. Fine. When I have given the orders to Mr. Lawson, this is when it all came between the driver and myself. Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe what it was in a little more detail as it appeared to you at that time? Mr. KELLERMAN. This is a rather poor comparison, but let's say you take a little handful of matter--I am going to use sawdust for want of a better item--and just throw it. This spatter is also seen in the Nix film. I feel you are being selective in what information you want to utilize. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies. Sherry

Hi Jack, I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including: Roy H. Kellerman Nellie Connally Bill Lord Samuel A. Kinney Clint Hill Seymore Weitzman William Joseph "B. J." Martin Robert Frazier In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John. No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings. Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size. Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. Sherry Sherry...surely you misspoke when you identify Bill Lord as a DP witness. He was LHO's cabin mate on the ship to Europe. He was not in DP as far as I know. And since the Z film is provably not genuine, any reliance on it for any purpose is unreliable. You cannot have relied on what Bill Newman or Toni Foster said, since both contradict what frame 313 shows. Ask your sister what Toni said about the direction of the exit material. Bill Newman several times described the exit wound to me, so you cannot have relied on what he describes. Jack Jack, The Bill Lord I am referring to was a TV reporter. In an interview with TV reporter Bill Lord, Chaney explained that he was "riding on the right rear fender" of JFK's limo during the shooting, and that "the President was struck in the face" by the second shot. Lord ended the interview by telling the audience that "(Chaney) was so close his uniform was splattered with blood". ABC/WFAA (Dallas) Bill Newman stated to me "It was like a red mist or a cloud of blood in front of his face". That is exactly what is visible in the Zapruder film and that is what backspatter looks like. Toni Foster, like others behind the President, describes forward spatter, not what Newman describes. There is no contradiction in statements. Additionally, I did not rely solely on the Zapruder film; however, what is shown in the Zapruder film is certainly correct when analyzing it for blood spatter. What portion of the headshot blood spatter shown in the Zapruder film is incorrect in your estimation? The timing...color...shape...density...location? Sherry

Hi Jason, I am so sorry, somehow I let replying to that post that get by me. However, I have looked at the Nix film. I have a good copy and was able to slow it down considerably. You can see the spatter in the Nix film. How observant of you! I captured 2 frames and although the subject is small, you can see a definate lighter area adjacent to the President's head that is spatter. Way to go Jason! Sherry Hi Jack, I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including: Roy H. Kellerman Nellie Connally Bill Lord Samuel A. Kinney Clint Hill Seymore Weitzman William Joseph "B. J." Martin Robert Frazier In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John. No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings. Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size. Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. Sherry Sherry...surely you misspoke when you identify Bill Lord as a DP witness. He was LHO's cabin mate on the ship to Europe. He was not in DP as far as I know. And since the Z film is provably not genuine, any reliance on it for any purpose is unreliable. You cannot have relied on what Bill Newman or Toni Foster said, since both contradict what frame 313 shows. Ask your sister what Toni said about the direction of the exit material. Bill Newman several times described the exit wound to me, so you cannot have relied on what he describes. Jack

Hi Pat, Beveling is normally a good indicator of entry and exit if there is only "punched" hole in the skull; I'm not so sure it is a good indicator in this case. The fracturing was widespread and then impacted upon by the cavitation resulting in more than one bone fragment being dislodged. Could the side of the Harper fragment that left the head first be random, dependant upon scalp thickness holding it in place, impacted by the directional development of cavitation, or influenced by the depth or severity of created fracturing lines? Perhaps more research is needed here. I found this link that might prove interesting: http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/H...otItWrong_6.htm footnote 352: Keyhole lesions in gunshot wounds of the skull and direction of fire. J Forensic Sci 1982; 27:555-66. Coe JI. External beveling of entrance wounds by handguns. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1982; 3:215-9. Baik S, Uku JM, Sikirica M. A case of external beveling with an entrance wound to the skull made by a small caliber rifle bullet. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1991;12:334-6. Donohue ER, Kalelkar MB, Richmond JM, Teas SS. Atypical gunshot wounds of entrance; an empirical study. J Forensic Sci 1984; 29:379-88. Lantz PE. An atypical, indeterminate-range, cranial gunshot wound of entrance resembling an exit wound. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1994; 15(1):5-9. Thanks for your interest and supporting comments, Sherry

I don't see how a shot from that angle would have blown out the right rear of his head. Seems to me that a shot from there would have hit him in top of the head and blown off his right ear. Hi Ron, May I ask you to do something for me? Draw an oval (skull) and mark where you (personally) believe Kennedy's entry and exit wounds to be. Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where in the limo Kennedy was facing (disregard the downward nod for a moment). For instance was he facing the limo hood ornament, the steering wheel, the left side mirror, etc.? Look at whatever photographs you have on hand and see if you can determine where the limo facing or headed at the time of the headshot; the grassy knoll, the underpass, the south knoll? Take a overhead photo or map of Dealey Plaza and draw in the limo. Draw a line showing where the limo was facing. Now draw a line where Kennedy was facing. Now using your wound locations, draw a line from the skull out into the plaza. You have just destermined where you believe the shooter was located. Repeat the above steps with the entrance wound near the center or midline of the head, exiting just behind the ear. Where is the shooter now? Sherry

Hi Jack, I'm afraid you have faulty information concerning the basis for my work. I did consider and utilize the statements of witnesses; including: Roy H. Kellerman Nellie Connally Bill Lord Samuel A. Kinney Clint Hill Seymore Weitzman William Joseph "B. J." Martin Robert Frazier In fact, I spoke personally with Bobby Hargis several times, Agent Robert Frazier and Bill Newman. This is all documented as footnotes in the article referrenced by John. No testimony or statement by any witness describing bloodspatter is in opposition to my findings. Secondly, you are mistaken about the blood observed in the Zapruder film at the time surrounding the headshot. It is correct in timing, visual appearance, shape and size. Therefore, the Zapruder film IS respesentative of bloodspatter created as a result of a gunshot wound to the head. Sherry

Sherry: I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing. David: Then again here's that old; "consistent with", so I ask consistent with WHAT? Sherry: Consistent with blood spatter patterns created as a result of high velocity impact, that I have personally witnessed and documented through still and video photography. Consistent in overall shape, direction of travel, speed of dissipation and in visual appearance. David: Does the film show blood dissipation correctly? Sherry: Yes it does. Thanks David, for your continuing interest in this subject. Sherry

Appreciate your response, Sherry If *your* crime scene photos (evidence) were called into question, for any reason - what's the result? Anytime photographs are entered into evidence, regardless of the established chain of custody, there must still be verbal testimony to establish the photographs are representative of the crime scene. If the initial witness agrees the photos presented in court for evidence are representative of the scene THEN they are accepted as evidence. Normally, each subsequent witness that testifies about something in a photograph will be asked that very same question. Occasionally, courts use photographs taken by private individuals with no documented chain of custody and they are readily accepted into evidence by the court. The problem would occur if verbal testimony established the photographs were not representative of the scene. So, if I understand you, you have NO experience with this kind of evidence - Limo washed and moved out of state -- which means NO blood spatter analysis in the limo. New territory for you, yes? No, NOT new territory for me. Crime scenes are cleaned by perpetrators and cars moved to other locations everyday, and I have worked hundreds of cases where the scene was cleaned. But, I did not state I used blood in the limo in analysis; I simply stated the Hoax claim below to be false. Hoax Claim: But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether. It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all. Most people really don’t need photographs (although there are many) or witness statements (although there are many) to believe that if someone is shot in the head while in a car, there will be blood within the car. The webpage statement is contrary to testimony, available photographs and common sense thinking. Have you in your analysis run a color [rgb] gamma test on the frames including and immediately after Z-313? No, and what does that have to do with what we are addressing here? I stated the pattern in the Zapruder film was consistent with what I had professionally observed and that blood was documented as being in the vehicle and on other persons. I was specific about what page and statements I was addressing. My stance is that on the webpage in question there are erroneous statements presented as facts. Do you disagree with that? David, do you personally believe there was no blood in the car from a victim with a gaping head wound? Do you personally believe all the statements and or testimony of Bobby Hargis, Nellie Connally, Roy Kellerman, Samuel Kinney, William Joseph "B. J." Martin, Robert A. Frazier, James Chaney, William Greer, Governor Connally and others describing the blood either in the car or on their persons to be fabrication? If your answer is no to either question, and I do expect an answer; may I ask how can you defend information presented as scientific fact when you know it is incorrect? If your answer is yes, please provide a specific example of a why you believe the testimony concerning blood on a person or in the limo to be a lie. Additionally, may I bring up one more important point? In the years 1969 to 1971, Herbert L MacDonnell did research for the government under the Department of Justice. In 1971, the U.S. Department of Justice published his work as Flight Characteristics and Stain Patterns of Human Blood. Shortly after that publication, MacDonnell began teaching this investigative tool to law enforcement officers. Prior to this, no major work had been done in spatter analysis and certainly not focusing on high velocity impact spatter. So, prior to this time, who would have had the expertise to determine how long blood would take to dissipate, or what the pattern in mid-flight might look like, or how far it might travel? I appreciate the time and effort you are taking to address items related to this issue, however, I prefer to adhere to the original comments I made. It is easy to become distracted and wander off topic, however, my first post was specific in nature. The information presented as fact on the specific web page in question is incorrect and needs to be acknowledged as such and corrected. My best to you as you continue to search for the truth in the Kennedy assassination, Sherry

Hello Sherry - surely you won't mind pointing to ANY case where your *expert* blood spatter analysis was requested and you rendered same, based on film of the murder and the crime scene in real time? I'm curious to know the disposition of said case... Thanks, David Healy Hello David, I have provided below a number of cases that I have testified in as an expert in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis. In almost every case I have worked, the bloodstain patterns were analyzed from photographs of the crime scene. Sometimes I took or supervised the photos, but often I relied completely on still photographs and video tapes taken by other police agencies. This is a common occurance since few agencies have experts in this area working crime scenes for them. Many times the need for an expert in this field is not realized until the matter is in the hands of a prosecuting or defense attorney. So like many other experts, I may have been contacted months or even years after the incident occurred; requiring me to work exclusively from photographs. No case I worked had a videotape of the actual murder as it was carried out; this is part of what makes the Kennedy assassination unique. I was looking at just the static aftermath of the bloodshed. But I have witnessed many video tapes of bloody object being shot; and sadly, some of persons being shot. No case in which I have testified has been overturned because of my testimony; and I have had a death penalty case go to the Louisiana Supreme Court. The details of all the cases listed below are available via court records in each jurisdiction - including my testimony. 32nd Judicial District, Terrebonne Parish, LA; State v Marr 4/1992 27th Judicial District, St. Landry Parish, LA; State v Darjean 3/1994 13th Judicial District, Section A; Evangeline Parish, LA; State v Rubin 4/1994 17th Judicial District, Division C, Lafourche Parish; State v Whitted 6/1994 17th Judicial District, Division A, Lafourche Parish; State v Billiot; 7/1994 24th Judicial District, Division H, Jefferson Parish; State v Forrest 10/1994 25th Judicial District, Section I, Orleans Parish; State v Neville 3/1995 25th Judicial District, Section D, Orleans Parish; State v Lacaze 7/1995 8th Circuit District Court, Decauter Mississippi; State v DuPlantis 8/1995 15th Judicial District, Division D, Lafayette, LA, State v Campbell; 8/1995 25th Judicial District, Section C, New Orleans, LA; State v Jackson; 1995 US District, Eastern Louisiana Federal Court, Section M, Magistrate 4; Robertson v City of New Orleans & Kramer; 9/1995 2nd Circuit District Court, Quincy County, Florida; State v Blanchard;11/1995 15th Judicial District, Acadia Parish, LA; State v Burmaster; 4/1996 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Curtis; 4/1996 25th Judicial District, Section A; Orleans Parish, LA; State v East; 8/1997 24th Judicial District, Division I; Jefferson Parish, LA; State v Jones; 12/1997 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Hopkins; 6/1998 33rd Judicial District, Division A, Allen Parish, LA; State v Strother; 7/1999 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 8/2000 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 11/2001 2nd Circuit Court District, Gulfport, MS, State v Farve; 11/2001 25th Judicial District, Section A; Orleans Parish, LA; State v Bright; 2/2002 29th Judicial District, Division C; St. Charles Parish, LA; State v Amin; 3/2002 2nd Circuit Court District, Gulfport, MS, State v Farve; 9/2002 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 11/2002 9th Judicial District, Division B, Rapids Parish, LA; State v Magee; 1/2003 22nd Judicial District, Division A, St. Tammany Parish, LA; State v Adams; 7/2003 Thank you for the opportunity to expound on my qualifications, and to address the commonly accepted method of utilizing photographs and video tape in bloodstain pattern analysis. It both clarified a potential problem and underscored my qualifications for exposing the errors and inapt research of the writers of the web page JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake. Sincerely, Sherry

Hi Len, You are absolutely correct in your statement that the blood is traveling at an accelerated rate. And let me say thanks for your interest in this subject. Just so you know my thoughts on the head shot - I do believe the head wound at frame 313 came from the front, but not the grassy knoll. But where the shot came from is not the focus of this review of the web page in error. Therefore, I don't feel this particular thread is the place to expound on the trajectory as it would divert the focus from the intended topic. Instead, I am just going to provide a link so you can see where I stand on that issue. Trajecetory analysis is a common part of bloodstain pattern analysis and crime scene reconstuction. http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/images/ You may have to download the file to your computer before opening it, since it is a big file (12.3M ) In closing.. In an earlier post you wrote: "Most of what Sherry said seemed like common sense to me but since I don't have any expertise I didn't say any thing." Len, most experts in any field welcome questions because it provides an opportunity for the expert to expound upon their analysis and/or findings; clear up any confusion their published findings may have presented; and/or present the analysis and documented findings in a different way - often using time and space the initial publication or lecture did not offer. So ask away! Good luck to you as you investigate the Kennedy assassination, Sherry

Response: My sister is Debra Conway, but being her sister does not diminish my expertise in the field of bloodspatter analysis. And I have no idea what her beliefs are concerning Tink Thompson; and they are not relevant as they add no information to the subject at hand - the errors on the web page in question. As an aside, I was completely unaware of the web page in question until you posted a link to it. Post #27 "Who is Bill Miller" Where you stated: The inauthenticity of the Zapruder is NOT A THEORY any longer. It is proved beyond any doubt that it is NOT AUTHENTIC. For the proof, go to: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/I have no quarrel with anyone holding whatever viewpoint they wish. I am distressed, however, when they hold a view that is unsound, and REFUSE to even consider the evidence to the contrary. So, thank you, Mr. White, for pointing me in the direction of that page so I could reveal the truth concerning blood spatter in the Kennedy Assassination.

JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake Why I am qualified to respond: I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida; including US Federal District Court. I formerly headed the Forensic Investigative Unit for St. Charles Parish of the Louisiana Sheriff's Department and prior to that was second in command at the Lafayette Parish Metro Forensic Unit which served eight parishes. Presently, I am retired yet still do limited consultation for attorneys and law enforcement officials. When I retired I allowed my professional memberships expire. However, I was a member of the International Association for Identification and acquired the Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst certification. I have served on IAIs subcommittee for bloodstain pattern evidence, and have presented at international and state conferences for that organization. I was a member of the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction. I am recognized as a Bloodstain Pattern Analysis course instructor by the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts and the International Association for Identification; and have taught that field of investigation to law enforcement agencies and at police academies for over 20 years. I have published 15 articles in peer reviewed journals, and given lectures at national and international levels. I published my findings concerning the Kennedy Assassination on the web originally in 1995 and have yet for one expert in my field to review my work and find my methods in error. Based upon my training and experience I feel I am more than qualified as an expert to address the claims made by the web page. Hoax Claim: More recently, scientists have discovered that there is something else about the shot to JFK’s head on the forged film that is fake—and can be proved to be fake: the spray of blood that appears at the moment he is shot. Film experts had noted that the “blood spray” in Frame 313 looks like it has been “painted on” and then exposed onto a genuine strip of film. But what tells us that this “blood” is fake is the fact that it disappears into thin air! If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. If it was real, the “blood” should spread out in the frames after Frame 313, and then land on people or objects in the car. But within a couple of frames, it disappears altogether: The graphs show that the “spray” disappears within three frames, or one-sixth of a second. This can’t happen! Even if you dropped a lead weight from JFK’s temple, it wouldn’t drop into the car this fast! My Response: Unfortunately, we are not discussing lead weights. The blood is being forcefully expelled from the wound and is traveling at a higher rate of speed than that of falling velocity. Since 1983 I have been actively involved in the study and recreation of bloodstain pattern created as a result of high velocity impact. This type of analysis is founded in physics and mathematics and based on the study of research performed by many criminalists. Therefore, it satisfies one of the main criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts - that the evidence has as its basis in sound scientific methodology. Data collection for the analysis was accomplished by shooting through a variety of samples of whole human blood at a series of distances and with a wide diversity of projectile calibers. Videotape is used to capture the results of the bullets passing through the bloody targets. The blood used in all cases is whole human blood. The videotape used records 30 frames per second. The video utilized approximately 4-5 frames to capture the forceful impact pattern when a low velocity, large caliber projectile with a high KE rate impacted a large volume of blood. This means that partiular pattern was created in its entirety in 1/6 of a second. Faster projectiles resulted in patterns that were created in less than 1/6 of a second. The Zapruder film was recorded at 18 frames per second. If blood is observed in 2-3 frames that would mean the pattern was created and dissipated in a time frame of 1/6 of a second or less. A time frame consistent with patterns created with a high velocity projectile. Another criteria for evidence analysis specified by the courts is that the analysis used have the ability to be duplicated. This test for the speed of a spatter pattern being created and disipating can be duplicated by placing a video camera at a 90 degree to a bloody target. Fake blood in a sponge secured in a small zip lock bag will work, since all liquids respond in the same manner to forceful impact. You can attach the bag to a pole or other upright item. Hanging a dark surface behind the target will provide better viewing contrast. Use a high velocity projectile to shoot the target. Count the number of frames it takes for the spatter to be created and dissipate. Hoax Claim: The scientists were also able to show that the “spray” could not have been moving so fast that it shot right out of view before Frame 314. But even if the blood could have, where would it have ended up? It would have gone all over the Connallys, and the windows and interior of the limousine. But a frame published only weeks after the assassination, in color, showed no blood at all: My Response: It is amazing that the writer of this article would not consider there were other methods than viewing a single frame of the Zapruder film to determine if blood was present either within or outside the Limo. Especially when there are numerous statements documenting blood being deposited both within and outside the limo. A google search for limo images will result in several photographs of the limo containing blood. One such photograph can be seen here: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/limo/ce353.jpg Here's one of the limo exterior being cleaned at Parkland Hospital http://jfk.iefactory.com/hechos/limohosp.jpg Additionally, there are many statements of witnesses that indicate blood was found outside the 2 frames in the Zapruder film: Nellie Connally "I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Nellie Connally; Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees. Roy Kellerman: Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over. Senator COOPER. What was that? Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh.. Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter? Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat. Testimony Of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service Beginning At 2H61 Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the vehicle behind the President. "my windshield and left arm were hit with blood and brain matter immediately after the head shot." Police Officer Seymore Weitzman in his Warren Commission testimony stated he discovered a piece of skull bone lying in the street, just inches from the South curbing, and roughly 20 feet to Kennedy's left. Officer William Joseph "B. J." Martin Warren Commission testimony: Mr. BALL: Did you notice any stains on your helmet? Mr. MARTIN: Yes, sir; during the process of working traffic there, I noticed that there were blood stains on the windshield, on my motor, and then I pulled off my helmet and I noticed there were blood stains on the left side of my helmet. Bobby Hargis " ...it was like a bucket of blood was thrown from his head" Robert A. Frazier testified on 2-21 & 2-22-1969 in the Clay Shaw trial. During his testimony he discussed what was found when the limo was searched at 1am on 11-23. "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area." Work that asked to be taken seriously must be researched in depth to assure all facets of the matter in question are considered. When addressing an investigation you can not enter the investigation with a pre-disposed idea and search for supporting evidence. You must uncover and expose all possible information and then form conclusions based upon your findings. The information contained at this page of JFK assassination film hoax is incorrect in its scientific basis. They are guilty of not doing sufficent research on their subject of blood spatter. There are numerous books available at public libraries, and for purchase on the web, that address this subject and support my statements here. Additionally, good research should have indicated a need to determine if witnesses had made statements concerning deposited blood. I encourage all researchers to thoroughly investigate this subject to help them in determining the validity of the Zapruder film. And I encourage the writers of JFK assassination film hoax: The blood mistake to reconsider the contents of their page because it's their mistake. Review of work posted at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html

I have been a forensic investigator, specializing in Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis for over 20 years. Court qualified as an expert in the Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis, I have testified in three states and over 30 judicial jurisdictions, including US Federal Court. I have 17 publications in peer reviewed journals and have taught Blood Spatter Analysis and Crime Scene Reconstruction to law enforcement agencies on state and nation levels for over 17 years. My interest in the Kennedy assassination began when my sister, Debra Conway, asked me to apply my professional techniques in spatter interruption to the Kennedy assassination. This resulted in my presenting information at the Coalition on Political Assassinations, 1995 National Educational Conference in Washington, DC. Since that time I have been a speaker at several JFKLancer Conferences, presenting information on Blood Spatter Analysis and Trajectory Reconstruction. My article on "Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and the Kennedy Assassination" can be reviewed here: http://www.jfklancerforumcom/sherryg/ A PowerPoint presentation concerning trajectory of the fatal headshot can be reviewed here: http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/images/ then click on this file: NID2003.mht