Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

The night of the autopsy with the body in front of them the autopsists speculated that JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

The FBI men took this seriously enough to call the FBI Lab, but the subject was quickly changed.

The FBI had been briefed on such high tech weaponry by personnel from US Army Special Operations Division.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Very few researchers are "culturally capable" of taking this scenario seriously, no matter how serious the 5 guys at the autopsy took it.

Cliff,

I for one wouldn't be surprised if one of those "high tech" weapons was used. But I don't know of any evidence supporting the idea. I would consider the idea more seriously if no other plausible explanation for the back wound--using traditional guns and bullets--could be conceived

I read about the poison dart weapon shown to the Church Committee, here

http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-CIA-shellfish-poison-dart-gun-causes-heart-attack

In the article it is said that the poison dart is the width of a human hair and only 1/4" long. So tiny that it is almost undetectable. It is said that it leaves no trace and causes what appears to be a heart attack. This implies that it wouldn't leave an easily detectable mark on the body. Of course, a hole was left on Kennedy's back. So are you thinking that the gun delivery system has a slug? Compared to the cane and umbrella delivery system, which wouldn't have a slug.

[Chris Newton]

I would really like to believe that there was an exotic weapon or ice bullet used. I'm a big fan of James Bond, I'm a gadget guy, a techi. I just don't believe it's a practical weapon (or weapon system, if you may), in this type of operation. We've already got high powered missiles from standard firearms, what purpose and to what end would utilizing this kind of system fulfill?

Killing a President is high treason, punishable by death, would the planners of such a plot risk their necks by adding complications or is it more likely that would want to be absolutely certain their target would not survive by sticking to traditional weapons systems?

[Sandy Larsen]

Robert,

Wow, Kennedy had a collapsed lung! I did not know that. I can't believe others haven't made a bigger deal of this information. It makes a big difference in how I think about the wounds.

Autopsy witnesses said that Humes probed the back wound but found that the pleura had not been penetrated. So you must be saying that there was indeed a hole in the pleura, it's just that it was a tiny one that the probe wouldn't fit through. Is that right?

BTW I found a good thread for me to review your and Cliff's beliefs on the back wound:

For Cliff Varnell: Where did the Bullet in JFK's Back go?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21592

I skimmed over some of it and one thing you said surprised me. You said that you thought the throat wound was an exit for one of the particles from the base-of-the-skull frangible bullet. (If I understood you correctly.) What mabe you decide the particle came from that bullet? Why not from the back-wound frangible bullet? The particle would have had to make quite a sharp turn had it come from the base-of-head bullet.

Also, why not postulate that the throat wound was a shot from the front and was a frangible bullet. Oh, I remember now... you argued that there would be more blood if that shot came from the front. Maybe. Or maybe the bullet (from a frontal shot) fragmented after passing though the esophagus, and the blood splatter was contained therein.

Do you believe all the bullets used were frangible? If so, how do you explain the bullet that reportedly was found behind the ear in Bethesda? (This bullet seems to be rarely mentioned.)

Why do you think that frangible bullets would be used to kill Kennedy?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert,

Wow, Kennedy had a collapsed lung! I did not know that. I can't believe others haven't made a bigger deal of this information. It makes a big difference in how I think about the wounds.

Autopsy witnesses said that Humes probed the back wound but found that the pleura had not been penetrated. So you must be saying that there was indeed a hole in the pleura, it's just that it was a tiny one that the probe wouldn't fit through. Is that right?

BTW I found a good thread for me to review your and Cliff's beliefs on the back wound:

For Cliff Varnell: Where did the Bullet in JFK's Back go?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21592

I skimmed over some of it and one thing you said surprised me. You said that you thought the throat wound was an exit for one of the particles from the base-of-the-skull frangible bullet. (If I understood you correctly.) What mabe you decide the particle came from that bullet? Why not from the back-wound frangible bullet? The particle would have had to make quite a sharp turn had it come from the base-of-head bullet.

Also, why not postulate that the throat wound was a shot from the front and was a frangible bullet. Oh, I remember now... you argued that there would be more blood if that shot came from the front. Maybe. Or maybe the bullet (from a frontal shot) fragmented after passing though the esophagus, and the blood splatter was contained therein.

Do you believe all the bullets used were frangible? If so, how do you explain the bullet that reportedly was found behind the ear in Bethesda? (This bullet seems to be rarely mentioned.)

Why do you think that frangible bullets would be used to kill Kennedy?

From what we know of the autopsy proceedings, the only probe used by Humes in examining JFK's back wound was his little finger.

The bullets for the 6.5mm Carcano are actually 6.8 mm in diameter (6.5 mm being the calibre). This equates to just a shade over 1/4". (6.8 mm = .267" while 1/4" = .250", a difference of 17/1000ths of an inch) When I measured my little finger at the first knuckle, I found it to be just under 3/4" in diameter. I know that skin and muscle is somewhat elastic but, unless Humes had fingers like a four year old girl, I fail to see how an effective probing could have been done with his little finger.

The throat wound is indeed a mystery, and I believe I mentioned the source as a shrapnel particle from the head wound only as a possibility.

The throat wound could only have been an exit for the back wound if the back wound was as high up as the autopsy results attempted to portray it. If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as observed by most witnesses, a fragment from the bullet would be required to make a severe change of direction upwards to exit at the throat.

Yes, I believe all of the bullets used were frangible, including the bullet that struck Tague with a fragment. I really don't know what to say about the bullet that was supposedly lodged behind JFK's ear, although it may have been a section of the copper alloy bullet jacket mistaken by onlookers for a bullet.

Frangible bullets would have been used for two reasons. 1. As they are designed to disintegrate to powder after travelling through semi-liquid matter and flesh a couple of inches, they transfer all of their energy to surrounding tissue and have the potential to be more lethal than any other bullet, except perhaps an exploding bullet. 2. Frangible bullets not only disintegrate to powder inside of a wound, they also disintegrate if they hit something hard like steel or concrete.This would tend to keep collateral damage to a minimum. 3. The general characteristics of a frangible bullet jacket are very similar to a full metal jacket bullet jacket, to the point where someone finding a piece of bullet jacket on Elm St. would be unable to identify it as a frangible bullet jacket, unless he knew what to look for.

[Sandy Larsen]

If I recall correctly, wasn't Purvis an LN? That would necessarily limit from the get-go what he could theorize about the back wound. A tree branch would certainly be convenient, but I think you've shown that with a tumbling bullet he was going out on a limb.

"....going out on a limb." LOL

[Sandy Larsen]

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally.

Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose?

Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Thanks guys for your replies. I'm happy to see that there are indeed some plausible explanations for the back wound.

I'll get to the other ideas in turn. Right now I'll focus on Tom Purvis's theory.

The key to this problem's solution (assuming a traditional lead bullet was used) is that the bullet became slowed down, not as far away as the TSBD, but close enough to Kennedy that it would have dropped only a few inches before hitting him. (Because slow bullets drop so far as to render them too inaccurate at long ranges.) With that in mind I will test Purvis's theory.

I believe that the WC concluded that the nearest distance a shot was possible was at about 170 ft from the TSBD. From a diagram in this link

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3966/dppluschartsupdated1111.gif

I've determined that the tree was located about half way between the TBSD and Kennedy at that point. So the bullet traveled about 85 ft at the slow velocity.

I've read that back wound looked consistent with a bullet traveling perhaps 300 fps. So I'll use that figure.

We can determine the approximate drop based upon these two figures. (Approximate because I will be ignoring wind resistance and the fact that the gun was shot at a downward angle, among other things.)

FORMULA

The distance an object drops due to gravity is given by the formula

d = (g * t^2)/2

where * denotes multiplication, / denotes division, and ^ denotes “to the power of” (so t^2 is t squared).

g = 32 is a constant. It is the downward acceleration of an object due to gravitational pull. Its units are ft/s^2 (feet per second squared).

t is the time the object is allowed to drop. We don’t know offhand what t is, but we can calculate it from the distance the bullet traveled toward the target. It is calculated from the equation

t = D / v

where D is the distance the bullet travels toward its target and v is its velocity. Substituting this equation into the formula above ,we get

d = (g * (D/v)^2)/2

CALCULATION

The distance D is 85 ft and the velocity is 300 fps. Plugging those into the formula we get

d = (32 * (85/300)^2)/2

d = 1.28 ft

So a 300 fps bullet would drop 15.4 inches, which is 15.1 inches lower than a where a 2000 fps bullet would hit. (I used the same formula to determine that a high speed bullet (2000 fps) would drop about 0.3".)

CONCLUSION

For my conclusion I will use a bullet velocity of 380 fps instead of the 300 fps I used above. The reason for doing so will be apparent.

If the shooter were aiming for the head and hitting a limb slowed the bullet down to 380 fps, it would hit the back about where it hit Kennedy. I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling, but the calculation here shows that we’re in the right ballpark. Purvis may be on to something.

(BTW, I don't believe a Carcano shot that bullet. I don't believe Oswald shot any bullet. But I do believe the shot may have come from the TSBD.)

In order to believe your theory would work requires ignoring everything I know about bullets in flight. It also requires believing that slowing a bullet from 2000 fps to 300-380 fps, by having it travel through a tree branch, will not de-stabilize the bullet to the point it will begin tumbling.

Sorry, I happen to know better.

P.S.

Your mathematics are impressive but, it is just as easy to use an on line ballistics calculator to calculate bullet drop.

I didn't know that I had a theory. But sure, why not, I'll take ownership. I own only what I have stated, not everything Purvis may have believed.

As I stated in my simple analysis, there were things I wasn't taking into account. And I specifically stated that "I can't take into account bullet deflection or tumbling." I guess I should have also mentioned that I'm am not a ballistics or gun expert... I just figured that is what folks would believe by default.. (But, FWIW, I do know physics.)

Since you are apparently an expert, let me ask you this. Suppose you fired a 2000 fps bullet horizontal to the ground, it travels 85 feet, at which point it transits a block of wood just thick enough that it exits with a velocity of 380 fps. It continues to travel another 85 feet and finally hits a second block of wood. Both blocks of wood are massive and are held securely to the ground. My question for you is this: What would be the expected distance measured between the horizontal line of fire and where it hits the second block? (The reason I specify a horizontal line of fire and that the blocks of wood be securely fastened is to simplify the problem. That is standard practice for making first-order approximations.)

[Sandy Larsen]

Here is something else to think about. A 158 grain bullet fired from a .38 Special revolver (similar to the weapon Ruby used to kill Oswald) will leave the barrel of that revolver at a muzzle velocity of 587 feet/second (fps); a mere 193 fps faster than the theoretical bullet that supposedly only penetrated JFK's back a mere inch.

At 587 fps, according to the medical report from Parkland Memorial Hospital, this bullet travelled a left to right course through Oswald's abdomen; passing through almost every abdominal organ on its way through and coming very close to exiting the right side of Oswald's abdomen.

Considering the mass of a Carcano bullet is 162 grains, does anyone think that slowing this bullet to 380 fps would severely limit its penetrating capabilities in flesh, as opposed to the same bullet travelling at 587 fps?

A more logical way of comparing a 587 fps bullet to a 380 fps one is to say that it is is 54% faster. Since the kinetic energy carried by a moving object is related as a square of its velocity, the 587 fps bullet will have 237% (1.54^2) the energy of the 380 fps bullet. Perhaps that explains the difference in the damage done. Or perhaps not.

But that's beside the point. As I stated in my analysis, I merely read somewhere (or was told by someone) that the speed of the bullet would have had to be about 300 fps to do what little damage it did. So that is the assumption I made for the analysis.

Conclusions are no better than the assumptions made. If you have a better idea as to what the bullet velocity must have been, I would love to hear it and would be happy to re-analyze using the new data.

[Sandy Larsen]

o

o

o

Autopsy witnesses said that Humes probed the back wound but found that the pleura had not been penetrated. So you must be saying that there was indeed a hole in the pleura, it's just that it was a tiny one that the probe wouldn't fit through. Is that right?

o

o

o

From what we know of the autopsy proceedings, the only probe used by Humes in examining JFK's back wound was his little finger.

o

o

o

Humes mentions the probe(s) in his WC testimony (see below).

According to ARRB's Douglass Horne:

[Autopsy technician] Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck.

HUMES WC TESTIMONY

Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.

The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long.

We attempted to locate such wounds in soft tissue by making reference to bony structures which do not move and are, therefore, good reference points for this type of investigation.

We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion was its central point--

Mr. SPECTER - That is the right acromion?

Commander HUMES - The tip of the right acromion, yes, sir, and that is why we have depicted it in figure 385 in this location.

This wound appeared physically quite similar to the wound which we have described before in 388 "A," with the exception that its long axis was shorter than the long axis of the wound described above. When the tissues beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the musculature of the low neck and upper back.

I mentioned previously that X-rays were made of the entire body of the late President. Of course, and here I must say that as I describe something to you, I might have done it before or after in the description but for the sake of understanding, we examined carefully the bony structures in this vicinity well as the X-rays, to see if there was any evidence of fracture or of deposition of metallic fragments in the depths of this wound, and we saw no such evidence, that is no fracture of the bones of the shoulder girdle, or of the vertical column, and no metallic fragments were detectable by X-ray examination.

Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by that, Doctor?

Commander HUMES - Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. [Emphases added.]

[Sandy Larsen]

Frangible bullets would have been used for two reasons. 1. As they are designed to disintegrate to powder after travelling through semi-liquid matter and flesh a couple of inches, they transfer all of their energy to surrounding tissue and have the potential to be more lethal than any other bullet, except perhaps an exploding bullet. 2. Frangible bullets not only disintegrate to powder inside of a wound, they also disintegrate if they hit something hard like steel or concrete.This would tend to keep collateral damage to a minimum. 3. The general characteristics of a frangible bullet jacket are very similar to a full metal jacket bullet jacket, to the point where someone finding a piece of bullet jacket on Elm St. would be unable to identify it as a frangible bullet jacket, unless he knew what to look for.

I think your frangible bullet scenario makes a lot of sense, particularly given that Kennedy had a punctured lung seeming to have come from the back wound, yet no noticeable puncture through the pleura.

I think a tiny fragment must have punctured the pleura. (Please let me know if there's a problem with this statement.)

If it can be shown or reasoned that the velocity of a standard bullet would have been much less than the 380 fps in my analysis -- say below 250 fps -- then I would definitely favor your theory over the one I adopted from Purvis. Your comment on the speed of Ruby's bullet sank in after all.

[Tom Neal]

Suppose you fired a 2000 fps bullet horizontal to the ground, it travels 85 feet, at which point it transits a block of wood just thick enough that it exits with a velocity of 380 fps. It continues to travel another 85 feet and finally hits a second block of wood.

Hi Sandy,

Glad to see someone else who is still trying to 'explain' the back wound. The thread you referenced just kinda ran out of steam...

My question, and I don't know the answer myself, is; How thick a piece of wood is required to knock 1700 fps (I don't know how much velocity has been lost while traveling the first 85 ft.) off the velocity of a Carcano slug? Did that oak(?) tree located between "the window" and JFK have thick branches where the trajectory would have passed?

Tom

Edited October 17, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

Since we're talking about the back wound...O'Connor has drawn several bullet fragments, and the sketch is labelled "bullet" fragments, does it seem peculiar that a FMJ bullet has 'fragmented' after penetrating only soft tissue?

Tom

Edited October 17, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

o

o

o

Autopsy witnesses said that Humes probed the back wound but found that the pleura had not been penetrated. So you must be saying that there was indeed a hole in the pleura, it's just that it was a tiny one that the probe wouldn't fit through. Is that right?

o

o

o

From what we know of the autopsy proceedings, the only probe used by Humes in examining JFK's back wound was his little finger.

o

o

o

Humes mentions the probe(s) in his WC testimony (see below).

According to ARRB's Douglass Horne:

[Autopsy technician] Jim Jenkins recalled a very shallow back wound in JFK's upper posterior thorax, that did not transit the body. He recalled Dr. Humes sticking his finger in the wound, and seeing Dr. Humes' finger making an indentation in the intact pleura as he viewed Humes' probing from the other side, where the right lung would have been before its removal. The pleura was intact. Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung). Jenkins also recalled that the back wound was 10 centimeters lower than the tracheotomy site in the anterior neck.

HUMES WC TESTIMONY

Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.

The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long.

We attempted to locate such wounds in soft tissue by making reference to bony structures which do not move and are, therefore, good reference points for this type of investigation.

We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion was its central point--

Mr. SPECTER - That is the right acromion?

Commander HUMES - The tip of the right acromion, yes, sir, and that is why we have depicted it in figure 385 in this location.

This wound appeared physically quite similar to the wound which we have described before in 388 "A," with the exception that its long axis was shorter than the long axis of the wound described above. When the tissues beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the musculature of the low neck and upper back.

I mentioned previously that X-rays were made of the entire body of the late President. Of course, and here I must say that as I describe something to you, I might have done it before or after in the description but for the sake of understanding, we examined carefully the bony structures in this vicinity well as the X-rays, to see if there was any evidence of fracture or of deposition of metallic fragments in the depths of this wound, and we saw no such evidence, that is no fracture of the bones of the shoulder girdle, or of the vertical column, and no metallic fragments were detectable by X-ray examination.

Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.

Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by that, Doctor?

Commander HUMES - Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point. [Emphases added.]

Welcome to the insanity that was the autopsy conducted on JFK's corpse at Bethesda, Maryland.

Do you see a problem with Jenkins' description of probing the wound and Humes' description of the same process?

According to Jenkins, he saw, from the inside of JFK's empty chest cavity, Humes' finger making an indentation in the parietal pleura membrane. This is the membrane lining the inside of the chest cavity that is visible once the lungs are removed.

Why is Humes discussing the use of probes and his concern they might make a false track in the back wound? The wound, at least according to this story, obviously went as far as the thin membrane known as the parietal pleura. If Jenkins had looked closely enough, he might have been able to see Humes' fingertip through the membrane. Would he not have mentioned this to Humes? What was there left to probe, anyways? The first slight push of a metal probe and it would have been inside the chest cavity.

"Jenkins also recalled seeing a bruise at the top of the middle lobe of the right lung (but not at the top, or apex of the right lung)."

Here we go down the rabbit hole. Look closely at the diagrams below for a few seconds:

Hopefully, I have not overwhelmed you with all of these diagrams. The purpose of showing them is to highlight the very strange observation made by Jenkins; that being the bruising he observed at the top of the middle lobe of JFK's right lung. As can be seen in the 2nd to last diagram, the top of the middle lobe ends well below the 4th thoracic vetebra, or T4. The diagram above this one shows thoracic vertebra T3 to be on a level with the top of the right lung, and this is where many witnesses at Bethesda reported seeing the entrance wound in the back.

So, if the top of the middle lobe of the right lung is way down near thoracic vertebra T5, how could Jenkins see bruising of the top of the middle lobe if, according to the WC, the bullet entered JFK's back at the level of vertebrae C7/T1? An entrance wound at T3 would still be too high to account for this bruising.

There is a possible explanation for this. The visceral pleura, the membrane inside the parietal pleura, is a continuous membrane that completely envelops the lungs. It is also continuous with the membranes that separate the lobes of the lungs. This part is known as the "fissures" of the lungs, and they effectively separate the lobes of the lung into separate, isolated units. If bleeding were to occur in the top lobe of JFK's right lung it could, by gravity, collect at the lower part of this lobe, where it would be prevented from going into the middle lobe by the membrane. Is it possible Jenkins mistook pooling blood in the bottom of the top lobe for bruising in the top of the middle lobe?

Many WC supporters would jump on this and tell us yes, this is possible, but the blood was from the bullet passing ABOVE the right lung, on its way to the throat wound. The theory is that the shock wave surrounding the bullet, as it passed through the neck, would rupture blood vessels in the top of the lung, and this would account for the blood. Close, but not quite. I have seen many deer shot through the base of the neck with high powered rifles, although it is not really fair to compare this to the assassination, as these shots were all made with soft tipped bullets. Yes, the shock can actually rupture blood vessels in the top of the lungs, as well as blood vessels going to the front legs. The big difference is that when the lungs are removed, the bruising to the tops of the lungs is quite obvious, unlike what Jenkins described to Horne.

The thing to remember about the autopsy is that there were many lies told about it, and that, as the saying goes, within every lie is an element of the truth. For example, between Humes and Jenkins, only one of these two can be telling the truth about probing the back wound. Yet, if we use our imaginations, could it not be possible both of these men are telling a lie, with just enough truth mixed in to make the story work?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Frangible bullets would have been used for two reasons. 1. As they are designed to disintegrate to powder after travelling through semi-liquid matter and flesh a couple of inches, they transfer all of their energy to surrounding tissue and have the potential to be more lethal than any other bullet, except perhaps an exploding bullet. 2. Frangible bullets not only disintegrate to powder inside of a wound, they also disintegrate if they hit something hard like steel or concrete.This would tend to keep collateral damage to a minimum. 3. The general characteristics of a frangible bullet jacket are very similar to a full metal jacket bullet jacket, to the point where someone finding a piece of bullet jacket on Elm St. would be unable to identify it as a frangible bullet jacket, unless he knew what to look for.

I think your frangible bullet scenario makes a lot of sense, particularly given that Kennedy had a punctured lung seeming to have come from the back wound, yet no noticeable puncture through the pleura.

I think a tiny fragment must have punctured the pleura. (Please let me know if there's a problem with this statement.)

If it can be shown or reasoned that the velocity of a standard bullet would have been much less than the 380 fps in my analysis -- say below 250 fps -- then I would definitely favor your theory over the one I adopted from Purvis. Your comment on the speed of Ruby's bullet sank in after all.

Well, the problem is that I doubt any bullet, even a frangible bullet, would break apart after only penetrating an inch in flesh and then stopping. Frangible bullets require much more velocity and travelling through a few inches of flesh, lung or brain matter to make them break up. Of course, I have no idea how a frangible bullet would have been constructed in 1963, and I won't discount the possibility of a particle of that bullet escaping.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Since we're talking about the back wound...O'Connor has drawn several bullet fragments, and the sketch is labelled "bullet" fragments, does it seem peculiar that a FMJ bullet has 'fragmented' after penetrating only soft tissue?

Tom

Hi Tom

Interesting drawing by Paul O'Connor, and one I have not seen before. No, a FMJ bullet would not do that. Neither would a soft tipped or hollow point bullet. In fact, at that low of a velocity, a frangible bullet would not even do anything like that.

The obvious question comes to my mind; how did O'Connor know those bullet fragments were down at the bottom of that wound? Did Humes tell him, or was he allowed to put his finger into the wound, too?

I almost hate to say this, as it will give support to Purvis' tumbling-bullet-entering-the-back-base-first theory, but there actually is a way a FMJ bullet could deposit fragments like this.

A full metal jacket does not really cover the lead core of a bullet completely. The base of a FMJ bullet is open, exposing the lead core, and on the base of a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet, the opening is approximately 4.5 mm in diameter. This opening allows the FMJ bullet to retain its "humane" characteristics in a wound. I'll try to explain.

Construction of FMJ bullet showing open base.

External forces acting on a bullet (ie. striking bone) tend to deform bullets and often result in the space inside the bullet jacket being reduced. As lead, like water, cannot be compressed, a fully jacketed lead core would, under compression, cause internal pressures inside the jacket to rise, to the point the jacket would rupture and the bullet likely fragment into many pieces. This, of course, would lead to horrible large wounds; exactly the opposite of what a FMJ bullet is intended to do. The open base of the FMJ bullet acts as a sort of safety vent, or pressure relief valve. As the bullet jacket is compressed in a wound, lead is extruded out the base of the bullet; similar to toothpaste extruding from a tube.

To give Purvis (and O'Connor) the benefit of the doubt, yes, the bullet could have hit the branch, deformed and had lead hanging out its base as it tumbled toward JFK. IF it struck JFK base first (and that is a BIG if) it is remotely possible these lead flakes could have broken away from the base of the bullet, and stayed in the wound after the bullet had fallen out.

However, I would pay good money to see someone re-create this, as I do not believe it to be possible.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Tom Neal]

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall indicating in my prior posting that Tom Purvis specifically tested the "tumbling" aspect of the various nuances that make up the totality of his theory, did I?

Gary,

A quote from your Post #9:

....Tom's theoretical nuances of a tumbling bullet scenario, a scenario I might add that Tom actually tested...

Tom

Edited October 17, 2015 by Tom Neal