Help with the back wound please

[Mike Williams]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You might want to read "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can download via google. This article, which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed journal, refutes the "magic bullet" theory by establishing the location of that wound.

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Edited March 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Mike Williams]

You might want to read "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you can download via google. This article, which I presented at Cambridge and published in a peer-reviewed journal, refutes the "magic bullet" theory by establishing the location of that wound.

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

Mr. Fetzer,

I will certainly give it a look over, and appreciate your reply.

Best,

Mike

[Cliff Varnell]

Mike,

The photo you're asking about was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol. The HSCA singled it out as especially "deficient as scientific evidence." The

ARRB established that there was no chain of possession for that photo.

There is nothing in it to indicate it is a photo of John F. Kennedy.

Why study improperly prepared medical evidence when there is properly

prepared evidence such as Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face

sheet?

[Pat Speer]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

[Mike Williams]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

Pat,

Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

If it counts for anything!

#1 is the bullet entrance hole, as confirmed by the HSCA questioning of the Autopsy Surgeons, as well as my personal conversations with Dr. Boswell.

In fact, if one will review much of the HSCA Medical Panel works, they will find that they even reproduced "enlargement" photo's of this entry wound for continued study.

Might want to "dig" into the "Abrasion Collar" subject matter related to this wound, as it will also provide an "essential element of information".

Back Entry Wound: 4mm X 7mm in dimension with relatively clean-cut edges. (exactly identical to what is created with a "wadcutter" round.

CE#399: Flat base deformed to 4mm X 7mm in dimension.

"Punch-type" wound of entry through clothing worn by JFK, with considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound. (Which happens to be one of those things like the Northern Lights, in that a normal bullet entry does not carry fabric down into the wound of entry).

The principal question remaining: "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"?

As, one can rest assured that if one gives a fifth grader the back entry wound dimension and the deformed base to CE399 dimension, then he/she would easily be capable of determination as to which end of CE399 struck first.

Tom

P.S. Don't forget to check into that "abrasion collar", as it also will shed considerable light and knowledge on the subject matter.

[Mike Williams]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

If it counts for anything!

#1 is the bullet entrance hole, as confirmed by the HSCA questioning of the Autopsy Surgeons, as well as my personal conversations with Dr. Boswell.

In fact, if one will review much of the HSCA Medical Panel works, they will find that they even reproduced "enlargement" photo's of this entry wound for continued study.

Might want to "dig" into the "Abrasion Collar" subject matter related to this wound, as it will also provide an "essential element of information".

Back Entry Wound: 4mm X 7mm in dimension with relatively clean-cut edges. (exactly identical to what is created with a "wadcutter" round.

CE#399: Flat base deformed to 4mm X 7mm in dimension.

"Punch-type" wound of entry through clothing worn by JFK, with considerable fabric from his coat and shirt carried down into the wound. (Which happens to be one of those things like the Northern Lights, in that a normal bullet entry does not carry fabric down into the wound of entry).

The principal question remaining: "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"?

As, one can rest assured that if one gives a fifth grader the back entry wound dimension and the deformed base to CE399 dimension, then he/she would easily be capable of determination as to which end of CE399 struck first.

Tom

P.S. Don't forget to check into that "abrasion collar", as it also will shed considerable light and knowledge on the subject matter.

Tom,

I am reading you 4x4 my friend and I certainly will!

Thanks Tom,

Mike

[Thomas H. Purvis]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

Pat,

Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Simple Answer: Yep!

Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.

Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.

[Mike Williams]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

Pat,

Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Simple Answer: Yep!

Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.

Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.

Tom,

Thanks! I am starting to form up on this idea. I appreciate the help.

Mike

[Pat Speer]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

Pat,

Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Simple Answer: Yep!

Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.

Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.

Mike, while it's true some entrance wounds are smaller than the width of the bullet, this is not what one would expect. In my days of research at the UCLA Bio-med library, I read dozens of articles on gunshot wounds, going back to WW1. Many of these I found in military journals, such as Military Medicince.

Anyhow, I don't recall one instance in which the entrance wound of a bullet was reported to be half the size of the bullet. Not one.

The lower mark is not a bullet hole.

[Mike Williams]

I am in need of some help with an issue regarding the back wound. I write a hearty disclaimer that I am in no way totally familiar with aspects of the autopsy. If someone could help me out it would be much appreciated. Please consider this photo:

Questions:

1) In the photo attached is #1 the WC location of the back wound? This would seem odd considering the contact ring on #2.

2) Is #2 the generally accepted entry? This would seem to make sense.

3) If #1 is the WC location, then I can assume this is the wound that measured 7mmx4mm on the final autopsy report?

4) If #3 is correct then what are the estimated dimensions of hole #2?

Any help is much appreciated.

My best to you all,

Mike

A straight answer, Mike. #1 is the supposed entry wound. #2 is, according to the doctors, not a wound at all, but a speck of dried blood. While some look at the location and shape of #2 and conclude it looks more like a wound than #1, they fail to note that this "hole", should it be a hole, would be tiny, and approximately 3mm by 3mm.

Pat,

Much appreciated. Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Best to you my friend,

Mike

Would not a hole that is 3mmx3mm be consistent with a entry from a 6.5mm bullet? There are many instances when a projectile leaves a much smaller hole than its true diameter.

Simple Answer: Yep!

Too bad you were not around when I long ago posted the photographic evidence of actual ballistic testing, which included a normal entrance wound as compared with a "flat-nosed"/Wadcutter type wound of entry.

Sorry! No more scans as these postings are coming from the Library Computer, in which the ability to scan and thereafter post the scan are not an option.

Mike, while it's true some entrance wounds are smaller than the width of the bullet, this is not what one would expect. In my days of research at the UCLA Bio-med library, I read dozens of articles on gunshot wounds, going back to WW1. Many of these I found in military journals, such as Military Medicince.

Anyhow, I don't recall one instance in which the entrance wound of a bullet was reported to be half the size of the bullet. Not one.

The lower mark is not a bullet hole.

2 cases

[John Dolva]

These are special cases. Skin is not elastic but it is very flexible. It also has a high bulletproof rating. The bone underneath and the internal disruption must be pretty big.

Are they like dum dums?

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, I'll post this before Cliff does. There is absolutely no mystery about where the back wound was located.

The bullet holes in JFK's shirt AND coat, which align perfectly with each other, are the best form of evidence one is likely to get. They are corroborated by the original location marked by Boswell on the autopsy face sheet, the location indicated by Burkley on the death certificate and the testimony of witnesses like Sibert & O'Neill. Obviously, the entrance point is far too low to have exited from the throat, assuming a shot from above and behind.

There are few things less clear than this in this case.

[Mike Williams]

Okay, I'll post this before Cliff does. There is absolutely no mystery about where the back wound was located.

The bullet holes in JFK's shirt AND coat, which align perfectly with each other, are the best form of evidence one is likely to get. They are corroborated by the original location marked by Boswell on the autopsy face sheet, the location indicated by Burkley on the death certificate and the testimony of witnesses like Sibert & O'Neill. Obviously, the entrance point is far too low to have exited from the throat, assuming a shot from above and behind.

There are few things less clear than this in this case.

Thanks Don,

If I am understanding this correctly, that relates to #1 on my photo?

Sorry for the ignorance here, but this issue is very convoluted and I am uncertain.

Thanks again.

Mike