A Criticism of DVP

[Ray Mitcham]

The only time the jacket and the shirt moved up sufficiently for the bullet to enter via the President's neck was when Specter decided that was what had happened, to suit his proposition. Prior to that the bullet entered the back of JFK at or about the third thoracic vertebra.

All the rest is bull.

[Cliff Varnell]

The only time the jacket and the shirt moved up sufficiently for the bullet to enter via the President's neck was when Specter decided that was what had happened, to suit his proposition. Prior to that the bullet entered the back of JFK at or about the third thoracic vertebra.

All the rest is bull.

Thank you!

In the words of Vincent Salandria -- "blatantly obvious."

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

I tend to agree with Ray Mitcham that the bullet entered around. I suspect it might have been slightly higher than T3 - but that is just opinion.

Why I excluded the clothes is first there is debate whether they moved up the body or not and by how much. I did not say the clothes were invalid.

I preferred to use the FOX image because there are specific anatomical points described in the image that can be used to reference the bullets entry point.

Even if the shirt and jacket did not move, I would argue it is much more difficult to precisely identify the bullet's entry from the position of the holes in the clothing.

As regards the authenticity and relevance of the FOX images, that is an issue on which we are on opposite sides.

James.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And not a peep out of DVP. Too bad James never let me keep the original title for this thread.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I tend to agree with Ray Mitcham that the bullet entered around. I suspect it might have been slightly higher than T3 - but that is just opinion.

Why I excluded the clothes is first there is debate whether they moved up the body or not and by how much.

This falls in the category of "fake debate."

We spend the majority of our time wearing one article of clothing or another -- clothing movement isn't a mystery open to honest debate.

James, you can't get your shirt to move more than a fraction of an inch in any one direction given casual movement.

That is a hard fact, sir.

That's true of you and every human being on the planet.

Why do you think JFK was any different?

I did not say the clothes were invalid.

But you haven't acknowledged the fact that physical evidence in a murder case is paramount.

My bet is the JFK case is the only murder case in history where the physical evidence is so pervasively obfuscated.

I preferred to use the FOX image because there are specific anatomical points described in the image that can be used to reference the bullets entry point.

There is not one shred of proof that's JFK in the Fox 5 photo.

Even if the shirt and jacket did not move, I would argue it is much more difficult to precisely identify the bullet's entry from the position of the holes in the clothing.

Does it make a difference whether he was shot at T3, or T2/T3?

As regards the authenticity and relevance of the FOX images, that is an issue on which we are on opposite sides.

From the HSCA report, Volume 7:

<quote on>

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to

point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as

scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the

photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberately

mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish

as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case

gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious

to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the

onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested

with the prosecution.

<quote off>

There are two kinds of medical evidence in the JFK murder case: evidence which was prepared/maintained according to proper autopsy protocol; and evidence which was not prepared/maintained according to proper autopsy protocol.

By what alchemy of logic does the latter trump the former?

[James R Gordon]

Cliff,

As I pointed out, the FOX image gives us anatomical reference points by which to reference the position of the wound. The clothes do not do that.

Leaving the movement of the clothes aside, that is another reason I prefer the FOX image to the clothes.

As regards the authenticity of the FOX images, on that issue we are on opposite side. I accept the FOX images as authentic.

James.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

As I pointed out, the FOX image gives us anatomical reference points by which to reference the position of the wound. The clothes do not do that.

Leaving the movement of the clothes aside, that is another reason I prefer the FOX image to the clothes.

As regards the authenticity of the FOX images, on that issue we are on opposite side. I accept the FOX images as authentic.

James.

James, the holes in the clothes are incompatible with the "wound" shown in the Fox 5 photo.

At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars it's off by at least two inches.

Either the Fox 5 photo is fake -- or -- 2+" of JFK's shirt and a near equal amount of his jacket rode up entirely above the wound at the lower base of his neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the upper base of his neck.

You can fake a photo.

You can't have a 4" wad of shirt/jacket fabric occupying the same physical space as a jacket collar.

And what about that abrasion collar at the lower margin of the "wound."

Bad fakery at that.

Another major issue with the autopsy photos is the broken chain of possession.

Saundra Kay Spencer's 6/4/97 ARRB testimony:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

Q: Do you recall any books that you have seen with autopsy photographs in them?

A: I can't quote the titles of them.

Q: But you have seen commercially published books with what appear to be autopsy photos in them?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever hear of any discussion related to autopsy photos at NPC?

A: No.

Q: So, did you ever discuss the fact that you had processed those with Mr. Madonia, for example?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever discuss it with anyone else your own work?

A: No.

Q: Or did you hear of anyone else at NPC who had worked on any other autopsy photographs?

A: No.

Q: Did you have any opportunity to observe the content of the negatives and the prints as you were working on them?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Can you describe for me what you saw as best you can recollect?

A: Briefly, they were very, what I consider pristine for an autopsy. There was no blood or opening cavities, opening or anything of that nature. It was quite reverent in how they handled it.

Q: If I can just ask for some clarification. Do you mean that the body appeared to be clean, had been washed? Is that what you are suggesting?

A: Yes.

Q: And that was different from what you had seen in other autopsy photographs, is that right?

A: Yes. In other autopsies, they have the opening of the cavity and the removing of vital organs for weighing and stuff of this nature. The only organ that I had seen was a brain that was laid beside the body.

Q: And that was in the photograph of President Kennedy?

A: Yes.

Q: So there was a brain in the photograph beside the body, is that correct?

A: Well, yes, by the side of the body, but, it didn't appear that the skull had been cut, peeled back and the brain removed. None of that was shown. As to whose brain it was, I cannot say.

<quote off>

Edited May 25, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Regardless of whether we believe the bullet struck JFK at the level of thoracic vertebra T2 or T3, or perhaps even lower, the important thing is that we have pretty much established the same bullet would have had a very difficult time of exiting JFK's throat just below his larynx, and it would have been impossible, should this bullet have found its way to his throat, for it to have found its way to Connally's right armpit.

That being said, where did this bullet go, after entering JFK's back?

[Ray Mitcham]

Comparison of ideas about back/neck wound.

A---- For the Back wound

• The death certificate signed by Dr George Burkley, the President's personal doctor, who was present both in the emergency room at the hospital in Dallas and at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, located the back wound “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra,” which is typically four to six inches, or 10 to 15 centimetres, below the top of the shirt collar.

• The only surviving contemporary report of the autopsy supported this location.

• The autopsy descriptive sheet, made by one of the pathologists during the autopsy, was the official diagram of the wounds to the body. It, too, placed the back wound in this location.

• The backs of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt each contained a bullet hole located between five and six inches below the top of the collar, which matched this location. Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. In a photograph taken no more than 1.2 seconds before any non–fatal shot from the sixth floor could have been fired, the jacket can clearly be seen to be at or very close to its normal position. Buttoned–up shirts tend to be much less flexible than jackets. President Kennedy’s shirt in particular could not have bunched up significantly: it had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. The hole in the shirt lined up almost exactly with the hole in the jacket.

Special Agent Glen Bennett rode in the Secret Service follow-up car on 11-22-63: "I saw a shot hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder".

Sibert and O'Neill FBI report.

The FBI agents’ account contains several observations about the location, angle and depth of President Kennedy’s back wound which, if accurate, would invalidate the Warren Commission’s single–bullet theory:

• The bullet wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column,” a location consistent with the bullet holes in the president’s shirt and jacket but too low to be consistent with the single–bullet theory.
• “This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.
• “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds (see Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, pp.115–8). Such dissection would almost certainly have confirmed or denied the possibility that a single bullet had passed through President Kennedy’s body and had caused both wounds.

B ----For the Neck wound.

Specter's theory.

Dubious autopsy photos.

You make your choice.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[David Josephs]

Since the path to connect back to front travels UP, Ford's movement of the entry wound for clarity destroys that possibility...

But if you look at where the entry is on the shirt/jacket... it is well below the hole in the neck...

you can't have a connection from front to back with a bullet traveling DOWNWARD... so that it emerges HIGHER than the entrance...

And David, if you can show us in the autopsy where it says this... you have a version of the autopsy nobody has

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in

regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit

or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all

has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably

a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation

the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent,

since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in

the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the

right of the backbone, which is below the place where the

picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt

in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike

any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a

finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

[Robert Prudhomme]

"“This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” A bullet entering at a downward angle could not have come out through the throat, as the single–bullet theory demanded.

• “Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.” It became known several years later that the pathologists had been forbidden, presumably by one or more of their military superiors, to dissect the back and throat wounds (see Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, pp.115–8). Such dissection would almost certainly have confirmed or denied the possibility that a single bullet had passed through President Kennedy’s body and had caused both wounds."

Hi Ray

I was hoping someone would post this. I'm afraid Humes was either very incompetent or, for some very odd reason, was attempting to mislead others with his examinations.

Let's deal with things one at a time.

“This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.”

As the 6th floor window was only 62 feet above street level, JFK would have to have been shot in the back from a helicopter (or UFO?) for the trajectory to have been 45-60°. As much as this determination of his helps the argument against a bullet exiting JFK's throat, it is not realistic, and goes a long way toward proving Humes' incompetence.

“Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.”

Okay, I would like everyone reading this to take a measuring tape or ruler and measure the diameter of one of their fingers at the first knuckle. My baby finger is just under 3/4" in diameter, and the rest are over 3/4". I am not a small person yet I am by no means a giant, and I would say this is a fairly average measurement.

Do you know how small a 6.5mm bullet is? The 6.5mm Carcano bullet is 6.8 mm or .267 inch in diameter. As .250 inch = 1/4 inch, it can be said that a Carcano bullet is a mere few hundredths of an inch over 1/4 inch in diameter.

But how big is 1/4 inch? Well, I have in my hand a clear plastic ruler and an ordinary HB pencil, and that pencil is greater in diameter than 1/4 inch; in fact, it is just a touch over 5/16ths of an inch, or 1/16th of an inch larger than 1/4 inch.

Another way to think of the Carcano bullet is to compare it to the humble .22 long rifle bullet, which measures .223 inch or 5.7 mm in diameter. This makes the Carcano bullet a mere .044 inch or 1.1 mm larger in diameter than the tiny .22 long rifle bullet. You would have difficulty telling the two apart just by looking at holes in a target.

Now, skin does have a certain limited elasticity but, is it really possible to get a 3/4 inch diameter finger into a hole smaller than a pencil? Did Humes have fingers like a four year old girl?

[Greg Burnham]

You're assuming, of course, that the wound was made at a point on Elm that would be inconsistent with such a trajectory. However, we have no reliable source to cite for the exact location of the limo.

You are assuming, of course, that the shot that caused this wound originated from the south east corner of the TSBD. We have no "admissible" evidence to indicate that a shot was fired from that location by Oswald or by anyone else.

You are assuming, of course, that the wound was caused by a 6.5 mm Carcano round. This has not been proved.

If we rely on the autopsy, in order to impeach itself, if not impeach the WCR, the autopsy evidence indicates, as you have alluded--not only to the incompetence of Humes--but if he is correct in his report on this issue of the size of the wound and if Sibert and O'Neil reported accurately what they witnessed, then we have evidence that the round that caused the back wound was NOT a 6.5 mm Carcano round at all!

IMO: This is yet another example of how micro-analyzing the evidence leads nowhere except in circles. Again, I submit, this is not the fault of the researchers attempting to discover the truth. Rather it was and remains the intent of those who conspired to "keep us busy" seeking answers to questions that may not be knowable.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Burnham,

You write:

" Rather it was and remains the intent of those who conspired to "keep us busy" seeking answers to questions that may not be knowable."

I think about this a lot. I seem to recall Vince Salandria's first raising this point.

It's easy for me to imagine the story becomes known. Some, like I, will say, "Geez, I got that right, but boy I was sure wrong there."

Edited May 25, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Robert Prudhomme]

You're assuming, of course, that the wound was made at a point on Elm that would be inconsistent with such a trajectory. However, we have no reliable source to cite for the exact location of the limo.

You are assuming, of course, that the shot that caused this wound originated from the south east corner of the TSBD. We have no "admissible" evidence to indicate that a shot was fired from that location by Oswald or by anyone else.

You are assuming, of course, that the wound was caused by a 6.5 mm Carcano round. This has not been proved.

If we rely on the autopsy, in order to impeach itself, if not impeach the WCR, the autopsy evidence indicates, as you have alluded--not only to the incompetence of Humes--but if he is correct in his report on this issue of the size of the wound and if Sibert and O'Neil reported accurately what they witnessed, then we have evidence that the round that caused the back wound was NOT a 6.5 mm Carcano round at all!

IMO: This is yet another example of how micro-analyzing the evidence leads nowhere except in circles. Again, I submit, this is not the fault of the researchers attempting to discover the truth. Rather it was and remains the intent of those who conspired to "keep us busy" seeking answers to questions that may not be knowable.

These are all very good points, Greg. I understand what you are saying, as well, about the origin of the shot and the calibre of the bullet.

It is possible that JFK was shot earlier than when he was out of sight of Zapruder behind the Stemmons sign but, what is the probability? It is true that Zapruder claimed to have filmed the limo non-stop from turning the corner, and that JFK might have been wounded in this missing piece of film but, he does not appear to be wounded in the short film segment of him before the sign. To have him wounded right at the corner from, say, one of the other buildings, would give us the steep 45-60° trajectory, but would require alteration of the film to remove the frames from before the sign.

Barring massive alteration of the Z film pre-Stemmons sign, I believe the greatest probability for JFK's back shot is still when he was behind the sign, totally contradicting Humes' report of a steep trajectory.

Humes reported a 4x7 mm entry wound in JFK's back. I would say this is totally consistent with the entry wound of a small calibre rifle, such as a 6.5mm Carcano. It must be remembered that entry wounds are often smaller than the diameter of the bullet that caused them.

This still does not tell us what became of the bullet, though.

[Greg Burnham]

Ok, I'll bite:

Where did the bullet go, Robert?