Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Sandy Larsen]

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

Bullet fragments?? What bullet fragments? This is the first time I've heard that fragments were found in the back wound.

Is O'Connor just postulating here, or did he (and others) actually see the fragments?

It does look like he's trying to explain the bruise to the right-lung fissure that Robert has discussed.

(P.S. Thanks for posting this new-to-me diagram.)

[Sandy Larsen]

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.

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?

Thanks Robert for going to the effort of explaining this. You say:

"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."

I for one take Humes testimony, if it contradicts someone else's, with a grain of salt. Not that I think he's a xxxx. I think he was boxed into a lie by a higher ranking officer.

[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.

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.

But I thought it was your belief that a frangible bullet is what caused the back wound. I thought that that was how you explained that there were no fragments found. Now you're saying you doubt that could be the case because the bullet wouldn't fragment.

Please explain. Maybe I misunderstood or read too much into what you said.

Also, wasn't your point, when posting the testimony about the collapsed lung, to support the idea of a bullet particle having passed through the pleura? (I don't remember your actually stating that. But there had to have been some point in posting that information. I suppose.)

[Sandy Larsen]

Absolutely, Bob!

From the previous thread on this back wound, I see three major questions here:

1. velocity of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this allows calculation of the impact velocity)

2. trajectory of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this determines point of impact)

3. could a 'deformed' bullet inflict the type of back wound reported? (length and diameter of Humes' little finger)

FWIW, my little finger is 3/4" in diameter at the 2nd knuckle, and from 2nd knuckle to the tip is 2". I am 6' tall with a medium build, and Humes was 6'4" with a large build.

Tumbling or not, 3/4" is rather a large hole for a Carcano bullet, isn't it?

Tom

Humes testified to the WC that the wound was 4 mm by 7 mm (5/32" x 9/32") in size, with the long axis being parallel with the long axis of the body.

I'm 6' 2" with a large build, but not large hands. My pinkie is pretty much the same size as yours, Tom. It's hard to believe the bullet hole would easily stretch far enough for a finger to probe more than 1/4" or so deep.

Perhaps Humes lied and made the wound out to be smaller than it really was. Or maybe Jim Jenkins lied about seeing the pleura indent as Humes probed with his finger. Or maybe the flesh could be stretched enough for a finger to be inserted.

[Sandy Larsen]

Hi Bob,

If the distance between the rifle and the branches is 25 yards as Chris has indicated, then how far away from the branches is the spot where the two holes were an inch apart? How far is the target from the branches? He doesn't say. The fact that at some unknown distance from the branches the bullets flight path is altered by one inch tells us nothing. However, if we knew the distance from the target at which the flight path was altered by one inch, and in what direction it was altered we could calculate the angle the bullet was deflected. With this angle you could project the miss distance at any range.

Instead of this, he makes a big deal out of saying the trajectory was only altered by an inch, just an inch. He is implying that this small amount of alteration is insignificant, but then goes on to state that the bullet would have ended up in the pavement. If the board with the two holes is close to the branches then obviously the angle subtended by that one inch at a distance of another 75 yards means a significant miss. The further the board with the two holes is from the branches then the smaller the miss distance. Assuming the board with the two holes was at 75 feet from the branch then 1 inch would indicate a very small angle of deflection. This was my point. He doesn't state the distances so we don't know.

Since they had the equipment, they could have measured the speed of the bullet after it impacted the branches. That would have been nice to know.

If we assume the target was a further 25 yards from the branches, then the results of this particular experiment are telling us that the impact with a branch would have deflected the shot too much to have turned a head shot into a back hit. The bullet penetrated 36" of pine. How much of its almost 2100 fps did it lose after penetrating 4 small branches? Could this bullet have caused a shallow back wound?

I'll have to watch the full video to see what their objective was.

Tom

Tom,

I got the same impression you did from the video. The commentator at first seems to be saying that the branches didn't make much of a difference, only to conclude a moment later that the shot missed its target and hit the pavement instead. I think that maybe the script writer for the show didn't quite get it and mis-wrote that part.

As for the position of the target (the so called "witness panel"), to me it looked to be placed perhaps a couple yards beyond the array of branches. And I assumed that's where it was during the test.

Assuming that to be the case -- a 1 inch deflection 2 yards out -- then the deflection at 25 yards would be a 12 1/2 inches. That might have still hit the president had the sniper been aiming for the head and if the deflection happened to have been downward. Or it could have hit someone else in the car or the car itself. Who knows.

Regardless, the results of this test aren't very useful for the back wound case. I think Robert is right, that the bullet was still traveling too fast to have resulted in a shallow back wound.

[Chris Davidson]

Another experiment.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-40-deflected-bullets-and-the-box-o-truth/

[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.

But I thought it was your belief that a frangible bullet is what caused the back wound. I thought that that was how you explained that there were no fragments found. Now you're saying you doubt that could be the case because the bullet wouldn't fragment.

Please explain. Maybe I misunderstood or read too much into what you said.

Also, wasn't your point, when posting the testimony about the collapsed lung, to support the idea of a bullet particle having passed through the pleura? (I don't remember your actually stating that. But there had to have been some point in posting that information. I suppose.)

This is going to get very technical but I will try to simplify things as much as possible.

It may sound odd but, in order to understand how a frangible bullet functions in a wound, it is necessary to first understand how a hollow point bullet functions in a wound.

Winchester "PDX1 Defender" 7.62x39mm 120 grain hollow point.

As you know, the bullets fired at JFK were supposed to have been FMJ bullets, possessing a bullet jacket that completely envelops the nose of the bullet. This type of bullet is universally banned for hunting purposes for one simple reason. It is extremely resistant to expansion in a wound, and has a tendency to pass straight through its intended victim instead of opening up and inflicting mortal damage.

On the other end of the spectrum are hollow point bullets. These bullets expand so well in wounds, new designs, such as the PDX1 Defender above, possess features that limit the expansion of these bullets to a point midway down the bullet.

Two important things to know about hollow points. 1. They will not "explode" on the outer surface of the skull in a head shot. I have taken head shots on deer with hollow point bullets, and they make the same tiny entrance wound through skull bone as any other bullet does. 2. The forces that cause a hollow point bullet to open up and expand work better in soft tissue, such as brain, lung or other organs.

Here is how they work. Let us say a hollow point bullet enters the skull at 2000 fps, making an entrance wound through the skull bone not much larger than the diameter of the bullet, and retaining the majority of its velocity (and energy) once inside the skull. As it passes through semi-liquid brain matter, the tiny cavity at the nose of the bullet fills up with semi-liquid matter and begins exerting an enormous hydraulic pressure on the interior walls of this tiny cavity. This hydraulic pressure causes the soft hollow point to begin opening up, allowing the hollow point to capture even more semi-liquid material and exert even higher pressures on the interior of the bullet. Within a couple of inches, it often will look like this:

6.5x55mm Swedish hollow point bullet before and after firing. This bullet possesses expansion limiting features that do not allow the opening up of the nose of the bullet past the point seen above. Without this, this bullet would have likely fragmented into many pieces.

Of course, as the bullet opens up, the surface area of its face gets larger and creates more drag passing through the brain, slowing the bullet down and creating a large pressure wave ahead of the bullet, often to the point the bullet will come to a complete halt and transfer all of its energy to surrounding tissue. This transfer of energy, plus the pressure wave, is what creates the massive amount of damage in a head wound. Often, the pressure wave is so great, a large section of skull will be blown out, and not always in line with the path of the bullet. Nor does the bullet have to exit to create such a blowout.

Modern lethal frangible bullets are essentially jacketed hollow point bullets with one major difference. Instead of a solid lead core, they use something completely different.

The core of a frangible bullet begins as lead (or other metal) powder. This metal powder is then formed into the shape of a bullet and either compressed by several thousand pounds of pressure or glued or sintered until it becomes a solid bullet. This bullet is then encased in a hollow point copper alloy jacket.

Dynamic Research Technologies frangible hollow point bullet in cartridge, calibre unknown. Note the hollow point opening on the tip of the bullet. http://www.drtammo.com/DRT-Technology

When the frangible bullet is fired at the skull of a game animal, it makes the same tiny entrance wound as the other bullets. As it passes through the semi-liquid brain matter, the hollow point opening fills up with fluid the same as the hollow point bullet, and the fluid exerts the same massive hydraulic force on the core of this bullet. This time, instead of just expanding, the massive hydraulic pressure exerts enough force to cause the compressed metal core to disintegrate back into a cloud of powdered metal; stopping the bullet instantly and transferring ALL of its energy to surrounding tissue. Needless to say, the results are devastating, and qualify these bullets as some of the most lethal bullets on the market.

So, getting back to the back wound, if the frangible bullet had "come apart" in the shallow back wound, there would have been much more damage visible than just a tiny entrance wound. I am saying the entire bullet went through the pleura and entered the lung, disintegrating there. Remember the hundreds of tiny metallic particles seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull? Obvious evidence of a frangible bullet that has disintegrated.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Absolutely, Bob!

From the previous thread on this back wound, I see three major questions here:

1. velocity of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this allows calculation of the impact velocity)

2. trajectory of the bullet post tree limb encounter (this determines point of impact)

3. could a 'deformed' bullet inflict the type of back wound reported? (length and diameter of Humes' little finger)

FWIW, my little finger is 3/4" in diameter at the 2nd knuckle, and from 2nd knuckle to the tip is 2". I am 6' tall with a medium build, and Humes was 6'4" with a large build.

Tumbling or not, 3/4" is rather a large hole for a Carcano bullet, isn't it?

Tom

Humes testified to the WC that the wound was 4 mm by 7 mm (5/32" x 9/32") in size, with the long axis being parallel with the long axis of the body.

I'm 6' 2" with a large build, but not large hands. My pinkie is pretty much the same size as yours, Tom. It's hard to believe the bullet hole would easily stretch far enough for a finger to probe more than 1/4" or so deep.

Perhaps Humes lied and made the wound out to be smaller than it really was. Or maybe Jim Jenkins lied about seeing the pleura indent as Humes probed with his finger. Or maybe the flesh could be stretched enough for a finger to be inserted.

"Curiouser and curiouser" or "Here we are going down the rabbit hole....."

[Robert Prudhomme]

Another experiment.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-40-deflected-bullets-and-the-box-o-truth/

Interesting experiment. I know the old timers around here always felt the Winchester Model 94 30-30 was a good "bush gun" as they felt its bullets would not be affected by going through a few branches, especially if the bullets were Round Nose Flat Points:

It was believed the flat point would resist deflection better than a spitzer point or a round nose. The flat point bullets were used in this rifle because it has a tubular magazine, with the bullets stacked on top of each other. As one bullet nose would be in contact with the primer at the base of the next bullet, a pointed bullet could accidentally detonate the primer of the next bullet, should the rifle be dropped, and the flat point was believed to be the safest thing for this rifle.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Chris Davidson]

Tom's description:

Just to clarify, from Tom:

"First shot struck tree limb, tumbled in flight, struck in base first attitude, and small 4.5mm lead protrusion out base of bullet sheared off and came out the anterior neck of JFK."

[Ron Ecker]

"First shot struck tree limb, tumbled in flight, struck in base first attitude, and small 4.5mm lead protrusion out base of bullet sheared off and came out the anterior neck of JFK."

Again I have to ask, what shooter would put himself in such a firing position that this would happen?

It may be a dumb or naive question, I don't shoot guns, I'm just trying to think like an assassin with a rather important job to do and plenty of time to think ahead and decide where to shoot from.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"First shot struck tree limb, tumbled in flight, struck in base first attitude, and small 4.5mm lead protrusion out base of bullet sheared off and came out the anterior neck of JFK."

Again I have to ask, what shooter would put himself in such a firing position that this would happen?

It may be a dumb or naive question, I don't shoot guns, I'm just trying to think like an assassin with a rather important job to do and plenty of time to think ahead and decide where to shoot from.

Obviously, it was intended for us to consider this data, and conclude that a panicky young amateur assassin with the initials "LHO" would be the kind of shooter to put himself in this position.

Purvis' "theory" was just different enough from the WC story to make the more naive among us believe he supported the concept of a conspiracy. It was also plausible enough to drive that thin wedge of doubt into the mind of researchers, as nonsensical as it was to anyone with any understanding of rifles.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I mean, think about it for a second. The bullet only has enough energy to penetrate an inch, yet a flake from the base has enough energy to make it all the way to the throat wound?

Pull the other one!

[Sandy Larsen]

But I thought it was your belief that a frangible bullet is what caused the back wound. I thought that that was how you explained that there were no fragments found. Now you're saying you doubt that could be the case because the bullet wouldn't fragment.

Please explain. Maybe I misunderstood or read too much into what you said.

Also, wasn't your point, when posting the testimony about the collapsed lung, to support the idea of a bullet particle having passed through the pleura? (I don't remember your actually stating that. But there had to have been some point in posting that information. I suppose.)

This is going to get very technical but I will try to simplify things as much as possible.

o

o

o

So, getting back to the back wound, if the frangible bullet had "come apart" in the shallow back wound, there would have been much more damage visible than just a tiny entrance wound. I am saying the entire bullet went through the pleura and entered the lung, disintegrating there. Remember the hundreds of tiny metallic particles seen in the x-rays of JFK's skull? Obvious evidence of a frangible bullet that has disintegrated.

Thanks for explanation... very interesting, and useful.

I had wrongly assumed the frangible bullet wasn't jacketed.

If you're right about the frangible bullet disintegrating in the lung, that would contradict a good deal of testimony from the three autopsy physicians. For example, that the pleura was intact and that x-rays of the chest revealed nothing. No surprise there. (BTW, I just discovered that pneumothorax (punctured lung) is nowhere to be found in the official autopsy. And that there are no chest x-rays. Gee, I wonder why.)

Your theory also contradicts James Jenkins, who said he saw the pleural membrane as Humes probed it with his finger, and that it was intact. If Jenkins is the only witness to have seen and reported that, then he could be mistaken and your theory could be right.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Your theory also contradicts James Jenkins, who said he saw the pleural membrane as Humes probed it with his finger, and that it was intact. If Jenkins is the only witness to have seen and reported that, then he could be mistaken and your theory could be right."

As I said, Jenkins' statement about seeing Humes' finger pushing on the pleural membrane makes a prevaricator out of Humes or Jenkins; for the simple fact that Humes would not be discussing the use of a probe to explore the back wound if he knew the wound ended at the pleura.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme