Triangular Fragment Question

[Eddy Bainbridge]

The article by John Hunt 'A Demonstrable Impossiblity' https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm is one of my favourite JKKA articles. It provides multiple pieces of evidence that the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel were dishonest, even if one accepts their published report had been altered without their permission.

Can anyone answer a question the article presented to me about the Triangular Fragment. It appears proven that the fragment is frontal bone (In front of the coronal suture). Hunt's article postulates a location (Figure H14) but his proposed location has the bevelling (suggesting a bullet impact point) orientated so the bullet/bullet fragment is exiting the skull. I want to know if it is possible that this fragment could actually be orientated to reveal a bullet entrance in the forehead? Clearly there is witness evidence to support this location.

Thankyou in advance for any guidance.

[Micah Mileto]

The alleged beveling was outward beveling, indicating a partial exit wound. There is, however, what looks like lead on the outer corner edge, but there is no outright proof that this represents an entry or tangential bullet strike.

[Pat Speer]

I built upon John's research a bit, and came to realize the HSCA medical panel (in fact Dr. Michael Baden) not only ignored the interpretation of Dr. Angel re the placement of the triangular fragment, but decided to re-interpret the x-ray of the triangular fragment so that the metal fragments within the beveling on what was once the outside of the triangular fragment were now on the inside. (This was done, of course, to hide that a bullet broke up upon impact at this location.)

This is the kind of thing that a panel of experts could look at and correct, and essentially re-open the case. But unfortunately the real experts won't come anywhere near this case.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Many thanks for replying Pat. I think I am misunderstanding what you believe. Are you saying the triangular fragment was hit from the outside? Do you mean by a tangential shot from the rear? or a frontal/side shot? Do you think Dr Angel got the position right? or that he got the general location right?

In terms of the large bullet fragment next to JFK's eye socket; was that the result of the 'triangular fragment' bullet or another shot?

[Pat Speer]

57 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Many thanks for replying Pat. I think I am misunderstanding what you believe. Are you saying the triangular fragment was hit from the outside? Do you mean by a tangential shot from the rear? or a frontal/side shot? Do you think Dr Angel got the position right? or that he got the general location right?

In terms of the large bullet fragment next to JFK's eye socket; was that the result of the 'triangular fragment' bullet or another shot?

Angel's orientation for the fragment, along with a heap of other stuff, led me to believe the bullet impacted at the supposed exit. (While I suspect this was from behind, I accept it could be from the front as well.) In keeping with this was that the lead found at the beveled exit was on the outside. It was only a few years ago, after re-reading Hunt's article and looking at Baden/Dox's drawing of the triangular fragment, that I realized that Baden had dishonestly misrepresented the location of the lead found in the margins of the exit. He depicted the lead on the inside of the skull, which is fairly bizarre, and proof, IMO, he knew the implications of the lead being on the outside. He just moved it, much as he moved the Harper fragment to a location where it didn't fit because the location chosen by Angel meant the exit was not the exit of an intact bullet, and much as his friend Fisher had just moved the small entrance wound on the back of the head when he couldn't get the trajectories to line up. 

While some see this case as a whodunit, and are trying to find a way to prove the guilty parties, I focus mainly on the cover-up. It haunts me to my core that the likes of Baden and Spitz have been able to spew their nonsense when it's quite clear they misled the public on point after point. I mean, some choose to believe some government lackey made the FPP report say the Bethesda witnesses all disagreed with the Parkland witnesses. My money is on Baden himself, perhaps in collaboration with Purdy and Blakey. They decided there was only one shooter and spun spun spun the evidence to make it appear so, to the extent the report was basically a sham. 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Angel's orientation for the fragment, along with a heap of other stuff, led me to believe the bullet impacted at the supposed exit. (While I suspect this was from behind, I accept it could be from the front as well.) In keeping with this was that the lead found at the beveled exit was on the outside. It was only a few years ago, after re-reading Hunt's article and looking at Baden/Dox's drawing of the triangular fragment, that I realized that Baden had dishonestly misrepresented the location of the lead found in the margins of the exit. He depicted the lead on the inside of the skull, which is fairly bizarre, and proof, IMO, he knew the implications of the lead being on the outside. He just moved it, much as he moved the Harper fragment to a location where it didn't fit because the location chosen by Angel meant the exit was not the exit of an intact bullet, and much as his friend Fisher had just moved the small entrance wound on the back of the head when he couldn't get the trajectories to line up. 

While some see this case as a whodunit, and are trying to find a way to prove the guilty parties, I focus mainly on the cover-up. It haunts me to my core that the likes of Baden and Spitz have been able to spew their nonsense when it's quite clear they misled the public on point after point. I mean, some choose to believe some government lackey made the FPP report say the Bethesda witnesses all disagreed with the Parkland witnesses. My money is on Baden himself, perhaps in collaboration with Purdy and Blakey. They decided there was only one shooter and spun spun spun the evidence to make it appear so, to the extent the report was basically a sham. 

 

Many thanks Pat. I am very naive. I had assumed that investigations subsequent to the Warren commission were honest,but hampered by previous events. I don't think that now. The HSCA was a most bizarre concoction. It's conclusions can be seen as just sufficient (barely) to calm the furore after the film, but satisfactory or convincing to noone.