The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail and WC Apologists

[Michael Griffith]

In other forums, I have tried repeatedly to get WC apologists to explain the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The only fragment trail seen on the extant x-rays is a high fragment trail that is at least 2 inches higher than the one described in the autopsy report and is concentrated on the opposite side of the skull.

The autopsy report says the fragment trail started at the EOP and extended to a point just above the right eye. WC apologists need to explain (1) why this low fragment trail does not appear on the extant x-rays, (2) why there are no fragments near the EOP, and (3) how three autopsy pathologists could have confused the plainly visible and obvious high fragment trail for a trail that started about 3 inches lower, especially when they had the EOP as a reference site, as well as the hairline.

The high fragment trail on the extant x-rays is above the debunked cowlick entry site but does not extend to or from the cowlick; rather, it consists of a cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, and from that cloud it dissipates upward toward the back of the head without reaching the cowlick. Now, just try to imagine how in the world a bullet that entered at the EOP, at a 15-degree downward angle no less, could leave such a fragment trail.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Pierre Finck, the only board-certified forensic pathologist of the three autopsy doctors, insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw the low entry point described in the autopsy report. He told the HSCA that it was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP. When the FPP showed Finck the back-of-head photo that has a small reddish spot in the cowlick, he refused to say that this was the entry wound, insisted that the back-of-head photo was shot from a distorted angle, and said that the photo did not show the wound that he saw on the body itself (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, pp. 82-102).

Then, the FPP members pressed him about the red spot on the back-of-head photo and showed him enhanced and colorized versions of the red spot, but Finck would not budge, and at one point he even asked how the photographs had been authenticated as coming from the autopsy:

          Dr. Finck. I don't know what it [the red spot] is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy? (p. 89)

Finck added that he asked for pictures to be taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, a standard autopsy procedure, but that he never saw such photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he reviewed. When asked specifically if the red spot was any kind of a wound or defect, Finck said no:

          Mr. Purdy. One final question. At the time of the autopsy do you recall anything at the upper area where the red spot is at the caldic? Do you remember anything that would correspond to that red spot? 

          Dr. Finck. No. No, there was only one wound of entry in the back of the head. (p. 94)

Edited May 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

The EOP entrance is right where the doctors said it was. It's just hard to make out in the photos, seeing as they failed to shave the hair. But it's there, alright, and is readily visible in gifs combining the color and b and w back of the head photos. 

Here it is in a still. 

Now look at that location in the gif. 

 

P.S. This is discussed in great detail in Chapter 13 at patspeer.com, which also features a large blow-up of the gif above. 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Edited May 26, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The EOP entrance is right where the doctors said it was. It's just hard to make out in the photos, seeing as they failed to shave the hair. But it's there, alright, and is readily visible in gifs combining the color and b and w back of the head photos. 

Here it is in a still. 

Now look at that location in the gif. 

 

P.S. This is discussed in great detail in Chapter 13 at patspeer.com, which also features a large blow-up of the gif above. 

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Pat, I agree completely that the pathologists were correct about the location of the rear head entry wound (which is one reason the absence of a low fragment trail on the skull x-rays is so problematic). In connection with this, it should be noted that the ARRB forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said the skull x-rays showed no evidence of an entrance wound in the cowlick area. Moreover, Dr. Ubelaker said that the photos of the back of the head support the EOP entry site, not the cowlick site. 

Dr. Ubelaker was “surprised that the HSCA had determined the red spot in the back-of-the-head photos was the entry wound on President Kennedy’s head.” He added,

          “The red spot in the upper part of the photo near the end of the ruler does not really look like a wound. The red spot looks like a spot of blood--it could be a wound but probably isn't. The white spot which is much lower in the picture near the hairline could be a flesh wound and is much more likely to be a flesh wound than the red spot higher in the photograph.”

Interestingly, this is exactly what the three autopsy doctors argued when several of the HSCA FPP members tried to pressure them to repudiate the EOP site and endorse the cowlick entry site. (Humes finally and very reluctantly did endorse the cowlick site, but later repudiated it and returned to his original position.)

Even Dr. Larry Sturdivan eventually came around to the position that the EOP entry site is correct. 

All of this brings us back to the question at hand: Why is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? 

A related question is, Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious, clear high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays? 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Tom Gram]

I believe one of the current en vogue lone assassin theories on the head wounds is that the bullet entered the EOP, lost stability/fragmented, then curved through the skull and exploded out of the top/front/right of JFK’s head due to the temporary cavity. Larry Sturdivan is the main proponent of this theory, but he explains the fragment trail by saying that the fragments leaked towards the top of JFK’s head with blood flow, which seems like a stretch - and I don’t think he has any evidence at all to support that. I also think that Sturdivan claims that the temporary cavity occurred before the bullet exit, which runs into problems with the size of the exit wound and missing scalp, as Pat Speer has pointed out. 

In Figure 2 of the paper below is a gelatin block shot with an FMJ bullet from a rifle. All the fragments are only located scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity and behind it i.e. in the direction of the bullet exit, and large fragments are located on both sides of the cavity.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Could something like this potentially explain the fragment trail? In other words, is it possible that a bullet entered the EOP, partially fragmented, then the semi-intact bullet reached maximum yaw around the inner table of the top JFK’s skull so the large exit wound occurred within the plane of the temporary cavity - which could potentially explain its unusually large size and the scalp defects -  and the fragments were scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity with the remaining fragments flying out of the limo, leaving a line of fragments across the very top of JFK’s skull? 

I have no idea, but I think it’s helpful to try to understand exactly what would need to happen for the WC head shot scenario to actually work, even if that requires making assumptions you don’t necessarily agree with - like the autopsy photos being totally genuine, etc. If it’s not possible it’s not possible - and I have plenty of doubts - but wound ballistics is obscenely complicated so I’m just trying to be thorough. 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I believe one of the current en vogue lone assassin theories on the head wounds is that the bullet entered the EOP, lost stability/fragmented, then curved through the skull and exploded out of the top/front/right of JFK’s head due to the temporary cavity. Larry Sturdivan is the main proponent of this theory, but he explains the fragment trail by saying that the fragments leaked towards the top of JFK’s head with blood flow, which seems like a stretch - and I don’t think he has any evidence at all to support that. I also think that Sturdivan claims that the temporary cavity occurred before the bullet exit, which runs into problems with the size of the exit wound and missing scalp, as Pat Speer has pointed out. 

In Figure 2 of the paper below is a gelatin block shot with an FMJ bullet from a rifle. All the fragments are only located scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity and behind it i.e. in the direction of the bullet exit, and large fragments are located on both sides of the cavity.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Could something like this potentially explain the fragment trail? In other words, is it possible that a bullet entered the EOP, partially fragmented, then the semi-intact bullet reached maximum yaw around the inner table of the top JFK’s skull so the large exit wound occurred within the plane of the temporary cavity - which could potentially explain its unusually large size and the scalp defects -  and the fragments were scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity with the remaining fragments flying out of the limo, leaving a line of fragments across the very top of JFK’s skull? 

I have no idea, but I think it’s helpful to try to understand exactly what would need to happen for the WC head shot scenario to actually work, even if that requires making assumptions you don’t necessarily agree with - like the autopsy photos being totally genuine, etc. If it’s not possible it’s not possible - and I have plenty of doubts - but wound ballistics is obscenely complicated so I’m just trying to be thorough. 

Yes, Sturdivan attempts to deal with the impossible trajectory posed by the EOP site by theorizing that the bullet, after supposedly entering the skull at a 15-degree downward angle, magically made a sharp right turn and also veered upward to exit the upper-front part of the right parietal bone (The JFK Myths, p. 180, Figure 54).

I suspect that Sturdivan knows better. He must know that not one of the bullets fired into skulls in the WC's wound ballistics tests veered so dramatically. 

I find it interesting that Sturdivan says nothing about the fact that the fragment trail described in the autopsy report is not seen in the skull x-rays, and that the autopsy report fails to mention the high fragment trail seen in the skull x-rays.

 

[Michael Crane]

Remember that Dr.Ebersole was told to tape bullet fragments onto the X-rays.

[W. Niederhut]

Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the skull X-rays has now proven that the fatal bullet caused a right frontal entry wound--consistent with the obvious violent, retrograde motion of JFK's head, and the retrograde propulsion of the occipital skull fragment that was blasted behind the limo.

   Basic Newtonian physics+Parkland witness testimony.

   The skull exit wound was occipital.

    Not to mention that a bullet fired from a Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of a cadaver's face.

  

[Michael Griffith]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

In Figure 2 of the paper below is a gelatin block shot with an FMJ bullet from a rifle. All the fragments are only located scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity and behind it i.e. in the direction of the bullet exit, and large fragments are located on both sides of the cavity.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan-Kromeier/publication/236934203_The_varying_size_of_exit_wounds_from_center-fire_rifles_as_a_consequence_of_the_temporary_cavity/links/00b7d51aae58848a31000000/The-varying-size-of-exit-wounds-from-center-fire-rifles-as-a-consequence-of-the-temporary-cavity.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Could something like this potentially explain the fragment trail? In other words, is it possible that a bullet entered the EOP, partially fragmented, then the semi-intact bullet reached maximum yaw around the inner table of the top JFK’s skull so the large exit wound occurred within the plane of the temporary cavity - which could potentially explain its unusually large size and the scalp defects -  and the fragments were scattered across the diameter of the temporary cavity with the remaining fragments flying out of the limo, leaving a line of fragments across the very top of JFK’s skull? 

Since the gelatin blocks were not encased in any substance similar to skull bone, the test discussed in the paper can't tell us much about JFK's head wounds and the autopsy skull x-rays. 

The problems posed by the EOP entry wound include the following:

-- There is no way that a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have entered at the EOP site and then caused the exit wound described in the autopsy report. The bullet would have struck at a downward angle of 15 degrees. JFK would have had to be leaning far forward, about 60 degrees forward, to make the trajectory work, but the Zapruder film shows he was not leaning that far forward.

-- The wound makes it impossible to explain the two small bullet fragments on the back of the skull (one of which is inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object), since both fragments are several inches above the EOP and are on the outer table of the skull. 

-- There is no way that a bullet entering the EOP site at downward angle of 15 degrees could have created the high fragment trail now seen on the skull x-rays. 

-- The extant skull x-rays show no bullet fragments at or near the EOP site, yet the autopsy doctors insisted there was a fragment trail that started at the EOP and went slightly upward to a point just above the right eye (the right orbit). 

A key point to keep in mind is that when the autopsy doctors reviewed the autopsy materials for five hours in early 1967, they wrote a report about their review, and in that report they reaffirmed that the autopsy report's EOP entry point was correct. They even said that four of the autopsy photos proved this location was correct. I quote:

          The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6 mm (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance (a bony protuberance at the back of the head). . . . Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42, and 43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above autopsy data were accurate (Attestation of Examination of Autopsy Photographs and Radiographs, 1/26/67, p. 3)

However, in a fascinating omission, the autopsy doctors did not mention the EOP-to-right-orbit fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Humes discussed this fragment trail in detail in his WC testimony (2 H 353-354). Needless to say, a fragment trail from the EOP to the right orbit would be powerful evidence that a bullet struck near the EOP and ranged slightly upward. Yet, oddly enough, after reviewing the autopsy materials for five hours, the autopsy doctors said nothing about this fragment trail in their review report, even though they were clearly trying to defend their autopsy findings. So, they either inexplicably failed to mention a key piece of evidence for their claims about the head shot or that key piece of evidence was no longer on the skull x-rays.  

Edited May 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the skull X-rays has now proven that the fatal bullet caused a right frontal entry wound--consistent with the obvious violent, retrograde motion of JFK's head, and the retrograde propulsion of the occipital skull fragment that was blasted behind the limo.

   Basic Newtonian physics+Parkland witness testimony.

   The skull exit wound was occipital.

    Not to mention that a bullet fired from a Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of a cadaver's face.

  

I've met Mike a couple of times, and he's a nice guy. But he's not a forensic radiologist and as of yet no forensic radiologists have supported his (and Mantik's) interpretation of the x-rays.  So, one can't rightly aay he's proved anything, Not yet anyhow. 

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Dr. Michael Chesser's analysis of the skull X-rays has now proven that the fatal bullet caused a right frontal entry wound--consistent with the obvious violent, retrograde motion of JFK's head, and the retrograde propulsion of the occipital skull fragment that was blasted behind the limo.

   Basic Newtonian physics+Parkland witness testimony.

   The skull exit wound was occipital.

    Not to mention that a bullet fired from a Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of a cadaver's face.  

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I've met Mike a couple of times, and he's a nice guy. But he's not a forensic radiologist and as of yet no forensic radiologists have supported his (and Mantik's) interpretation of the x-rays.  So, one can't rightly aay he's proved anything, Not yet anyhow. 

Incidentally, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, said that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front:

          The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. . . . (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Anyway, regarding Chesser and Mantik, we're not just talking about interpretation but mutually corroborating sets of optical density (OD) measurements. 

True, Chesser is not a forensic radiologist, but he is a neurologist. Many neurologists are just as skilled at reading x-rays as radiologists. Neurologists sometimes do their own x-ray readings without consulting with a radiologist. 

The ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding that the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray has no corresponding image on the lateral x-rays, which is a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine. Mantik had already confirmed the absence of a corresponding image on the lateral x-rays via OD measurements. 

Fitzpatrick also agreed with Mantik's finding that the x-rays show frontal bone missing all the way to the hairline (or, to put it another way, that the frontal bone is intact only up to the hairline). Yet, the HSCA FPP claimed that the frontal bone was intact all the way back to the coronal suture (HSCA Exhibit F-66). 

Fitzpatrick indicated to Doug Horne that he saw no importance in Mantik's OD measurements. When Mantik politely attempted to get Fitzpatrick to explain why he felt this way, Fitzpatrick declined to do so. Due to the historic and disturbing implications of Mantik's OD measurements, his peers have so far declined to offer substantive commentary on them in writing. 

However, Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was then the chief medical physicist at Kodak, proof-read Mantik's original article on his OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays. 

The science of OD measurement is recognized and well established. As both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, Dr. Mantik is highly qualified to perform OD measurements. He uses them frequently in his medical practice as a radiation oncologist. 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Incidentally, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, one of the ARRB's forensic experts, said that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front:

          The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. . . . (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)

Anyway, regarding Chesser and Mantik, we're not just talking about interpretation but mutually corroborating sets of optical density (OD) measurements. 

True, Chesser is not a forensic radiologist, but he is a neurologist. Many neurologists are just as skilled at reading x-rays as radiologists. Neurologists sometimes do their own x-ray readings without consulting with a radiologist. 

The ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, confirmed Dr. Mantik's finding that the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray has no corresponding image on the lateral x-rays, which is a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine. Mantik had already confirmed the absence of a corresponding image on the lateral x-rays via OD measurements. 

Fitzpatrick also agreed with Mantik's finding that the x-rays show frontal bone missing all the way to the hairline (or, to put it another way, that the frontal bone is intact only up to the hairline). Yet, the HSCA FPP claimed that the frontal bone was intact all the way back to the coronal suture (HSCA Exhibit F-66). 

Fitzpatrick indicated to Doug Horne that he saw no importance in Mantik's OD measurements. When Mantik politely attempted to get Fitzpatrick to explain why he felt this way, Fitzpatrick declined to do so. Due to the historic and disturbing implications of Mantik's OD measurements, his peers have so far declined to offer substantive commentary on them in writing. 

However, Dr. Arthur G. Haus, who was then the chief medical physicist at Kodak, proof-read Mantik's original article on his OD measurements of the autopsy skull x-rays. 

The science of OD measurement is recognized and well established. As both a physicist and a radiation oncologist, Dr. Mantik is highly qualified to perform OD measurements. He uses them frequently in his medical practice as a radiation oncologist. 

I have a whole chapter on Mantik's findings. Many of his current claims are "corrections" after I pointed out problems with his earlier claims. 

[Michael Griffith]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have a whole chapter on Mantik's findings. Many of his current claims are "corrections" after I pointed out problems with his earlier claims. 

A few, not many, are corrections based on problems that you noted. 

Microsoft Word - SpeerCritique.docx (themantikview.org)

[Stu Wexler]

If I recall the high (cowlick) entry has 3 pieces of evidence cited in favor of it beyond the red spot.

1) The high fragment trail

2) The 6.5mm roundish metallic fragment in the vicinity 

3) The radiating fracture pattern near #2.

I know there are many problems with #2--  I got Sturdivan to expose one of them. Pat has an alternative explanation for #2 as I recall, but I would really want at least one forensic radiologist to confirm it. Sturdivan raised questions about #3 but that fracture pattern helped convince some of the top forensic pathologists and radiologists of the high wound.  

I do not know what to make of any of it. Randy Robertson believes two rear shots, right?  But there is also good reason to believe in a frontal shot. And all of it (the contradictions) seem to suggest tampering as being possible however much that would normally .

Stu

Edited May 27, 2023 by Stu Wexler

[Michael Griffith]

17 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

If I recall the high (cowlick) entry has 3 pieces of evidence cited in favor of it beyond the red spot.

1) The high fragment trail

2) The 6.5mm roundish metallic fragment in the vicinity 

3) The radiating fracture pattern near #2.

I know there are many problems with #2--  I got Sturdivan to expose one of them. Pat has an alternative explanation for #2 as I recall, but I would really want at least one forensic radiologist to confirm it. Sturdivan raised questions about #3 but that fracture pattern helped convince some of the top forensic pathologists and radiologists of the high wound.  

I do not know what to make of any of it. Randy Robertson believes two rear shots, right?  But there is also good reason to believe in a frontal shot. And all of it (the contradictions) seem to suggest tampering as being possible however much that would normally .

Stu

The high fragment trail does not extend to the supposed cowlick entry site. That trail is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head without reaching the alleged entry site. 

There is no 6.5 mm metal fragment on the skull x-rays. OD measurements prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. There is a small genuine fragment within the image of the 6.5 mm object. The object is a ghosted image that was placed over the small genuine fragment. 

There are actually two small fragments on the back of the head, one in the outer table of the skull and the other between the galea and the outer table. 

Keep in mind that the autopsy report says nothing about the 6.5 mm object, even though it is the largest and most obvious fragment-like object on the skull x-rays, and there's no way the pathologists could have confused it with the 7 x 2 mm fragment, which they removed.

No FMJ bullet could have deposited the back-of-head fragments. FMJ bullets do not behave in this manner. It is instructive that the HSCA FPP could not cite a single example of an FMJ bullet depositing one fragment, much less two, in or just below the outer table of the skull at or near the entry site. 

The radiating fracture pattern does not establish the cowlick entry site, as several experts have explained. 

And we have to keep asking two damning questions: Why does the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report not appear on the skull x-rays? Why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the high fragment trail in the autopsy report? A first-year medical student would not have made the impossible blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that started at the EOP. 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

It is worth noting that when the HSCA FPP asked Humes about the red spot that the panel identified as the rear head entry wound, Humes insisted there was no wound at the location:

          Dr HUMES. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance. (7 HSCA p. 254/000200)

It is also worth noting that Dr. Finck confirmed that the rear head entry wound was in the occipital bone in his 1/25/65 memo to General Blumberg:

          I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 x 6 cm. Corresponding to this lesion. I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone
wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance. (Memo to General Blumberg, The Autopsy of President Kennedy: Summary, 1/25/65, p. 1)

Yet, the extant autopsy skull x-rays do not show a single bullet fragment anywhere near the EOP entry site, much less a trail of fragments going from the EOP up to the area of the right orbit. Equally strange, the autopsy report makes no mention of the very obvious high fragment trail seen on the skull x-rays.