Ashton, please look at the following

Terry Adams · December 27, 2006

Hi, Terry and Richard,

Terry, how thoughtful of you to post this interesting, but unfortunately technically flawed work by Ashton. It is apparent he has given much thought and effort to the graphics and spent a great deal of time in organizing the post. The matter of bloodspatter and trajectory analysis is interesting and a very useful investigative and reconstructive tool in crime scene work. However, the analysis techniques and assumptions Ashton has used are incorrect, therefore his results are incorrect. Perhaps he will rework his graphics after reading my post or even better, watching my trajectory presentation. And Richard, thanks for posting all the witness statements and my graphic, all of that is so helpful in directing researchers toward the correct possible locations for a shooter of the fatal head wound. Perhaps, Terry, you could ask Ashton to look at this post on the JFK Lancer forum for my response. Then he could take advantage of the past posts I have done here to more fully answer any question he may have.

Since most JFK Lancer forum members are familiar with my work, and can search for additional information here, I will make my response brief.

ASHTON: if something representing that ejecta of matter from JFK's head could be placed more or less reasonably in 3D space, it might be used as a plotted point that if connected with another plotted point at the apparent head wound in the Zapruder film (on the right front of JFK's head) would create a line theoretically leading back— Well, it very well could lead back to the head wound shooter location.

SHERRY: What you are referring to as ejecta in frame 312 of the Zapruder film is called backspatter. Backspatter is blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles that are forced from an entry wound back in the direction of the shooter. Backspatter has distinctive characteristics that make it different from forward spatter that originates from the exit wound. One reason to assure the spatter in 312 is in fact backspatter, is that JFK’s head creates a void at his left rear. If the bloodspatter in 312 was forward or exit spatter, blood could not have been deposited on Bobby Hargis. Therefore, this alone demonstrates Ashton’s suggested trajectory and shooter location incorrect.

ASHTON: I created a simple cube to represent the ejecta. I used a cube so I could angle one edge toward the apparent head wound location, then use two points on that edge to create a construction line back through the apparent head wound opening.

SHERRY: You used a cube to represent the backspatter; however the correct shape is a very wide cone. In fact, the angles of the edge of this cone has been measured at less than 10 degrees since the blood is forcefully expressed and will travel in every possible direction. Moreover, we do not positively know the correct entry and exit wound locations. That is why when I did trajectory analysis, I relied on general areas of the head for entry and exit wounds; I used the front and rear right quadrants, since the injuries are documented as confined to those areas. There is also no way of being certain the projectile did not vary slightly from a straight line trajectory. Even more importantly, if fracturing was created by bullet impact and cavitation created dislodged bones, the exit wounds may not be aligned at all with the original trajectory of the projectile. Therefore, a trajectory cone is a more reasonable, defendable, and viable manner of suggesting a trajectory. That is what is depicted in the graphic Richard so, kindly posted.

My trajectory analysis is detailed carefully in my JFK HOMICIDE Forensic Reconstruction CD. The CD contains four New PowerPoint Presentations:

• Bloodspatter Analysis in the Kennedy Murder: Proving a Frontal Headshot

• Trajectory Analysis of Kennedy’s Fatal Head Wound

• Crime Scene Investigation: 1963 Protocols

• Trajectory Analysis in the Tippit Shooting

The CD is available here http://www.jfklancer.com/catalog/gutierrez/index.html

Ashton, I hope you will consider my research work and redo your graphic work. What an interesting way to show those who may not have had an opportunity to go to Dealey Plaza various viewpoints. Thanks so much for your interest in bloodspatter and trajectory analysis. Based in mathmatics, these findings are much needed to finally answer opinions and theories commonly believed but factually incorrect.

My best to all of you, with hopes that you and your loved ones have a blessed holiday season.

Sherry

Ashton Gray · December 27, 2006

Hi Terry,

Thanks for forwarding this candid and self-possessed piece from Sherry (Gutierrez, I believe). I get the idea that she is something of a forensics expert who frequents JFK Lancer.

I had no idea my rainy-day musings had wandered off into the world and disturbed her repose. Please tell her that I repent for it.

I am chagrined to think that you would be saddled with being a go-between, but I am already stretched thinner than paint, so the idea of my attempting to monitor two such forums, as she suggests, incites tremors. Therefore I'm going to have to respond to relevant parts of what you've posted here and let the chips fall where they may.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: Terry, how thoughtful of you to post this interesting, but unfortunately technically flawed work by Ashton. ...The matter of bloodspatter and trajectory analysis is interesting and a very useful investigative and reconstructive tool in crime scene work. However, the analysis techniques and assumptions Ashton has used are incorrect, therefore his results are incorrect.

Well, darn.

However: With generous allowances in all directions for my lay trippings and fumblings, my 'umble origins, and my technical flaws, the seminal and simple question for Sherry is the one she doesn't answer in her longish analysis anywhere (while finding ample space to promote her works). That is this: is the County Records window at issue a possible location for the head shot or not?

Put another way: Does Sherry have dispositive evidence that would eliminate that location for the head shot, or not. If so, I would be very happy if she would set it forth in plain talk. Then I could move on and consider other locations that she finds to be more likely for a head shot shooter.

Failing that, I consider it to be a favorable place for a sniper, with a commanding view of the relevant parts of the route on Elm, and I've seen nothing in the available forensics or evidence to eliminate it. If she has that, I would study it with great interest. If she has it, she doesn't present it in what she wrote:

ASHTON: if something representing that ejecta of matter from JFK's head could be placed more or less reasonably in 3D space, it might be used as a plotted point that if connected with another plotted point at the apparent head wound in the Zapruder film (on the right front of JFK's head) would create a line theoretically leading back— Well, it very well could lead back to the head wound shooter location.
SHERRY GUTIERREZ: What you are referring to as ejecta in frame 312 [sic: should be 314] of the Zapruder film is called backspatter. Backspatter is blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles that are forced from an entry wound back in the direction of the shooter. Backspatter has distinctive characteristics that make it different from forward spatter that originates from the exit wound.

Well, I'm going to have to pause this right here, because we're already headed off down a primrose path where I never went.

First, the Zapruder frame at issue is Z314—which is the frame after the head shot—not Z312—which is the frame before the head shot. Obviously, there would be no such ejecta at frame Z312. I understand that this could be a mere misstatement or typing error by Ms. Gutierrez, but it is repeated several times in her message, and my effort is to reduce confusion, not increase it.

Second, what I see at frame Z314, which I represented in the model with the cube, is not anything that I would characterize in any way as "blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles" in the manner of "backspatter." So Ms. Gutierrez and I already, at this early juncture, have parted company. We are in the always lamentable position of discussing apples vs. oranges.

What is clear to me in Z314, which I even have outlined in several animations posted in this forum, is a substantive collection of matter (of some unknown description and composition) large enough and "slow" enough—relative to the cloud of spatter seen in Z313—to be captured in Z314 on a forward and downward trajectory from the head.

This is an indication to me of two very real possibilities, perhaps even likelihoods:

1. That it had more mass than "blood, other fluids and occasionally minute tissue particles" in the manner of "backspatter," and,
2. That assuming such characteristics of mass, and the related inertia and momentum, it very well might be following the path of a projectile that had ripped it from the skull.

However lay an assumption this might have been, it comports with the simple laws of physics, and if I hadn't thought it might have some probative merit, I wouldn't have taken the time to pursue the presumed line of flight.

Sherry continues on the backspatter argument:

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: One reason to assure the spatter in 312 [sic: should be 314] is in fact backspatter, is that JFK’s head creates a void at his left rear.

I have no idea what she is talking about at this point. If she is discussing the purported "avulsion" to the back of the head, it's going to have to be a separate topic, because I won't stipulate to the existence of any such rear head wound. I've already taken this up in a separate topic in this forum, with visual evidence that no such "void" in the back of the head existed after the head wound.

SHERRY GUTIERREZ: If the bloodspatter in 312 [sic: should be 314] was forward or exit spatter, blood could not have been deposited on Bobby Hargis. Therefore, this alone demonstrates Ashton’s suggested trajectory and shooter location incorrect.

This is the same entirely circular "argument" propounded by every proponent of a front head shot, and it doesn't take an expert to see what a double standard it is on its face. The "argument": "backspatter" can come from a frontal shot and splatter on motorcycle cops, but by some magic, it can't come from a shot from behind and splatter on motorcycle cops.

Ignoring such double standards of backspatter entirely (as they should be), the simple evidence of the eyes is that a considerable cloud of spatter is explosively ejected from the head in Z313. Whether it is "backspatter" from an entrance wound, or the result of explosive outward force from an exit wound—or, far more likely, both—is completely immaterial to who might or might not have been hit by it while riding in a moving motorcade heading into such a cloud, and on a windy day to boot. To continually insist that this only can be "backspatter," and can only have come from a frontal wound—and to the exclusion of exit matter—I consider irresponsible at best, whatever the source. (And I looked hard for a kinder word. That's the best I could do.)

Any such responsible presentation should be inclusive, not exclusive.

ASHTON: I created a simple cube to represent the ejecta. I used a cube so I could angle one edge toward the apparent head wound location, then use two points on that edge to create a construction line back through the apparent head wound opening.
SHERRY GUTIERREZ: You used a cube to represent the backspatter...

Terry, I'm sorry: I can't invest any more time off on a backspatter tangent, when it had nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted concerning the the ejecta at issue, its apparent mass, and hypothetically presumed physics properties given such apparent mass. That was the entire premise on which I set off on an exploratory experiment purely of my own fancy to see where its apparent trajectory might lead. This discussion is like arguing about the properties of steam while trying to discuss the path of a baseball hit by Joe DiMagio.

Lord knows I have enough contretemps in progress that I'm not impoverished for them, and I mean no disprespect toward Ms. Gutierrez and her considerable knowledge in her areas of expertise. Despite my coven of detractors, I don't set out to pick fights with anybody, and have a record of fruitful, beneficial, and pleasant exchanges with plenty of people on such subjects.

I do, though, expect a reasonable amount of attention to detail, reasonable care in presentation of facts, and the reasonable ability to address the facts at issue, not a set of entirely disrelated facts.

So I would be very interested indeed in seeing Sherry Gutierrez's address to what I was discussing in the first place, and her answers to the seminal and simple questions I posed above:

1. Is the County Records window at issue a possible location for the head shot or not?

2. Does Sherry have dispositive evidence that would eliminate that location for the head shot, or not.

And with that, I thank you graciously, Terry, for taking an interest in my experiments and ramblings.

Ashton

Edited December 27, 2006 by Ashton Gray

Jack White · December 27, 2006

Thanks, Ashton, for your rational reasoning and easily understood exposition.

At least you are examining possibilities and not being influenced by the questionable

"science" of "bloodspatter ananlysis". In my estimation the ejecta from such an

event is UNIQUE to THAT event...and proof is hard to come by through replication,

since few humans are available as targets. My understanding of SCIENCE is that

the scientific method for proof depends on REPLICATION; any unverifiable

interpretation, whether valid or not, is THEORY. So if Sherry's opinion is to be

regarded as valid, it must be replicated. As you point out correctly, there are

too many unknowns to replicate the headshot event...movement of the cars

and motorcycles, wind, speed of the car, direction of the shot, the exact location

of the target in the car in relation to the shooter, etc. Such unknown variables make

my opinion as good as yours, or Sherry's, or the Warren Commission's.

MY OPINION of course, differs from yours and hers, in that I believe the Zapruder

film is a forgery and does not accurately depict the events of November 22, so is

worthless as evidence. I had studied the film intensively for around twenty years

before realizing I had wasted my time doing so. Your studies, while very impressive,

are analyzing a forgery. It would be more productive to study how the forgery was

done instead of what it shows.

Jack

Jack White · December 27, 2006