LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

[Tim Nickerson]

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18b-more-fun-with-x-rays

An interesting article by Pat Speer. It is a complex subject.

[Joe Elliott]

Here's how one researcher tried to explain the roundness of the 7x2 mm fragment.

Just to ask again, are these the only images we have of the 7x2 mm fragment, this gray object below the orange play-doh model in both the left and right photos?

Unless I see this fragment from other angles that proves otherwise, I think this fragment is the object visible in the two X-rays of JFK, from the front and the side.

[Joe Elliott]

I was referring to Sturdivan's email to Stuart Wexler that is referred to in the OP in which he acknowledges that the fragment is seen on both xray views. He says it "seems to have great[er] optical density thin-face than it does edgewise":

• "I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]….The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (e-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998).  " [as quoted in Mantik's 2015 article "The John F. Kennedy Autopsy x-Rays: The Sage of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"

Maybe not when he wrote his book.  He is not an expert in interpreting x-rays and he does not appear to have consulted anyone who is.

While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise. I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.

I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.

[Andrew Mason]

While it is not impossible that the bright object in the frontal X-ray could be an artifact, one should not adopt such an explanation if it can be explained otherwise.

It is not an artifact if it is seen on both views.

I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

The logical conclusion? The bright object was the 7x2 mm fragment. Recovered form near the front of the skull. Just as the autopsy doctors maintained. No evidence of a "cowlick" entry point for the bullet.

The objection seems to be its roundness over about 3/4 of the fragment.  That is what naturally happens when a molten drop of lead impacts a larger object or surface.

I agree with you. Sturdivan was not an expert of x-rays. No one is going to be an expert on all the technical fields related to this case. And, I suppose there is only a finite amount of time one can devote to writing a book so getting the time to consult with all these experts can be a problem. And no one is ever going to write an error free book.

Still, on ballistic questions, the velocities bullets will be deformed by flesh, or by bone, one what sort of damage a bullet may receive when it creates certain wounds, Sturdivan was an expert with a good deal of experience observing real ballistic experiments.

Another point on this subject, Sturdivan was right to say this fragment could not be a bullet fragment left right in the position the bullet entered the skull. His experience with ballistic shows that this scenario would not happen, at least not with a WCC/MC bullet at pretty close to muzzle velocity.

It is not hard to find someone who knows how to read medical x-rays. I am always amazed at how dentists see things in dental x-rays.

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial. 

[Joe Elliott]

. . .

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

This is just silly. If you see no reason that the 7 x 2 mm fragment recovered during the autopsy cannot be the 6.5 mm object, then you haven't read my previous replies in this thread. Again, among other facts, the two objects are plainly visible on the AP x-ray. One is not the other. I mean, how can anyone be confused about this? You can see both objects on the AP x-ray, and they are not what you would call "close" to each other, so obviously the 7 x 2 mm fragment is not the 6.5 mm object. The two objects also have very different OD measurements.

The evidence that the object is an artifact is indisputable. This has been established by dozens of OD measurements, not to mention that forensic science knows of no FMJ bullet that has left a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entering the skull. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

[Mitch Todd]

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

Dolce was only engaged in a single meeting involving the Edgewood staff. In this case Dolce joined Light and Olivier to discuss Governor Connally's wounds with the Connallys, Gregory, Shaw, and Shires. He wasn't involved in the earlier April 14, 1964 meeting between Humes. Boswell, Finck, Olivier and Light. Nor is he listed as an author or even contributor in the Edgewood report detailing the tests.  He doesn't seem to have been the top expert that you think he is, otherwise his name would have popped up more often. He's also wrong. He chides Olivier and Dziemian for accepting Gregory's dorsal-to-volar path through the wrist, but Gregory was correct. Dolce claimed that Gregory had "no wound ballistic experience," when Gregory had served as a surgeon for the 1st Marine Division in Korea, and of course gained GSW experience working at Parkland.  Dolce assumed that the wrist tests conducted by Edgewood covered all cases where a Carcano bullet truck a radius bone, but this is simply impossible. In fact, the Edgewood wrist tests are completely irrelevant to the SBT as far as any expected deformation is concerned. 

For that matter, Roger McCarthy is also not a "ballistics expert." He's a mechanical engineer whose actual forte appears to be business and management. For the ABA mock trial, the company he led, Failure Analysis, had to hire a recognized ballistic expert to run their shooting tests. That expert was Dr Martin Fackler, who was widely considered at the time to be the leading expert in the field of terminal ballistics of flesh, bullet, and bone. Fackler came out of these tests concluding that CE399 could indeed be responsible for all of the wounds attributed by the WC.

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

And here's someone else who thinks that they can achieve though adjectives what they cannot manage through evidence and/or argument.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

Luke Haag actually is recognized to be an expert in terminal ballistics and shooting reconstruction, both in academia and in the courts.