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

[Michael T. Griffith]

WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.

There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

A small metallic fragment lies medial to the fracture site between the galea and the outer table of the skull. . . .

A small metallic fragment is located medial to the location of the spherical metallic fragment [the 6.5 mm object] and fracture lying between the galea and the outer cranial table. (“Report of G.M. McDonnel,” August 4, 1978, in 7 HSCA 218, 221).

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of them.

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

It was interesting that it [Baden's description of the 6.5 mm object] was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their [the HSCA medical panel's] proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but it will not fragment on the outside of the skull.

When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. (The JFK Myths, pp. 184-185, emphasis added)

Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.

Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.

Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.

In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:

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, in David Mantik, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, 2022, p. 21)

The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that Sturdivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.

Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.0.html
In particular my #53 ....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.48.html
And #67....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2862.64.html

[Michael T. Griffith]

I describe that Oswald's shot-1 ricocheted offa the western portion of the western guyrod of the overhead signal arm in the thread linked below.

[From your first link:]When i say hits i mean it misses JFK & hits the signal arm & then it fragments.
(1) The remnant slug puts a non-round hole in the floor of the limo tween the jump seats (we have a photo) & hits the road.
(2) The copper jacket breaks into 2 pieces as is usual (it is made of 2 pieces joined together), giving us CE567 CE569 found in the car.
(3) Small lead fragments hit JFK in the back of his head (as seen on xrays).
(4) Other larger lead fragments found in the limo might belong to Oswald's shot-1 or they might belong to Hickey's  AR15.

However i reckon that Oswald's shot-1 happened at Z113

This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?

Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z209, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

This is nutty. Just nutty. Even the WC admitted that any shot fired from the sixth-floor window before Z166 would have required a sharply downward angle. What's more, at that point, a sixth-floor gunman would have had only a partial view of the back of JFK's head, since part of his head would have been somewhat parallel to the window. Therefore, how would a bullet that hit the guy rod with JFK at this location on the street have been able to send fragments streaking toward him that could have landed near the upper midline of the back of his skull? How?

Incidentally, any shot from the sixth-floor window that could have hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have had to be fired well after Z113, closer to Z140. The traffic light was only about 10 feet from the tree. The sixth-floor window's view of the limo would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z207, so a sixth-floor shot that hit the traffic signal's guy rod would have occurred at around Z140, give or take 5-10 frames.

Finally, you seem to be forgetting about the Tague curb shot. It boggles the mind to try to fathom how a bullet that struck the traffic light's guy rod could have produced a large fragment that could have traveled over 400 feet and struck the Main Street curb near Tague and struck it with enough force to send metal or concrete streaking rapidly enough toward Tague to cut his face.

If u have a look at my thread/link u will see that Holland reckoned that JFK was obstructed by the signal arm at (pseudo) Z103. I reckoned it woz at (psueudo) Z113.  The diff being a half limo length (10 ft @ 1 Z frame per ft). I am happy to split the diff, in which case Oswald shot-1 woz at say (pseudo) Z108.

The Roselle & Scearce investigation of reactions seen after Z133 concludes that the first shot was at about (pseudo) Z120 i think (i karnt remember), based on typical startle reaction times.

My thread/link includes a reconstructed view from the sniper's nest – this shows that the downwards vertical angle was no problem – something less than 40 deg off horizontal.

The ricochet offa the signal arm is a bit of a problem.  There are 10 possibilities.
A simple ricochet offa the western or eastern side of the eastern guyrod (1)(2), or offa the main pipe (3)(4), or offa the western guyrod (5)(6).
Or a double ricochet offa the eastern guyrod & the pipe (7) – or offa the pipe & the eastern guyrod ( 8 ) – or offa the pipe & the western guyrod (9) – or offa the western guyrod & the pipe (10).

The more i think about it the more i favor a double ricochet – say two slightly glancing kontakts – enuff to break the brass jacket into two (found in the limo), plus give a large remnant lead slug (which makes a hole in the floor of the limo), plus some lead splatter (Xray of head).

There is a possibility that the two brass bits of jacket separated when the slug went through the floor (unlikely i think).
I would have a better idea of the exact possible nature of the ricochet if i could find the youtube footage of i think it was Haag's ricochet tests offa pipe -- or at least find the full report of the ricochet tests -- i think that the youtube requires a $$$ fee.

Holland's (& i think Donahue's) theory that the first shot caused the wound to Tague's left cheek is of course silly.
I have explained that Tague's wound was due to Hickey's first or say second shot of his accidental auto burst of his AR15 at say Z300 to Z313. The last shot being the headshot – the remnant slug cracking the windshield glass. The second last shot denting the chrome trim above the mirror.

In a few minutes time i will insert the above comments onto my two threads from 2021 dealing with these two matters – so as not to derail your present thread.

[Tim Nickerson]

WC apologists cannot rationally or credibly explain the two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. These fragments could only be ricochet fragments from a bullet fired by a second gunman, one who was shooting from a different location than the one that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly used.

There is a 2.5 mm fragment inside the image of the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray. It is on the rear outer table of the skull about 1 cm below the now-discredited cowlick entry wound site. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm object is metallic. This fragment simply could not have come from an FMJ bullet, for the same reasons that Larry Sturdivan provides in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths, when he explains why the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet and why it must be an artifact (pp. 184-186). Oswald allegedly used FMJ (fully metal-jacketed) ammunition.

There is also a small bullet fragment slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment. Dr. Gerald McDonnel identified this fragment in his report to the HSCA:

Oddly, in his 2005 book, Sturdivan does not mention the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment (though he was surely at least aware of the 2.5 mm fragment, since he cites Dr. David Mantik’s research on the 6.5 mm object). These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments--that is the only scientifically plausible explanation. But, again, Sturdivan does not mention either of them.

However, Sturdivan does explain why the 6.5 mm object could not be an FMJ fragment. I quote from Sturdivan's discussion on the 6.5 mm object and on Dr. Baden's attempt to use the object as evidence of the proposed cowlick entry site:

Just to fully explain the absurdity of the idea that a single FMJ headshot bullet deposited any fragment, big or small, on the outer table of the skull, we need to understand that, according to the WC and its apologists, the nose and tail of this supposed lone headshot bullet were found inside the limousine. Thus, in this fanciful scenario, as the bullet struck the skull, either (1) a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge or (2) a piece of the hard jacket was somehow sliced off to form an object that was perfectly round except for a partial circle cut neatly out of its edge. Then, this remarkable fragment abruptly stopped right there on the outer table of the skull, while the nose and tail of the rest of the bullet tore through JFK’s brain, exited the skull, and landed inside the limousine.

Yes, this is a patently absurd scenario, a scenario that virtually no one takes seriously anymore, but for many years this was the scenario that WC apologists adamantly defended--until lone-gunman theorist Sturdivan, to his credit, demolished it in his 2005 book. (It had been demolished before, but only by critics, and WC apologists refused to listen to the critics' eminently scientific and logical case against it.)

However, as mentioned, Sturdivan says nothing about the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. Forensic science and wound ballistics tell us that no FMJ missile could have deposited the 2.5 mm fragment or the McDonnel fragment. They could only be ricochet fragments.

Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue said that Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him that the panel believed the 6.5 mm object "looked like a ricochet fragment" (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65). The Clark Panel, like the HSCA medical panel, did not have the benefit of OD measurements, so they did not know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that its image is superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment. But Fisher's comment to Donahue shows that the Clark Panel members realized that no FMJ bullet could have deposited a fragment on the outer table of the skull, even if they were unwilling to say so publicly.

So where did the two back-of-head bullet fragments come from? There is credible evidence that a bullet struck the curb near JFK's limo early in the shooting sequence. Five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of JFK’s limo just after the limo passed the front steps of the TSBD (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 187-189). Surprisingly, even Gerald Posner finds these accounts of the Elm Street curb shot to be credible, although he cites the curb shot to support his bizarre bullet-limb-collision theory (Case Closed, p. 324; cf. Jim Moore, Conspiracy of One, p. 198). The only scientifically plausible theory to explain the 2.5 mm fragment and the McDonnel fragment is that they are ricochet fragments, either from the Elm Street curb shot or from another missed shot that went unnoticed/unreported.

Donahue, though he rejected the conspiracy view, acknowledged the evidence of the Elm Street curb shot and argued that ricochet fragments from this bullet are the only scientifically feasible explanation for any back-of-head fragment, since no FMJ missile would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull.

In 1998, seven years before his 2005 book, Sturdivan explained in an e-mail to researcher Stuart Wexler why the 6.5 mm object could not be a bullet fragment. His explanation is worth repeating:

The 6.5 mm object is indeed an artifact, but the object’s image is superimposed over the image of the 2.5 mm fragment, a fact that Sturdivan has chosen to ignore, and the McDonnel fragment is slightly to the left of the 2.5 mm fragment.

Clearly, these two fragments on the back of JFK’s skull could not have come from any of the three shots allegedly fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, or by anyone else firing from the sixth-floor sniper’s window. Another gunman, one firing from a different location, was also shooting at JFK during the assassination.

There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.

Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI. --- ARRB Deposition

[Michael T. Griffith]

There aren't two bullet fragments on the back of the head in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. The 6.5 mm object is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and above the right eye.

Humes: Two small irregularly-shaped fragments of metal are recovered. They measure 7 by 2 and 3 by 1. Well, that large one that you saw in that first AP view of the skull could be the 7-by-2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI. --- ARRB Deposition

This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.

There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.

Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.

And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.

[Tim Nickerson]

This nonsense again? You can see both the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object on the AP x-ray, so how could they be the same object? The 7 x 2 mm fragment is in the front of the skull, while the 6.5 mm object is on the rear outer table of the skull, and it is below and to the right of the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray.

There's also the fact that dozens of OD measurements have confirmed that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but that it has been neatly superimposed over the image of a genuine 2.5 mm bullet fragment located on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why the 6.5 mm object is not seen on the lateral x-ray. As forensic radiologist Dr. Fitzpatrick confirmed for the ARRB, there is no object on the lateral x-ray that corresponds in density and brightness to the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray. It does not take a genius to figure out that this is a physical impossibility unless the AP x-ray has been altered. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible, which is one reason he theorizes that the 6.5 mm object is an accidental artifact, although he has no credible scenario for how such a perfectly shaped artifact could have been accidentally formed.

Obviously, Humes's speculation that the 6.5 mm object could be the 7 x 2 mm fragment is ridiculous. Remember that Humes also told the ARRB that he did not--I repeat, did not--see the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy, even though it is the largest and most obvious apparent bullet fragment on the AP x-ray. It is hard to imagine how even Humes could have blundered so embarrassingly as to suggest that two objects that are plainly visible on the AP x-ray could be the same object, but this is the kind of gaffe you make when you're reaching and grasping.

And what about the McDonnel fragment? I notice you said nothing about it. Ignoring it won't make it go away. OD measurements confirm that it is a bullet fragment.

Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.

The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there. Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by one of the techs who took them.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Draw an arrow pointing to the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the enhanced AP X-Ray. Do the same on the enhanced right lateral view.

The inability to see the 6.5 mm object in the rear of the skull in the right lateral view suggests that it's not there.

When are you going to face the fact that the 7 x 2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are both visible on the AP x-ray? When?

Humes removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment. He said--and the x-rays confirm--that it was in the front part of the skull. It boggles the mind to try to fathom why Humes would not have removed the 6.5 mm object if it had been on the x-rays during the autopsy. Why would he have removed the 7 x 2 mm fragment and not also removed the most obvious apparent fragment on the AP x-ray?

And I notice you are still ignoring the OD measurements. This is hard science. We now know that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic and that it has been superimposed over the image of a small genuine fragment on the rear outer table of the skull. OD measurements confirm that the 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object is metallic.

Even Larry Sturdivan now admits that the 6.5 mm object is a superimposed image; he argues that it was superimposed by accident, but he has no rational theory for how this alleged accident could have occurred.

Claiming that the X-rays are altered is just loony. The X-rays have been confirmed as authentic and unaltered by the HSCA's 21 member panel of photographic analysis experts, by the radiologist responsible for the X-Rays, and by one of the techs who took them.

None of those experts had the benefit of OD analysis. None of them realized the telltale signs of alteration in the emulsion of the x-rays. None of them explained the physically impossible conflict between the AP x-ray and the lateral x-rays regarding the 6.5 mm object. None of them even detected that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. None of them offered any explanation for the impossible white patch on the right lateral x-ray. None of them offered any explanation for the stark contradiction between the skull x-rays and the alleged autopsy photos of the brain.

The radiologist and the x-ray tech did not do any kind of an analysis of the skull x-rays. They were shown the x-rays during their interviews and simply declared, based on this brief look, that they believed the x-rays were the same ones they had taken. Yet, the radiologist refused to discuss the 6.5 mm object with Dr. Mantik and said nothing about it in his testimony. The x-ray tech did numerous interviews with Dr. Mantik and not once did he claim that he had seen the 6.5 mm object during the autopsy or that the radiologist had identified a large object as an artifact.

Why do the extant skull x-rays show no trace of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? The only theoretically possible--but utterly preposterous--innocent explanation for this conflict is that the autopsy doctors committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the high fragment trail for a trail that was at least 2 inches lower and that started on the opposite side of the skull. Just think, just try to fathom, how even a first-year med student could make such an astonishing error, especially when they had the x-rays and the skull in front of them for over three hours.

Why did Humes say nothing about the right-frontal cloud of fragments plainly visible on the extant right lateral x-ray? He said nothing about it in the autopsy report and nothing about it in his WC testimony. He repeatedly said that the only grouping of small fragments he saw was in the form of a fragment trail that went from the EOP to the right orbit. The cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays looks nothing like this; it is in the right-frontal region, some 5 inches from the EOP on the opposite end of the skull, and the fragments next to it trail upward.