From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lattimer, Questions six and seven
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:57:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

>, >>> Bruce Schuck
>> Tom Warner (me)
>>>> Joel Grant

>>>>B. Bullet Hole in Back.  The bullet hole in Kennedy's upper back,
>>>>about two inches below the crease of his neck, and about two inches
>>>>to the right of the midline. 

>>>The bullet hole in the shirt was 5.75 inches down from the top of
>>>the collar and 1.125 inches to the right of the midline. What's sad
>>>is that Humes failed to locate the wound using fixed body points.

>>	"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper
>>border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimater oval wound. This wound is
>>measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right mastoid process and 14 cm.
>>below the tip of the right mastoid process."
>>	-- Humes, Boswell and Finck, autopsy report (in the WCR)

>>	I thought one of the autopsy surgeons placed the wound at the third
>>thoracic (sp?) vertebrae but I can't find that.

>>	I don't know how to measure "14 cm. from ... and 14 cm. below
>>the tip of the right mastoid process." Anyone else?

>Considering that the mastoid process is on the head, and the head does
>move, its not a very useful place to start measuring from.

I never imagined it was something that stupid. Thanks for enlightening me.

>>	Looking at the autopsy photograph of the back, the entry wound appears
>>quite high on the back (certainly not 5 1/2" below the shirt collar line, where
>>the hole in the shirt is).

>The 5 1/2 inches figure is from the top of the collar.

Oooops. You're right, and that makes much more sense. That puts the hole
more like 4 inches below the lower line of the shirt collar. If the shirt
was riding a little high at the time, that lower collar line could have
been an inch above the level of the back neck skin fold in JFK's autopsy
back photo, assuming that skin was being pulled up as he was lifted by his
shoulders from the table (and maybe a little scale distortion due to the
camera angle as well). So I think the shirt hole probably did line up with
the hole we see in JFK's back in the photo, and I definitely reject
Livingstone's silly idea that the slight recession seen several inches lower
is the "real" hole or a hole at all. I also doubt the photo is faked,
especially in that area.

Here's a thought: what if the first hit to Kennedy was the frontal neck hit,
which caused him to hunch his shoulders, after which he was hit in the back?

>> I measure it, using the scale of the ruler seen in
>>the photo, as about three inches below the point where the skin of the neck
>>folds when the head tilts backward, and only about 2 inches below the level
>>of the shoulder..

>>	I'm not saying there's enough skin distortion to account for 3 1/2"
>>but I think it could be part of the reason for the discrepancies between
>>the photo and the eyewitness accounts and shirt hole. Or maybe the photo
>>is just a hoax.

>The big question is: Are you measuring the right hole?
>There are two obvious dark spots on JFK's back in the autopsy
>photgraphs. One is bigger and closer to the neck. Its the one left in
>the autopsy drawings and appears to be 1cm in diameter.

>The other one is lower down, smaller, about .5cm in diameter.
>Some say it was a blood spot.

>The question is, do 6.5mm bullets make 10mm holes or 5mm holes,
>since wounds can close up a little.

It looks like a blood spot -- I don't see any break of the skin. The higher,
further right hole obviously breaks the skin. (Note that your proposed hole
is not the same as either the obvious hole or Livingstone's recession. I'm not
saying you can't be right, just that I've never heard that spot referred to
as a hole before.)

(By the way, very interesting stuff about the abrasion and tunneling
that I didn't know, Bruce. I hope everyone read that part of your post.
Geez, they think someone shot Kennedy at frame 210 from the sixth floor
of the TSBD and yet the bullet entered his back travelling *upward*?
Just goes to show how hard the HSCA stretched things when it was the only
way to make the facts fit the dogma. So what else is new.)

Tom Warner