From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: PBS SPECIAL
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:06:51 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


Well, happy new year to all - and even to you, Bruce.   ;^)


In article <schuck.72506377@sfu.ca> Bruce Schuck writes:


>>1. The fragments did in fact match.  Guinn found evidence for two
>>and only two bullets.  The fragments from Connally's wrist matched
>>CE399.  And CE399 was fired from CE139.  The fragments from Kennedy's
>>brain matched the large limo fragment (the one without copper)
>>that was fired from CE139 as well as smaller ones found in the
>>rear of the car.  Between Connally's and Kennedy's body, CE399,
>>and the limo fragments, there were two and only two bullets as
>>described above.

>The fragments didn't match. Some of the trace elements differed by as
>much as 1100%. Even silver differed by 25% from the wrist fragments to
>CE399. I would hardly call that a match.

	The other trace elements, as Guinn carefully explains,
	are absolutely meaningless.  Sodium, for instance, is
	almost entirely due to outside infuence, such as perspiration.
	The two fragment groups with huge sodium content - the
	three frags from Connally's wrist and the two frags from
	Kennedy's brain - happen to be the only fragments that were
	in extended contact with biological tissue, leaving the
	distinct possibility that the sodium traces are due to blood.

	The silver in CE399 was 8.8 ppm, plus or minus .5 ppm.
	(there are limitations in the counting statistics)  The
	silver in CE842, the wrist fragments, was 9.8, plus or
	minus .5 ppm.  Thus, even if you abritarily decide that
	CE399 had 8.3 ppm and CE842 had 10.3 ppm, you still don't
	have a 25% difference.  Given the known and calculable
	physical limitations of the procedure, the fragments are
	a match.  "I was not able to distinguish between them"
	said Guinn.

>>2. Whether or not lead itself is homegenous or non-homegenous
>>does not matter to Guinn's analysis.  Guinn's extensive NAA 
>>studies of bullets taught him that the three trace elements most
>>relevant are antimony, silver, and copper.  

>Silver differed by 25%, and Guinn left out all the trace elements
>because he chose to. Otherwise he couldn't get a match.

	As mentioned above, the silver did not differ by 25%.  Not
	that trying to impress by citing inflated percentage figures
	does any good or has any relevance.

	Guinn did not leave out the other trace elements in order
	to force a match.  The techniques for analyzing bullet
	lead via NAA were well-known prior to Guinn's work for
	the HSCA; he even cites 10 papers at the end of his report
	for your reading pleasure.  You might also check out the
	fact that Guinn published his JFK results in a peer-reviewed
	journal:  "Analytical Chemistry", 51, (1979), V.P. Guinn,
	"JFK Assassination: Bullet Analyses."

	You could also take a glance at Guinn's article "NAA of
	Bullet-Lead Evidence Speciments in Criminal Cases,"
	"Journal of Radioanalytical Chemistry", 72 (1982)
	pp. 645-663.

	Or, you can continue to consult useless and uninformed
	sources such as Kurtz.

>Also he admitted that the JFK head fragments did not match the count
>or weight of fragments the FBI did NAA testing on.

	Guinn's only mention in the HSCA material is found in
	Volume 1, pp. 561-562.  He says just what I said he said,
	namely, that he used different *samples of the fragments*
	because the samples used by the FBI in their NAA were
	nowhere to be found.  He says nothing about the fragments
	not matching the count or weight of fragments the FBI
	did testing on.  On the other hand, Menninger/Donahue
	make that statement in their book, and they are quoting
	a journalist.

	Please provide a reference for this statment.

>>Copper is used in
>>Guinn's analysis only on unfired, non-jacketed bullets because
>>the firing of a copper jacketed bullet can cause the copper from
>>the jacket to "taint" the bullet lead, thus giving false readings.

>The jacket of CE399 was undamaged, therefore since there was copper in
>the test fragments, the wrist fragments did not come from CE399.

	Yes, the jacket of CE399 was damaged; just look at the
	base.  Copper can also contaminate bullet lead samples
	as a result of the primer explosion.  As for the fragments
	coming from CE399, they did, and so sorry if that doesn't
	set well with your opinions.

>Guinn also noted that he had a hard time telling one end of 6.5mm MC
>bullet from the other because lead is non-homogenous.

	Now just where did he say that?  Quotes, please.  I ask
	just for fun, since the homogeneity of lead is quite
	irrelevant.

>>Further, Guinn noticed that these bullets, unlike virtually all
>>other bullets, varied in antimony and silver composition from
>>bullet to bullet, even from the same box.  But they did not
>>vary within a bullet.  

>Thats not what Guinn said.

	Here's what he said: (Vol. 1, p. 511) "Although 
	individual bullets were found to be fairly homogenous
	in their Sb [antimony] and Ag [silver] concentrations,
	they differed greatly from bullet to bullet amongst
	samples taken from the same box."

	Later on: (p. 566) "Is every piece that you take from
	a bullet the same?  And the answer is; No; they are not.
	The individual bullets are fairly homogenous, but there
	are significant variations within them."

	In other words, it is certainly possible to get antimony
	and silver readings that vary more than the reading 
	obtained by Dr. Guinn, though there would still be
	less of a difference than between two different bullets.

	But note the trick: because it is *possible* to get readings
	with a wider variation than actually obtained, the readings
	obtained are therefore invalid.  This is false logic and
	is typical of amateur analysis.


>>3. Guinn said nothing about the head fragments not matching the
>>count of the FBI test fragments.  Two fragments were removed
>>from Kennedy's brain, two were tested by the FBI, and two
>>were tested by Guinn.  Perhaps the reporter misunderstood
>>Guinn's statement that the *fragments of the fragments* used
>>by the FBI were gone; Guinn scraped new ones off. 

>NAA testing is non-destructive. He didn't scrape any material off the
>evidence from the archives, only off of CE399.

	As a matter of fact Guinn presents an entire table listing
	each fragment, by FBI Q number, CE number, and H number and
	describes the weight of the scrapings he took from each one.


>>	This means we had absolutely scads of forensic work done
>>	at the time, starting with Dallas Police evidence unit
>>	supervisors such as Lt. Day and Sgt. Barnes.  

>Lt. Day?????

>The man who failed to protect the most important fingerprint in US
>criminal history? Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

>The man who had the rifle for 12 hours , yet claims to have been so
>rushed to turn it over to the FBI he didn't protect the fingerprint
>with cellophane, which he did for all the other partial prints, and
>then passed the rifle on to the FBI without mentioning he had found
>Oswalds print?

>Ha ha ha ha.

	Another interesting technique.  In response to your
	implication that forensic science was not involved with
	the assassination evidence *at the time* of the murder
	I gave you a little primer in forensic science, named
	as many names as I could off the top of my head, and provided
	more than enough detail for you or for anyone to fill in
	all the published names.

	In response you take Lt. Day's name, laugh at it, and distort
	what he did and what he said he did.

	According to Lt. Day he did indeed protect the area of the
	rifle barrel from which he lifted Oswald's palm print.  He
	said that a faint impression was still visible and that he
	specifically pointed this all out to FBI Agent Vincent Drain,
	who flew with the Dallas evidence that night to the FBI crime
	lab.

	Drain says it isn't true.

	So one of them screwed up procedurally, and I'd put my money
	on Drain as the screw-up, given the fact that Day, at the
	time of the assassination, was a 23 year veteran of handling
	evidence, and Drain's experience was almost nil.

	You also neglect to mention that on the night of the 22nd
	Day had prepared a slide of the palmprint which he was viewing
	at DPD headquarters, in plain view of numerous fellow officers;
	this was not a print lifted from Oswald's corpse post facto.

	It is a procedural point only, as the print was clearly 
	Oswald's and the chain of evidence is sufficient to establish
	where and when it was obtained.

	In short, forensic science, at the time of the assassination
	and initial investigations, and then again over the years, has
	developed an objective and factual reconstruction of how
	and from what rifle barrel Kennedy and Connally were shot.

	As Guinn noted, when asked about Wecht's testimony, some 
	opinions just don't jibe with the facts.  And this second
	gunman stuff is a mere phantasm - an invisible gunman using
	an invisible gun firing disappearing bullets.  

Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)