From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: RE: PBS SPECIAL
Date: 22 DEC 92 07:13:24 PDT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: RIPPLE


In article <schuck.724612776@sfu.ca> Bruck Schuck writes:

>>If you had read Guinn's analysis, you would know that the fragments
>>did not match, and that even Guinn admitted that he couldn't tell one
>>end of a 6.5mm Carcano from another because lead is non-homogenous. He
>>also pointed out that the JFK head fragments didn't match the count or
>>weight of the ones tested by the FBI, so I wouldn't count on the
>>Connally wrist fragments being the original ones either!

	I've read Guinn's testimony and his report and have 
	seen it reported on in at least one textbook on forensic
	science.  You seem to be using (for some reason) Menninger/
	Donahue, who in turn are quoting some newspaper reporter who
	apparently didn't quite understand all the details of a
	fairly complex subject in a few minutes in the hallway
	after Guinn's testimony to the HSCA.

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.

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.  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.

Guinn's particular expertise in bullets/NAA analysis probably put
him, at the time of the HSCA hearings, in the top two or three
individuals in the country.  His very particular experience with
WCC/MC bullets made him undoubtedly the absolutely best man for
the job.

You will recall that Dr. John Nichols approached Dr. Guinn in
1973 and asked him to study WCC bullets he had obtained, with
representative samples from each of the four and only four
lots of this ammunition ever made.  Nichols and Guinn subsequently
wrote a paper, presenting the results.

Thus, Guinn was fully prepared to do the work he did as an outside
consultant to the HSCA.  His tests showed that this ammunition was
highly unusual.  The lead was not hardened - the hardening agent
used in bullet lead is antimony - and thus had exceedingly small
traces of antimony compared to normal bullets.  Only four out of
the 165 bullets Guinn had tested over the years had ranges that
could ever dip into the WCC/MC range.

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.  This made them ideal to study.  Had they
been more normal, "carbon copies" from bullet to bullet, Guinn
might even have declined to study them, or at least his conclusions
would have been limited to determining whether or not the small
brain/wrist/rear limo fragments were from WCC/MC bullets or not.
He would have been unable to distinguish the number of bullets
found within the population of fragments (plus CE399) and he
would have been unable to determine which sets of fragments went
with which other sets of fragments.  This type of ammunition is
ideal for this kind of study.  This is perhaps why they did it.

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.  These are
relatively tiny and have no effect upon the test.  As for
the weights, if they were indeed different, well, I certainly
hope they were.  Because the FBI did some destructive testing
known as emission spectroscopy on many of the same fragments.

4. Guinn also re-analyzed the FBI data and found that in fact they
matched his analysis.  Guinn at first was as confused as the
FBI, since there seemed to be a hodge-podge of values.  When
Guinn determined, with his own tests, that there were two bullets,
and which fragments went with which bullets, he was able to
re-analyze the FBI data yet again and do the analysis properly.
When he did this he discovered that, within the limits of the
relative states of the technology, 1964/1978, the FBI's match
was as perfect as Guinn's.
	

>>>	I suppose one can speculate anything one wants.  But when
>>>	people tire of this and want to know what actually happened
>>>	they turn to forensic scientists.  

>>Ok...so name me the forensic scientists who worked on the case 
>>*at the time*.

	I'll do the best I can, from memory, to name names.  But
	let me start by pointing out what kind of work falls
	within the definition of forensic science. 

	Forensic science is (speaking very broadly) the application
	of science to civil and criminal law.  I no doubt speak
	rather broadly to refer to everyone in the field as a
	"forensic scientist" though I'm not sure what else one
	calls, generically, an individual employed in one of the
	specialties of forensic science.  Most are more in the
	area of technicians, applying the science and technology
	developed over the years.

	With that in mind, consider that forensic science involves
	such things as fingerprint and ballistics analysis, the
	study of questioned documents, including photographs, pathology
	(the determination of cause and manner of death), various and
	sundry methods of organic and inorganic analysis such as
	the study and matching of paint and glass chips, fibers,
	hair, typewriter types, and so on.  Clothing analysis,
	with or without gunshot residue and/or perforations falls
	within the area of forensic science.  Polygraph analysis
	and voiceprint analysis are jobs for forensic specialists.
	The evidence collection units employed by law enforcement
	agencies come under the umbrella of forensic science.

	You get the idea.

	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.  The Warren
	Commission used not only Robert Frazier of the FBI for
	firearms identification, but called upon three outside
	experts.  Questioned document examiners were involved,
	photo analysts were involved, and let's not forget
	Dr. Pierre Finck, who on 11/22/63 was a Certified Forensic
	Pathologist and wound ballistics expert.  Even Dr. Wecht
	has praised Finck's diagnostic work that night; Finck
	rightfully has caught little flack on the autopsy issue.
	
	The bag brought into the TSBD by Oswald was analyzed,
	the fibers from the butt of the gun were analyzed and
	found to match the fibers on Oswald's shirt, blanket
	fibers were analyzed, and on and on.

	And this is just off the top of my head.  I have no doubt
	left out quite a few forensic specialists, including the
	(to us) nameless laboratory analysts who sit there at
	crime labs all day staring through various instruments.

	Over the years, the number of forensics specialists who 
	have studied the original evidence has grown by leaps
	and bounds.  The HSCA employed a small army of them.

	And without a single exception, everything they have come
	up with has been consistent with the major conclusion of
	the Warren Commission: two bullets, fired from behind,
	struck President Kennedy; one of those bullets went on
	to wound Governor Connally; the person firing those
	bullets was almost certainly the owner of the gun,
	Lee Harvey Oswald; and there is no forensic evidence
	whatsoever for a second gunman.

	As ever, forensic science cannot prove a negative to a
	certainty, and it cannot state that there were other
	Dealy Plaza gunmen who missed everyone in Dealy Plaza
	that day.

	But forensic science can and indeed has provided us with
	a very firm platform from which to evaluate theories about
	the circumstances surrounding the death of President Kennedy.
	
Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)