From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Lattimer, Question Eight
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:23:07 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:

>Moving along to question eight:  "Was the angle of the bullet track
>through the President's body indeed downward at the required 
>twenty-degree angle to be compatible to Oswald's firing position
>on the sixth floor?"

>In a nutshell, Lattimer's answer is: yes.

>I believe he is wrong on this point, but here's his analysis:

>First, his description of the back wound: (p. 199)  "On the upper back,
>just below the juncture of neck and back, there was an ovoid
>penetrating wound estimated to be approximately 6 mm X 8mm (one
>fourth inch) in size, with its longer axis transverse.  It was
>compatible with a 6.5 mm bullet wound and had a blackened rim
>around it, which was suggestive of a wound of entry from a
>high-speed bullet.

Lattime leaves out the fact that the ovoid wound had a blackened rim
consistent with an upward bullet track into the back.

When bullets penetrate the skin, they often leave 'abrasion collars'
around the wound. The abrasion collar on JFK's back was wider on the
bottom right of the wound meaning it entered from the right and moving
upwards in relation to the plane of his back. The HSCA also found
evidence of tunnelling upwards.

>  This wound was estimated to lie about 5 cm
>to the right of the midline and approximately the same distance
>below the transverse double fold in the skin at the juncture of
>the neck and back.  

I think Lattimer and the WC and the HSCA use 5cm because it aids in
aligning the wound with the TSBD. The trouble is, the hole in JFK's
shirt was only 1.125 inches to the right of the midline, which is only
2.9 cm. 

>This fold in the skin of the neck was very
>prominent and may have been related to the thickening of the
>tissues of this area.  This bullet hole was recognizable as the
>wound described in the autopsy report as lying 14 cm medial to
>the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm below the tip
>of the right mastoid process."

The mastoid process is on the head, which is an absolutely loony place
to use as a reference point for a back wound. But thats not Lattimers
fault, that was Humes's.

>Then (since we're talking about vertical trajectory between 
>inshoot and outshoot locations) the tracheostomy insicison: (p. 200)

>"There was a large transverse tracheostomy wound about 6.5 cm in
>length and gaping open at least 1.5 cm at it widest (mid) portion.
>The tracheostomy wound in the front of the neck was at a lower
>level than I had expected to see it.  It was almost at the 
>suprasternal notch, and its upper margin was seen to be far below
>the bottom of the transverse fold of skin of the back of the
>neck, mentioned before, indicating that the wound of exit was
>substantially below the wound of entry in the back of the neck.

Thanks Lattimer. That just about makes it impossible for a bullet to
enter a higher position on JFK's back going upwards to exit well below
the back wound. :)

[...]

>Another factor that made the height of the wound on the back of 
>Kennedy's neck difficult to describe exactly was that the tissues
>at the back of his neck were more prominent than those of most
>people.  This was possibly caused by his holding his shoulders
>high, producing a roll of tissue across the back of his neck,
>or his swimming, or perhaps the cortisone derivative treatments
>he had over the years caused a slightly greater than normal 
>thickening of these tissues."

Thats three , count 'em three, excuses for moving the back wound into
the neck area. I think Lattimer was grasping for straws.

>I believe the HSCA, which concluded the bullet path was nearly
>horizontal was more likely correct than was Lattimer.

Thats too bad, because the HSCA medical evidence concluded the bullet
was moving upwards as it entered JFK's back.





-- 
===============================================================================
        "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin -- Split Second

schuck@sfu.ca                                           Vote No on October 26th
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk