From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Lattimer, Question Eight
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:39:04 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

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.

Ha ha ha ha.

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

Oh, okay, I suppose you must ....

>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.  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.

By who? Using the scale of the ruler pictured in the photo, I measure
between 7.5 and 8 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.

More likely, I think, it was related to the fact that Kennedy's skin was
being pulled upwards as he was lifted off his back.

>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."

>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,

That's an interesting observation considering the fold of skin wouldn't
exist while JFK was lying flat on his back and even it it had would not
be visible in any of the photographs where the throat wound is visible.

Lattimer is, of course, making guesstimates, that of course fit exactly
into what he wants to find.

>indicating that the wound of exit was
>substantially below the wound of entry in the back of the neck.

I don't see it. I see it above the back wound by a couple of inches.
Using two mirrors, see where the lower part of your throat lines up
on your back. Then look at the location of the wound in JFK's shoulder;
it's lower, even if you don't take into account skin distortion.

>The lower lip of the tracheostomy incision had a large cresentic
>indentation near its center, as if from the pressure of the large
>cuffed tracheostomy tube inserted through it during the attempts
>at resuscitation.  Dr. Malcolm Perry had indicated that he had
>created this wound by a transverse incision directly through the
>bullet hole in the front of the lower neck at this location.

>The 1968 panel of forensic pathologists stated in their report
>that they could detect, among the irregularities along the upper
>margin of this gaping tracheostomy incision, the semicircular
>upper half of a wound of exit from a bullet.  I did not find these
>photographs sharp enough or close enough to enable me to agree or
>disagree with this diagnosis.  However, the relative heights
>of the two wounds did make it quite obvious in the photographs
>that any bullet that might have exited through this hole had a 
>definite downward course through Kennedy's neck, rather than the
>relatively horizontal course that had been depicted in the official
>schematic diagram made by medical staff artist H.A. Rydbert from
>verbal descriptions of the wound and not from actual measurements,
>photographs, or a viewing of the body.

Or Lattimer's highly active imagination. :)

>Another factor that made the height of the wound on the back of 
>Kennedy's neck

You can call it shoulder or you can call it back. It's inches away from the
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."

Or something a lot less far-fetched, like someone pulling on his skin while
his head leaned back.

>Lattimer concludes by briefly re-iterating the course of the
>bullet through back/neck, pointing out that the top of the
>lung had been bruised but not penetrating, indicating that the
>bullet had passed by but not penetrated the lung.  Dr. Lattimer
>has basically drawn a figurative line from back to front, reviewing
>the damage to the body relative to the anatomical position, and
>concluded the bullet path was indeed 20 degrees downward.

Note that the lung does not reach anywhere near the height of the frontal
throat wound, which Lattimer wants as his lowest point in the bullet path.
How did the bullet bruise the lung without getting anywhere near it?

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

Note that a horizontal path also does not come close to a lung, and begins
higher on the back than the wound actually appears in the autopsy photo.

>Joel Grant (speaking on his own behalf)

Tom Warner (speaking on behalf of Big Brother)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk