The 'Other' Wounds

[Bob Prudhomme]

A further comment on the "short shot" theory used to explain the shallow unexplored back wound on JFK. For a rifle bullet to only penetrate an inch in flesh, its velocity would have to be reduced to the point where it would not be spinning fast enough to maintain stability. Translated, this slow bullet should have begun tumbling long before it hit JFK and, if it did hit JFK, it should have made a "keyhole" (oblong) wound characteristic of wounds made by a tumbling bullet.

Further, it is an insult to the intelligence to think that such a low velocity bullet would have even hit JFK, let alone hit the limo. Once a bullet leaves the barrel, the only force acting on it, aside from air resistance, is gravity; and a bullet is on a constant drop as soon as it departs the muzzle. The rate of this drop is determined partly by aerodynamics but mainly by muzzle velocity. If the rifle used was zeroed to be accurate at, say, 100 yards, and the shooter aimed at JFK's head, a bullet travelling at this low velocity would likely hit the pavement behind the limo, as the shooter would have no way of knowing he had chambered a dud round and had to compensate for it.

Where did the bullet go that struck JFK in the back? I have presented a few ideas on this in the thread "Could a 6.5mm Carcano Have Made 2 out of 3 of JFK's Wounds?"

[Drew Phipps]

Part of the problem with the autopsy is that the official description of the back wound IS oval: 6 mm by 4 mm. Since bullet holes of entrance may be somewhat smaller than the bullet itself, as the skin is elastic, I could get behind the idea that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 6 mm hole. But I can't get behind the idea that a round bullet 6.7 mm in diameter could leave a oval hole with a minor axis measurement of only 4 mm.

But if you believe that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 4 mm hole (60%), then you must also believe that this bullet struck JFK while tumbling, or at an angle, that the bullet's "apparent" size in the long direction was around 10 mm (if you assume that the resiliency of the skin is the same in a "north-south" direction as it is in an "east-west" direction). Looks like to me that requires a 3 cm long bullet entering at a 30 degree angle from the horizontal.

Upon further reflection, if you assume not that the resiliency is proportional, but absolute (namely that 1.35 mm of JFK's skin along the edge of the bullet hole would "bounce back" (to give us a small axis of 4 mm) then the large axis of the bullet's apparent size as it enters the skin is 8.7 mm. Which is an angle of 3.8 degrees from the horizontal.

Alas, I am not a doctor, and can't tell you which of these scenarios is more likely from a medical standpoint. However, neither of these angles appear to match the apparent angle of entry of 45 - 60 degrees observed by the autopsy physicians.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Part of the problem with the autopsy is that the official description of the back wound IS oval: 6 mm by 4 mm. Since bullet holes of entrance may be somewhat smaller than the bullet itself, as the skin is elastic, I could get behind the idea that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 6 mm hole. But I can't get behind the idea that a round bullet 6.7 mm in diameter could leave a oval hole with a minor axis measurement of only 4 mm.

But if you believe that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 4 mm hole (60%), then you must also believe that this bullet struck JFK while tumbling, or at an angle, that the bullet's "apparent" size in the long direction was around 10 mm (if you assume that the resiliency of the skin is the same in a "north-south" direction as it is in an "east-west" direction). Looks like to me that requires a 3 cm long bullet entering at a 30 degree angle from the horizontal.

Upon further reflection, if you assume not that the resiliency is proportional, but absolute (namely that 1.35 mm of JFK's skin along the edge of the bullet hole would "bounce back" (to give us a small axis of 4 mm) then the large axis of the bullet's apparent size as it enters the skin is 8.7 mm. Which is an angle of 3.8 degrees from the horizontal.

Alas, I am not a doctor, and can't tell you which of these scenarios is more likely from a medical standpoint. However, neither of these angles appear to match the apparent angle of entry of 45 - 60 degrees observed by the autopsy physicians.

Hi Drew

A 4mm x 6mm entrance wound is not indicative of a tumbling bullet, even on the remote chance it struck JFK in mid-tumble and either the nose or base of the bullet miraculously was the first thing to hit. Although it is remotely possible for this to occur, we have to remember the bullet would still be tumbling as it entered, and there would be much evidence of flesh being torn up as the bullet tumbled inside the wound entrance.

I hate to contradict you all of the time but, neat little entrance wounds are made by bullets travelling straight and true, not tumbling bullets.

[Drew Phipps]

You dont think a 6.7 mm round bullet leaving a 4mm hole is a bit unusual?

For that matter, I don't see how a 6.7 mm bullet leaves a mere 6 mm hole in the skull either.

[Bob Prudhomme]

You dont think a 6.7 mm round bullet leaving a 4mm hole is a bit unusual?

For that matter, I don't see how a 6.7 mm bullet leaves a mere 6 mm hole in the skull either.

It's definitely unusual, there's no doubt about that. I just don't see it as evidence of a tumbling bullet. They tend to make larger and messier entrance wounds.

[Herbert Blenner]

Part of the problem with the autopsy is that the official description of the back wound IS oval: 6 mm by 4 mm. Since bullet holes of entrance may be somewhat smaller than the bullet itself, as the skin is elastic, I could get behind the idea that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 6 mm hole. But I can't get behind the idea that a round bullet 6.7 mm in diameter could leave a oval hole with a minor axis measurement of only 4 mm.

But if you believe that a 6.7 mm bullet could leave a 4 mm hole (60%), then you must also believe that this bullet struck JFK while tumbling, or at an angle, that the bullet's "apparent" size in the long direction was around 10 mm (if you assume that the resiliency of the skin is the same in a "north-south" direction as it is in an "east-west" direction). Looks like to me that requires a 3 cm long bullet entering at a 30 degree angle from the horizontal.

Upon further reflection, if you assume not that the resiliency is proportional, but absolute (namely that 1.35 mm of JFK's skin along the edge of the bullet hole would "bounce back" (to give us a small axis of 4 mm) then the large axis of the bullet's apparent size as it enters the skin is 8.7 mm. Which is an angle of 3.8 degrees from the horizontal.

Alas, I am not a doctor, and can't tell you which of these scenarios is more likely from a medical standpoint. However, neither of these angles appear to match the apparent angle of entry of 45 - 60 degrees observed by the autopsy physicians.

The description of the 7 mm by 4 mm back wound by Humes is consistent with a bullet with a considerable yaw angle. In particular he reported that the damage beneath the skin practically coincided with the surface wound.

Fox-5 shows the shape of this wound which Humes mislabeled as oval resembled a keyhole with a short rod like extension.

This combined evidence makes a case for attributing the 7 mm by 4 wound to an exiting bullet.

The Forensic Pathology Panel reported that the remnant throat wound had a denuded and discolored margin. These characteristics describe a bullet wound of entry.

This interpretation of the throat wound as a wound of entry and the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back wound as a wound of exit is consistent with the reports by the medical panels who replaced the longitudinal back wound with a 7mm by 10 mm transverse back wound.