Post by John Duncan on Mar 19, 2021 21:02:38 GMT -5
Slipping One Under The Table
Herbert Blenner 7/2010
If someone asked me to summarize the contribution of the Clark Panel then the title of this post would express my thoughts.
During his WC testimony Commander Humes described the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back. He said:
"These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4 millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of vertical column."
The Clark Panel described the abrasion surrounding the bullet hole. They wrote:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body."
"A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399."
These reports on the bullet hole and the surrounding abrasion contained no conflicting details. In fact, the incidence component of the striking angles calculated from these two distinct features of the wound agreed too within the expected margin of error arising form the single digit precision of the reported dimensions.
The descriptions of the abrasion by the Forensic Pathology Panel upset the apparent harmony between the testimony of Commander Humes and the report of the Clark Panel. In particular the FPP described a transverse abrasion whereas Humes reported a longitudinal hole.
Forensic analysts recognize that the direction of the longer axis of an oval bullet hole or an elliptical abrasion coincide with the tangential component of the striking velocity of the bullet. So the Clark Panel who had viewed the same autopsy photographs as the Forensic Pathology Panel also observed a transverse abrasion and elected to use unprofessional language of width and length to obscure the orientation of the wound.
The choice of words by the Clark Panel is especially interesting since Humes used similar words for the two characterizing dimensions of the wound. Humes testified, "The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 [sic] mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long."
Apparently the Clark Panel used the mental association of width with wide and the association of length with long to conceal an approximate ninety-degree misalignment between the bullet hole and the abrasion.
This trick by the Clark Panel placed the Forensic Pathology Panel in.the awkward position of having to reconcile the differences between the bullet hole and the abrasion.
Obviously members of the pathology panel were not miracle workers and the best that they could do was to give two differing descriptions of the striking velocity of the bullet.
Doctor Baden reported that viewers of the autopsy photographs concluded that features of the abrasion place entering the bullet on an inward and leftward course while the report of the panel said that characteristics associated with the bullet hole placed the entering bullet on an inward and upward course. In other words, the Forensic Pathology Panel took the easy way out and presented evidence of a wound altered to give a false impression of the striking velocity.
During the late eighties, the leak of the Fox photographs shed new light on handling of the back wound by the two previous medical panels. A high resolution reproduction of F5 shows an oval abrasion with relative dimensions of 7 to 10 and a non oval feature with relative dimensions of 4 to 7. This feature appears approximately four centimeters below and slightly to the left of the abrasion.
Herbert Blenner 7/2010
If someone asked me to summarize the contribution of the Clark Panel then the title of this post would express my thoughts.
During his WC testimony Commander Humes described the bullet hole in President Kennedy's back. He said:
"These exhibits again are schematic representations of what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late President.
Exhibit 385 shows in the low neck an oval wound which excuse me, I wish to get the measurements correct. This wound was situated just above the upper border of the scapula, and measured 7 by 4 millimeters, with its long axis roughly parallel to the long axis of vertical column."
The Clark Panel described the abrasion surrounding the bullet hole. They wrote:
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body."
"A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399."
These reports on the bullet hole and the surrounding abrasion contained no conflicting details. In fact, the incidence component of the striking angles calculated from these two distinct features of the wound agreed too within the expected margin of error arising form the single digit precision of the reported dimensions.
The descriptions of the abrasion by the Forensic Pathology Panel upset the apparent harmony between the testimony of Commander Humes and the report of the Clark Panel. In particular the FPP described a transverse abrasion whereas Humes reported a longitudinal hole.
Forensic analysts recognize that the direction of the longer axis of an oval bullet hole or an elliptical abrasion coincide with the tangential component of the striking velocity of the bullet. So the Clark Panel who had viewed the same autopsy photographs as the Forensic Pathology Panel also observed a transverse abrasion and elected to use unprofessional language of width and length to obscure the orientation of the wound.
The choice of words by the Clark Panel is especially interesting since Humes used similar words for the two characterizing dimensions of the wound. Humes testified, "The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 [sic] mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long."
Apparently the Clark Panel used the mental association of width with wide and the association of length with long to conceal an approximate ninety-degree misalignment between the bullet hole and the abrasion.
This trick by the Clark Panel placed the Forensic Pathology Panel in.the awkward position of having to reconcile the differences between the bullet hole and the abrasion.
Obviously members of the pathology panel were not miracle workers and the best that they could do was to give two differing descriptions of the striking velocity of the bullet.
Doctor Baden reported that viewers of the autopsy photographs concluded that features of the abrasion place entering the bullet on an inward and leftward course while the report of the panel said that characteristics associated with the bullet hole placed the entering bullet on an inward and upward course. In other words, the Forensic Pathology Panel took the easy way out and presented evidence of a wound altered to give a false impression of the striking velocity.
During the late eighties, the leak of the Fox photographs shed new light on handling of the back wound by the two previous medical panels. A high resolution reproduction of F5 shows an oval abrasion with relative dimensions of 7 to 10 and a non oval feature with relative dimensions of 4 to 7. This feature appears approximately four centimeters below and slightly to the left of the abrasion.
Fox five, if true, explains the devious conduct of the prosectors and the medical panels. In short, these pathological and forensic specialists recognized the 4 mm. by 7 mm. hole as an exit wound. At least James J. Humes initially had the strength of character to call this hole a wound presumably of entry. This behavior in part excuses his later capitulation during his ARRB testimony where he identified the elliptical abrasion as the wound of entry and speculated that his earlier longitudinal wound was a blood clot.