Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 5, 2021 13:10:18 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TN-lxAViadI/AAAAAAAAGk8/LoN8HuH0pNc/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/guinn.bmp
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) on November 22, 1963. Since one of the shots missed the limousine completely they needed to invent a way for one bullet to cause all seven wounds to both JFK and JBC (the other hit killed JFK by exploding his head) and this became known as the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). We have seen in numerous posts that this theory is defunct and never happened.
This post will yet again show this theory (the lynchpin and crux of the WC’s case) is impossible and never occurred.
*****************************
Dr. Vincent Guinn was touted as an “expert” in Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) due to his vast years in using the method.
Mr. WOLF - Are you familiar with the technique of analysis of evidence samples known as neutron activation analysis?
Dr. GUINN - Yes; I have been involved in such work for over 20 years.
Mr. WOLF - When did you first personally perform this technique?
Dr. GUINN - About 1956.
Mr. WOLF - Have you testified in legal proceedings before on the applicability of neutron activation analysis to evidence samples?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, on many occasions.
Mr. WOLF - Did you testify in the capacity as an expert witness?
Dr. GUINN - Yes.
NAA was a different kind of science from typical ballistic tests as it compares elements within different samples to see if they came from the same batch or item. According to Dr. Guinn though it was NOT an absolute science as he said this before the HSCA.
Mr. WOLF - Generally, Dr. Guinn, why would one subject an evidence sample to neutron activation analysis?
Dr. GUINN - It depends on the kind of evidence sample, but for many kinds the purpose is to detect various elements in the samples and compare specimens to see if they are sufficiently similar in composition that it indicates a high probability of common origin or, if they differ widely, a definite probability of noncommon origin.
He is using terms like “sufficiently similar in composition” and “high probability of common origin”, but there is NO mention of a definite match. At least NOT on the positive side as he says you can show a “definite probability of NONCOMMON origin” if the samples differ widely.
So why did he say this after he said the comment above?
Mr. WOLF - So it may be possible, by neutron activation analysis, to determine if two or more unknown evidence specimens are from the same batch or item, is that correct?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct.
All he can do is say there is a “high probability” that they came from the same batch or item, but he can’t so this with 100% certainty. He supports my comment in this next answer to the HSCA.
Mr. WOLF - To use an example, if a crime had been committed and the victim hit over the head with an ax, and metal fragments were found in the skull of the victim, might you be able to analyze the metal fragments found in the skull to see if they matched the type of ax that was found in a particular person's house who is accused of that crime?
Dr. GUINN - Yes; if one found the same elements at approximately the same concentrations in both, you could establish that there was a good probability that it came from the same type of ax. It wouldn't identify that particular ax because there might have been a hundred or so made of the same batch of metal but it would establish that particular brand and production lot perhaps.
IF you can’t identify that PARTICULAR axe (i.e. the murder weapon) than what good is this stuff anyway? If you can’t say a particular gun was the murder weapon what have you done to help the prosecution’s case? He then says it is easier to EXCLUDE items instead of MATCHING items using NAA.
Mr. WOLF - Is it easier for you to state your conclusion that two objects are alike or is it easier to establish the conclusion the two items are not alike?
Dr. GUINN - It is much easier to exclude; if you find two samples that differ markedly, it is easy to say definitively they did not have a common origin. If they look similar in composition, then your first statement is: "They may have a common origin," and you have to look more carefully and look at background data that you have obtained on such materials to try to even estimate a probability that they really do have a common origin.
See the word DEFINITIVELY used with the exclusion process? Why can’t this be used with the INCLUSION process? Despite all of this Dr. Guinn claimed that Commission Exhibit (CE) 842 matched CE 399 using NAA technology, or in other words, the fragment(s) taken from JBC's wrist matched the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital (PH). According to the WC defenders this proved beyond all doubt that the SBT was correct, thus, LHO was the ONLY shooter. To quote a famous WC defender, “Case Closed” according to them, but as we just saw this is NOT AN EXACT science so how can they say this is a definitive conclusion?
Let’s look at this issue further by using the testimony of JBC’s surgeon Dr. Charles Gregory.
Mr. SPECTER - Are there any other X-rays of the Governor's wrist which would aid the Commission in its understanding of the injuries to the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound surgically.
For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery indicate that those fragments are no longer there. And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one or ones now being missing…
Missing? Why is it, or are they, missing? Keep in mind that he said he found two fragments as this is important later on. Dr. Gregory states this later on and it sinks the SBT all by itself based on the condition of CE 399.
Mr. McCLOY - Is that "B," we have had another "B" here, you know?
Dr. GREGORY - This is "C." "A" and "C" are comparable X-rays, one made before and one made after the operation was carried out. Before the operation, you will note a large fragment of metal visible here, not visible in this one. You will also note a small satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of metal visible preoperatively is still present postoperatively.
A LARGE fragment of metal? I thought CE 399 only lost 2.4 grains of lead? The WC would try and skirt this by asking if CE 399 could leave these fragments and still be nearly intact as it was.
Mr. SPECTER - For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having Virtually the entire 6.5-mm. bullet emerge.
Dr. GREGORY - Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly.
Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
What happened to the LARGE fragment he described earlier? Oh, that’s right, it is “missing”, therefore, it doesn’t exist according to the WC. You will see later that it was NOT possible to even say CE 399 passed through JBC (or JFK) so this whole thought pattern is not correct.
A fragment (we can’t know if it was one of the ones found in JBC’s wrist or not given the comments made already) was given to Nurse Bell and she gave this to State Trooper Bob Nolan (CE 842).
CE 842: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0434a.jpg
It then was sent back to the Dallas Police Department (DPD) on the morning of November 24, 1963, only to be sent back to the FBI lab following the murder of LHO. Agent Frazier examined the fragment on November 23, 1963, and testified before the WC about it.
Mr. SPECTER. Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet.
The last sentence says a lot as they could NOT even state that this fragment came from a BULLET or not! Thus, how could you claim it came from CE 399? So why is he saying this in his next answer?
Mr. SPECTER - Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could have.
What? I thought he just said its physical characteristics would NOT permit stating whether it originated from a bullet or not? This shows how the WC just IGNORED what was said if it did NOT fit their claim as Specter just jumps to this question despite Frazier saying this was NOT possible the question before!
This testimony makes it blatantly obvious that CE 842 consisted of just ONE fragment, and one fragment only. Yet, Dr. Guinn either seemed to not grasp this or he tested fragments that were NOT CE 842, because he would state:
Quote on
Using the CE numbers, the 399 specimen, which is the so-called stretcher or pristine bullet--it has various names--agrees in composition both in its antimony and its silver with CE 842, which are the fragments reportedly recovered from Governor Connally's wrist.
Quote off
He said this in his HSCA testimony about CE 842.
Mr. WOLF - Dr. Guinn, if we could again start with the items that we have placed in group 1 of the items, all found in or near the occupants of the President's limousine, and if you could give their Commission exhibit numbers and the location where they were allegedly found.
Dr. GUINN - The first of the five was CE-399. That is the so-called pristine bullet reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas…The fourth one was CE-842, one larger fragment and two smaller ones reportedly recovered from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery….
He clearly says, “one LARGER fragment and TWO smaller ones…”. Why did this NOT show-up in the WC’s examination according to Robert Frazier? Was this a simple mistake or had more fragments been presented to Dr. Guinn as CE 842? Dr. Guinn would tell the HSCA that the lead fragments he was given "...did not include any of the specific little pieces that the FBI had analyzed."
We know that Dr. Gregory removed two fragments from JBC's wrist. We know that Frazier examined one fragment. We know that the samples given to Dr. Guinn did not match the FBI samples. We know Guinn found three fragments REPORTEDLY recovered from JBC's wrist.
How do we explain these major discrepancies? It would seem to me they took fragments from CE-399 and gave them to Dr. Guinn in the guise of being CE 842 to guarantee a match!
Mr. WOLF - Is it your testimony that CE-399 and CE-842, the so called pristine bullet, and the fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery, both came from the same bullet?
Dr. GUINN - Yes. One, of course, is almost a complete bullet so it means that the 842 fragments came from, in this case, the base of the bullet.
How could he reach this conclusion when he said a DEFINITIVE result was not attainable using NAA? How could he reach this result when he was given FRAGMENTS and supposedly CE 842 was A fragment? This would be made clear again in this question to Dr. Guinn later on.
Mr. FITHIAN - One of the most serious questions facing the panel is the identification of the "pristine" bullet with the fragment taken from Governor Connally, in the wrist wound area. I realize the importance of your conclusion that the fragments removed during the surgery from Governor Connally's wrist…
It is clear that Dr. Guinn was testing FRAGMENTS and not a fragment as FBI expert Robert Frazier did for the WC. This next comment also sinks the WC’s whole case by itself.
Mr. WOLF - Dr. Guinn, am I correct that technically you cannot today testify to the complete validity of the so-called single bullet theory because there was no lead left in the back wound of the President or around the President's throat that would allow you to examine it and, therefore possibly determine that CE-399 passed through the President?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, reportedly there were no lead fragments found in the back-to-throat wound of the President, and hence no specimens to be analyzed, so I know nothing about that particular wound.
He could NOT say that CE 399 ever passed through JFK at all, thus, you can’t support the SBT that claims it did. Murder cases are NOT solved with “could have”, “might have” or “possibly” so this shows the WC had NO support for their claim. It is confirmed yet again here.
Mr. FITHIAN - And I close with this question, then: Since there are no fragments from President Kennedy other than the skull shot, in actual fact, using your scientific methods, you cannot shed any light on whether or not the bullet that passed through Governor Connally also passed through the President; is that a correct statement?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct. These results only show that the CE 399 "pristine" bullet, or so-called stretcher bullet, matches the fragments in his wrist. They give you no information whatsoever about whether that bullet first went through President Kennedy's body, since it left no track of fragment's and, for that matter, it doesn't even say that it went through Governor Connally--through his back, that is--because it left no track of fragments there. At least I have never see or heard of any recovered lead fragments from either of those wounds. The results, merely say that the stretcher bullet matches the fragments in the wrist, and that indicates indeed that that particular bullet did fracture the wrist. It unfortunately can't tell you anything else because there were no other bits and pieces along the other wounds.
Mr. WOLF - You can, however, today state for the first time scientifically that CE-399 did cause the injuries to Governor Connally's wrist?
Dr. GUINN - Yes sir, those two match so closely that I would say that such was the case.
This of course means nothing since he was testing fragments when CE 842 was ONLY A fragment in 1963. Even with this out of the way it still means nothing since they could NOT show CE 399 ever went through JFK or JBC before it hit JBC’s wrist!
Dr. Guinn would make some enlightening comments to the media following his testimony before the HSCA too. Here are those comments:
Quote on
After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room. His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among other things, Dr. Guinn said:
a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be tested.
"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look alike... I have no control over these things."
Quote off
So we see in his work for the WC he shot down the claim it was “normal” for the type of rifle allegedly used (CE 139) to not show a positive on the shooter’s cheek; and we see him saying after his work for the HSCA that he was NOT given the SAME SAMPLES THE FBI USED IN 1964 as the weights were DIFFERENT and this could indicate that the samples could have been “deliberately falsified” to skew the evidence.
Despite being the government’s expert we owe a great deal to Dr. Guinn for making all of these things known to us.
4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TN-lxAViadI/AAAAAAAAGk8/LoN8HuH0pNc/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/guinn.bmp
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) on November 22, 1963. Since one of the shots missed the limousine completely they needed to invent a way for one bullet to cause all seven wounds to both JFK and JBC (the other hit killed JFK by exploding his head) and this became known as the Single Bullet Theory (SBT). We have seen in numerous posts that this theory is defunct and never happened.
This post will yet again show this theory (the lynchpin and crux of the WC’s case) is impossible and never occurred.
*****************************
Dr. Vincent Guinn was touted as an “expert” in Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) due to his vast years in using the method.
Mr. WOLF - Are you familiar with the technique of analysis of evidence samples known as neutron activation analysis?
Dr. GUINN - Yes; I have been involved in such work for over 20 years.
Mr. WOLF - When did you first personally perform this technique?
Dr. GUINN - About 1956.
Mr. WOLF - Have you testified in legal proceedings before on the applicability of neutron activation analysis to evidence samples?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, on many occasions.
Mr. WOLF - Did you testify in the capacity as an expert witness?
Dr. GUINN - Yes.
NAA was a different kind of science from typical ballistic tests as it compares elements within different samples to see if they came from the same batch or item. According to Dr. Guinn though it was NOT an absolute science as he said this before the HSCA.
Mr. WOLF - Generally, Dr. Guinn, why would one subject an evidence sample to neutron activation analysis?
Dr. GUINN - It depends on the kind of evidence sample, but for many kinds the purpose is to detect various elements in the samples and compare specimens to see if they are sufficiently similar in composition that it indicates a high probability of common origin or, if they differ widely, a definite probability of noncommon origin.
He is using terms like “sufficiently similar in composition” and “high probability of common origin”, but there is NO mention of a definite match. At least NOT on the positive side as he says you can show a “definite probability of NONCOMMON origin” if the samples differ widely.
So why did he say this after he said the comment above?
Mr. WOLF - So it may be possible, by neutron activation analysis, to determine if two or more unknown evidence specimens are from the same batch or item, is that correct?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct.
All he can do is say there is a “high probability” that they came from the same batch or item, but he can’t so this with 100% certainty. He supports my comment in this next answer to the HSCA.
Mr. WOLF - To use an example, if a crime had been committed and the victim hit over the head with an ax, and metal fragments were found in the skull of the victim, might you be able to analyze the metal fragments found in the skull to see if they matched the type of ax that was found in a particular person's house who is accused of that crime?
Dr. GUINN - Yes; if one found the same elements at approximately the same concentrations in both, you could establish that there was a good probability that it came from the same type of ax. It wouldn't identify that particular ax because there might have been a hundred or so made of the same batch of metal but it would establish that particular brand and production lot perhaps.
IF you can’t identify that PARTICULAR axe (i.e. the murder weapon) than what good is this stuff anyway? If you can’t say a particular gun was the murder weapon what have you done to help the prosecution’s case? He then says it is easier to EXCLUDE items instead of MATCHING items using NAA.
Mr. WOLF - Is it easier for you to state your conclusion that two objects are alike or is it easier to establish the conclusion the two items are not alike?
Dr. GUINN - It is much easier to exclude; if you find two samples that differ markedly, it is easy to say definitively they did not have a common origin. If they look similar in composition, then your first statement is: "They may have a common origin," and you have to look more carefully and look at background data that you have obtained on such materials to try to even estimate a probability that they really do have a common origin.
See the word DEFINITIVELY used with the exclusion process? Why can’t this be used with the INCLUSION process? Despite all of this Dr. Guinn claimed that Commission Exhibit (CE) 842 matched CE 399 using NAA technology, or in other words, the fragment(s) taken from JBC's wrist matched the stretcher bullet found at Parkland Hospital (PH). According to the WC defenders this proved beyond all doubt that the SBT was correct, thus, LHO was the ONLY shooter. To quote a famous WC defender, “Case Closed” according to them, but as we just saw this is NOT AN EXACT science so how can they say this is a definitive conclusion?
Let’s look at this issue further by using the testimony of JBC’s surgeon Dr. Charles Gregory.
Mr. SPECTER - Are there any other X-rays of the Governor's wrist which would aid the Commission in its understanding of the injuries to the wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Only to indicate that there were two fragments of metal retrieved in the course of dealing with this wound surgically.
For the subsequent X-rays of the same area, after the initial surgery indicate that those fragments are no longer there. And as I stated, I thought I had retrieved two of them. The major one or ones now being missing…
Missing? Why is it, or are they, missing? Keep in mind that he said he found two fragments as this is important later on. Dr. Gregory states this later on and it sinks the SBT all by itself based on the condition of CE 399.
Mr. McCLOY - Is that "B," we have had another "B" here, you know?
Dr. GREGORY - This is "C." "A" and "C" are comparable X-rays, one made before and one made after the operation was carried out. Before the operation, you will note a large fragment of metal visible here, not visible in this one. You will also note a small satellite fragment not visible here. A second piece of metal visible preoperatively is still present postoperatively.
A LARGE fragment of metal? I thought CE 399 only lost 2.4 grains of lead? The WC would try and skirt this by asking if CE 399 could leave these fragments and still be nearly intact as it was.
Mr. SPECTER - For the purpose of this consideration, I am interested to know whether the metal which you found in the wrist was of sufficient size so that the bullet which passed through the wrist could not have emerged virtually completely intact or with 158 grains intact, or whether the portions of the metallic fragments were so small that that would be consistent with having Virtually the entire 6.5-mm. bullet emerge.
Dr. GREGORY - Well, considering the small volume of metal as seen by X-ray, and the very small dimensions of the metal which was recovered, I think several such fragments could have been flaked off of a total missile mass without reducing its volume greatly.
Now, just how much, depends of course upon what the original missile weighed. In other words, on the basis of the metal left behind in Governor Connally's body, as far as I could tell, the missile that struck it could be virtually intact, insofar as mass was concerned, but probably was distorted.
What happened to the LARGE fragment he described earlier? Oh, that’s right, it is “missing”, therefore, it doesn’t exist according to the WC. You will see later that it was NOT possible to even say CE 399 passed through JBC (or JFK) so this whole thought pattern is not correct.
A fragment (we can’t know if it was one of the ones found in JBC’s wrist or not given the comments made already) was given to Nurse Bell and she gave this to State Trooper Bob Nolan (CE 842).
CE 842: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0434a.jpg
It then was sent back to the Dallas Police Department (DPD) on the morning of November 24, 1963, only to be sent back to the FBI lab following the murder of LHO. Agent Frazier examined the fragment on November 23, 1963, and testified before the WC about it.
Mr. SPECTER. Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?
Mr. FRAZIER. It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor Connally.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet.
The last sentence says a lot as they could NOT even state that this fragment came from a BULLET or not! Thus, how could you claim it came from CE 399? So why is he saying this in his next answer?
Mr. SPECTER - Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it could have.
What? I thought he just said its physical characteristics would NOT permit stating whether it originated from a bullet or not? This shows how the WC just IGNORED what was said if it did NOT fit their claim as Specter just jumps to this question despite Frazier saying this was NOT possible the question before!
This testimony makes it blatantly obvious that CE 842 consisted of just ONE fragment, and one fragment only. Yet, Dr. Guinn either seemed to not grasp this or he tested fragments that were NOT CE 842, because he would state:
Quote on
Using the CE numbers, the 399 specimen, which is the so-called stretcher or pristine bullet--it has various names--agrees in composition both in its antimony and its silver with CE 842, which are the fragments reportedly recovered from Governor Connally's wrist.
Quote off
He said this in his HSCA testimony about CE 842.
Mr. WOLF - Dr. Guinn, if we could again start with the items that we have placed in group 1 of the items, all found in or near the occupants of the President's limousine, and if you could give their Commission exhibit numbers and the location where they were allegedly found.
Dr. GUINN - The first of the five was CE-399. That is the so-called pristine bullet reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas…The fourth one was CE-842, one larger fragment and two smaller ones reportedly recovered from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery….
He clearly says, “one LARGER fragment and TWO smaller ones…”. Why did this NOT show-up in the WC’s examination according to Robert Frazier? Was this a simple mistake or had more fragments been presented to Dr. Guinn as CE 842? Dr. Guinn would tell the HSCA that the lead fragments he was given "...did not include any of the specific little pieces that the FBI had analyzed."
We know that Dr. Gregory removed two fragments from JBC's wrist. We know that Frazier examined one fragment. We know that the samples given to Dr. Guinn did not match the FBI samples. We know Guinn found three fragments REPORTEDLY recovered from JBC's wrist.
How do we explain these major discrepancies? It would seem to me they took fragments from CE-399 and gave them to Dr. Guinn in the guise of being CE 842 to guarantee a match!
Mr. WOLF - Is it your testimony that CE-399 and CE-842, the so called pristine bullet, and the fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery, both came from the same bullet?
Dr. GUINN - Yes. One, of course, is almost a complete bullet so it means that the 842 fragments came from, in this case, the base of the bullet.
How could he reach this conclusion when he said a DEFINITIVE result was not attainable using NAA? How could he reach this result when he was given FRAGMENTS and supposedly CE 842 was A fragment? This would be made clear again in this question to Dr. Guinn later on.
Mr. FITHIAN - One of the most serious questions facing the panel is the identification of the "pristine" bullet with the fragment taken from Governor Connally, in the wrist wound area. I realize the importance of your conclusion that the fragments removed during the surgery from Governor Connally's wrist…
It is clear that Dr. Guinn was testing FRAGMENTS and not a fragment as FBI expert Robert Frazier did for the WC. This next comment also sinks the WC’s whole case by itself.
Mr. WOLF - Dr. Guinn, am I correct that technically you cannot today testify to the complete validity of the so-called single bullet theory because there was no lead left in the back wound of the President or around the President's throat that would allow you to examine it and, therefore possibly determine that CE-399 passed through the President?
Dr. GUINN - Yes, reportedly there were no lead fragments found in the back-to-throat wound of the President, and hence no specimens to be analyzed, so I know nothing about that particular wound.
He could NOT say that CE 399 ever passed through JFK at all, thus, you can’t support the SBT that claims it did. Murder cases are NOT solved with “could have”, “might have” or “possibly” so this shows the WC had NO support for their claim. It is confirmed yet again here.
Mr. FITHIAN - And I close with this question, then: Since there are no fragments from President Kennedy other than the skull shot, in actual fact, using your scientific methods, you cannot shed any light on whether or not the bullet that passed through Governor Connally also passed through the President; is that a correct statement?
Dr. GUINN - That is correct. These results only show that the CE 399 "pristine" bullet, or so-called stretcher bullet, matches the fragments in his wrist. They give you no information whatsoever about whether that bullet first went through President Kennedy's body, since it left no track of fragment's and, for that matter, it doesn't even say that it went through Governor Connally--through his back, that is--because it left no track of fragments there. At least I have never see or heard of any recovered lead fragments from either of those wounds. The results, merely say that the stretcher bullet matches the fragments in the wrist, and that indicates indeed that that particular bullet did fracture the wrist. It unfortunately can't tell you anything else because there were no other bits and pieces along the other wounds.
Mr. WOLF - You can, however, today state for the first time scientifically that CE-399 did cause the injuries to Governor Connally's wrist?
Dr. GUINN - Yes sir, those two match so closely that I would say that such was the case.
This of course means nothing since he was testing fragments when CE 842 was ONLY A fragment in 1963. Even with this out of the way it still means nothing since they could NOT show CE 399 ever went through JFK or JBC before it hit JBC’s wrist!
Dr. Guinn would make some enlightening comments to the media following his testimony before the HSCA too. Here are those comments:
Quote on
After his testimony before the committee was completed, Dr. Guinn talked with several people in the hallway outside the committee room. His remarks were recorded on tape, and they are noteworthy. Among other things, Dr. Guinn said:
a. It was not until the fragments from the National Archives arrived at his California lab that he discovered he was testing fragments different from those tested by the FBI.
b. None of the weights matched those of the 1964 test fragments.
c. It would have been easy to deliberately falsify the evidence to be tested.
"Possibly they would take a bullet, take out a few little pieces and put it in the container, and say, 'This is what came out of Connally's wrist.' And naturally, if you compare it with 399, it will look alike... I have no control over these things."
Quote off
So we see in his work for the WC he shot down the claim it was “normal” for the type of rifle allegedly used (CE 139) to not show a positive on the shooter’s cheek; and we see him saying after his work for the HSCA that he was NOT given the SAME SAMPLES THE FBI USED IN 1964 as the weights were DIFFERENT and this could indicate that the samples could have been “deliberately falsified” to skew the evidence.
Despite being the government’s expert we owe a great deal to Dr. Guinn for making all of these things known to us.