1
Trajectory of a Lie
By Milicent Cranor
“A secret may be sometimes best kept by keeping the secret of its being a secret. It is not many years since a State secret of the greatest importance was printed without being divulged, merely by sending it to the press like any other matter, and trusting to the mechanical habits of the persons employed. They printed it piecemeal in ignorance of what it was about.”From The Statesman,
by Sir Henry Taylor, 1836
View from the overpass, southwest corner of Dealey Plaza. Taken by the author.
Part I. The Palindrome
Two points make a line. Two connected bullet wounds in a body make a line known as a trajectory. The line can be extended backward to the general area of the shooter. Thus, a line can accuse a man of murder. But one wound must be clearly an entrance, the other, clearly an exit. And the two must be connected. All three conditions have to be present, or we have either no trajectory, or we have one that is reversible, depending on viewpoint. A palindrome.
A palindrome is a word, phrase or number that reads the same, backwards or forwards, e.g., “Able was I ere I saw Elba.” The word comes from the Greek, palindromos, palin (back again) + dromos (course). Words used to describe the back and throat wounds of Kennedy read the same, backwards or forwards. This is because both wounds have been described as entrances. Supporters of the official position, however, insist the throat wound was an exit, pointing out that exits can resemble entrances. If this is true, the converse must also be true: entrances can resemble exits. According to their own logic, then, either wound could be an exit or an entrance.
The throat and back wounds were quite similar. Commander James Humes, the pathologist in charge of the autopsy, said the back wound was “sharply delineated… quite regular in its outline … margins were similar in all respects when viewed with the naked eye to the wound in the skull, which we feel incontrovertibly was a wound of entrance.” (2 WH 364) Of the small throat wound, the Parkland doctors said it had “ no jagged edges or stellate lacerations” (6 WH 3); “relatively smooth edges (6 WH 54); “rather clean.” (3 WH 372) In addition, the Parkland doctors described an abrasion collar (7HSCA302; 6 WH 42) as well as other very specific particulars. (Then one of them later said he could hardly see the wound at all, but that is another story.)
Advocates on both sides express opinions on these wounds based partly on appearance, but mostly on context – location of wounds relative to each other, position and posture of the victim relative to presumed position of shooter(s). This is how it should be. Context, unless it is manufactured, is always relevant, but it should never be confused with what it surrounds. Ask for details that prove the wound was an exit, and you may get a lengthy description of Lee Harvey Oswald’s dysfunctional childhood or marriage. Ask again about the wound itself, and you may be told it cannot be an entrance because the shooter was behind the victim. Try again, and you will be told that four “exhaustive” official inquiries determined its nature: the Warren Commission, which depended on a pathologist who said that, during the autopsy, he was unaware of anything abnormal in the throat other than the tracheotomy, (why we have no tissue samples of the bullet wound’s remains, or decent photos of it), the Clark Panel, a collection of forensics experts who had nothing to go on but photos of poor quality, the HSCA Medical Panel, which had nothing better, and the ARRB which turned up a great deal of evidence that contradicted the official conclusion, but reported almost none of it in its summaries to the press.
The Warren Commission
What did the pathologists say they concluded on the night of the autopsy, before they learned “later” about the bullet wound in the throat? According to Humes’s testimony before the Warren Commission (confirmed by the other two pathologists), they thought a bullet had entered the JFK’s back (later revised to “neck”), proceeded on to bruise the top of the right lung, continued further to the front where it bruised the strap muscles on the right, and stopped just inside the skin of the throat. Then, during CPR, it reversed its entire path and fell out the same hole it entered. (2 WH 367, 368) Humes said another possibility occurred to them that night: the bullet may have gone down (carried by the circulation?) to the thigh or buttock.
And that’s when we saw the contusion of the dome of the upper lobe of the right lung, and we wondered, where’s the bullet? You know. Should have called Dallas right then and there. It would have saved me a lot of worry and grief for several hours, because x-rays hadn’t found it for us. Like it could have been in his thigh or it could have been in his buttock. It could have been any damn place. We didn’t know where it went. It was obvious after we talked to the doctors the next morning where it went. It went out. That’s why we couldn’t find it. And we weren’t going to spend the rest of the night there, you know…
So they believed the bullet went “any damn place” but out the throat? In the front of the neck, just a few centimeters away from the back wound, a wide incision across the throat gaped at them, the kind of incision that is a prelude to an exploratory procedure, however minimal, that is nearly always made in the presence of a penetrating knife or bullet wound. The very existence of such an incision shouts Trauma! Such an incision gives the surgeon enough room to locate and repair any life-threatening damage to the vital structures inside, and this procedure is done even in the presence of a bad head trauma. This wide incision allowed Malcolm Perry to see and later report on, among other things, the condition of the carotid arteries, which are spaced widely apart on either side of the neck, far from the middle, where a bullet either entered or exited JFK. But Humes only referred to a tracheotomy incision, instead of an exploratory incision, so he was never questioned about how he could ignore the throat as a possible site for a bullet wound. He also said they “weren’t going to spend the rest of the night there,” indicting they did not have time to determine the bullet path – yet they spent time on less relevant parts of the body:
Then we proceeded with the dissection of the lungs, heart and abdominal contents and so forth. (ARRB, 1996, pp.112-3)
Note: Kennedy was not shot in the abdomen.
Clark Panel Report
How did the Clark Panel deal with the throat wound? From their report of 1968:
At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. (p.9)
Characteristic of an exit? What was the basis for this conclusion? A few photographs of very poor quality, none specifically identified, none taken at close range, none taken under magnification. (Note: magnifying a photograph is not the same as photographing a wound under magnification.)
The Clark report is remarkable for its omissions. Where is the requisite description of the quality of the photos, and the distance from which they were taken? Where is the requisitelist of details that distinguished this wound as an exit as opposed to an entrance? Where is the standard disclaimer making clear the fact that no definite conclusion could be based on such a paucity of materials? The Clark Report does not follow the principles as stated by the most prominent member of the Panel, Alan R. Moritz, M.D. From his article, “Classical Mistakes in Forensic Pathology,” American Journal of Clinical Pathology 1956; vol.26, p.1383.
Although it would seem to be obvious that the location, dimensions, shape, depth, and special features of every wound should be described, such information is frequently inadequately recorded on protocols that are prepared by pathologists who perform only occasional medicolegal autopsies. In the protocol of a medicolegal autopsy, it is better to describe 10 findings that prove to be of no significance than to omit one that might be critical…
The purpose of a protocol is twofold. One is to record a sufficiently detailed, factual, and noninterpretive (emphasis mine) description of the observed conditions, in order that a competent reader may form his own opinions in regard to the significance of the changes described. Thus, a region of dark blue discoloration in the… may or may not be a bruise. To refer to it as a contusion in the descriptive part of the protocol is to substitute an interpretation for a description, and this is as unwarranted as it may be misleading…
And this is exactly what the Clark Panel did with respect to the throat wound: “substituted an interpretation for a description.” The back wound got slightly better treatment, probably because the desired conclusion (bullet entrance) was not likely to be challenged:
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. (p.9)
Here we see more detail but, again, the interpretation seems forced to fit the desired conclusion. An abrasion ring? Possibly, but the autopsy report does not mention one, not even in its microscopic analysis, which only describes coagulation necrosis of the margins of the head and back wounds (cell death as fibrous infarcts are formed, the result of clots plugging vessels that serve those tissues, depriving them of oxygenated blood). This is not an abrasion ring. (Another possibility: the dark area in the upper part of the wound, as seen in photographs, looks more like a side view of the wall of a tunnel created by the bullet through the thickness of the skin. See Figure 7.12 below for a similar view.) In any case, the panel at least had good reasons for concluding the back wound was an entrance.
HSCA and ARRB
As expected, neither the HSCA nor the ARRB turned up any new physical evidence that would document the nature of the throat wound, but both inquiries resulted in some very interesting revelations, few of which were publicized. With respect to the throat wound, three principal players radically contradict the testimony of James Humes: they say that he indeed knew – during the autopsy – that Kennedy had sustained this wound. If their statements are true, this means the pathologists failed to document (with descriptive words, proper photographs, tissue slides, etc.) a wound that they knew about, then lied about having known of it.
J. Thornton Boswell, M.D., the second pathologist:
Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. (HSCA, 1977, p.8) (See Dr. Akin’s description of this perimeter, above.)
Did you reach the conclusion that there had been a transit wound through the neck during the course of the autopsy itself? Oh, yes. (ARRB 1996, p.34)
Our conclusions had been that night and then reinforced the next day that it was a tracheostomy through a bullet wound. (ARRB 1996, p.45)
John H. Ebersole, M.D., Acting Chief of Radiology
I must say these times are approximate but I would say in the range of ten to eleven p.m. Dr. Humes had determined that a procedure had been carried out in the anterior neck covering the wound of exit ... (HSCA, 1978, p.20)
The taking of the X-rays again were stopped... once we had communication with Dallas and Dr. Humes had determined that there was a wound of exit in the lower neck anterior ... once that fact had been established.. my part in the proceedings was finished. (HSCA, 1978, pp.51-2)
John T. Stringer, Chief Photographer
At any time during the autopsy, did any of the doctors attempt to determine whether there were any bullet fragments in the anterior neck wound?
Yes.
What did they do?
Well, they checked on the X-rays. Did it by feel, or vision.
When you say ‘by feel,’ what do you mean?
By feeling, to see if there was anything sharp or –
So, the doctors’ fingers then would have been put into the tracheotomy wound, to attempt to determine whether any bullet fragments… ? (ARRB, 1996, p.191)
(Many more revelations are described elsewhere in this report and others on this website.)
From the Forensics Literature
What is the appropriate interpretation of the details we have on the throat wound from Parkland? What are the possibilities? The answers may be found in the forensic medical literature, depending on the source.
The field of forensic medicine seems exceptionally contaminated by politics. Local, petty politics, national politics, and global politics. And the forensic literature is often colorful and cantankerous, as one curmudgeon denounces another. But at least the sources of contention usually concern differences in interpretation of the same objective data. On the other hand, objective data on the wounds of Kennedy and Connally are often falsely presented, their interpretation, forced and artificial. Most of these papers on the assassination are stunning in their lack of scholarship and honesty, and should be considered infomercials. But I have also seen at least one otherwise scholarly paper (on wounds in general) that falsely represented the facts in that case. For these reasons, I always try to confirm contemporary statements on wounds with those written long ago, by authors who could not possibly have been influenced by the politics of the Kennedy assassination. These authors wrote in the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s about wounds created by weapons that could have been used on November 22, 1963. What they describe is consistent with what is presented below.
GUNSHOT WOUNDS, Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, by Vincent J.M.Di Maio, published by CRC Press in 1999, contains a great deal of interesting material. Here, one can find exquisite detail not found elsewhere. On the other hand, the author sometimes omits relevant information. Nevertheless, it is a very good source. Note: Vincent Di Maio would not agree with the opinions expressed on this website; he firmly supports the official position on the assassination of Kennedy. But, as far as I know, he has not seen the bodies of either Kennedy or Connally, nor has he seen any other evidence, aside from the autopsy photographs which are notably inferior. Reproduced below are photos and comments, mostly from the Di Maio book, on four kinds of wounds that illustrate the palindromic nature of this case.
Entrances with Abrasion Rings
The comments of two Parkland doctors may have indicated an abrasion ring around Kennedy’s throat. [6 WH 42; 7 HSCA 302] The edges of the wound may or may not have been partially obscured by blood but, the edges that showed had damage (one referred to “bruises”). The doctors ruled out any lacerations typical of an exit wound, so that was not the “damage” one of them referred to. From pages 82 and 84 of Gunshot Wounds:
Most entrance wounds, no matter the range [by “range,” he means distance from weapon to target], are surrounded by a reddish, reddish-brown zone of abraded skin – the abrasion ring (Figure 4.16). This is a rim of flattened, abraded epidermis, surrounding the entrance hole.
The abrasion ring occurs when the bullet abrades (“rubs raw”) the edges of the hole as it indents and pierces the skin.
More detail from page 90:
Microscopic sections through a gunshot wound of entrance show a progressive increase in alteration of the epithelium and dermis as one proceeds from the periphery of the abrasion ring to the margin of the perforation. The most peripheral margin of the abrasion ring shows a zone of compressed, deformed cells many of which show nuclear “streaming.” As one proceeds centrally, there is loss of superficial cellular layers so that only the rete pegs remain adjacent to the perforation.7 Such epithelial changes occur in contact, near-contact, intermediate, and distant wounds.
The “rete pegs” he mentions are defined as inward projections of epidermis into dermis. For even more detail, see Adelson, L.A. A microscopic study of dermal gunshot wounds. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 35:393, reference 7 above.
Typical entrance wound with abrasion ring. Page 84.
Reprinted, with permission, from GUNSHOT WOUNDS, Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, by Vincent J.M. Di Maio, CRC Press, 1999. Copyright CRC Press, Boca Ratan, Florida.