> John,

> I cut and pasted this out of the text from your reply...because I didn't want my
> response to it to get burried amongst the text of the entire post.

>> I started a new thread, "Humes claimed possibility of an ice bullet?"
>> Have you seen that yet?

> Yes.

>> In it I explain that the only original
>> documented related to that that I've been able to find so far is a claim
>> made by Francis O'Neill to the HSCA in 1978, in which he did not
>> specifically attribute the ice bullet thing to Humes, but instead made
>> it out as if the majority of the persons present, which would mean more
>> people than just the three autopsists, discussed this possibility, with
>> regard to the back wound, to try to come up with some explanation of why
>> they couldn't find an exit for it.  But nowhere did O'Neill in that
>> document specifically say that Humes initiated this discussion, or even
>> participated in it at all.  Do you know of any other original document
>> in which any witness to the autopsy attributed this ice bullet business
>> specifically to Humes?

> No, and if I wrote that it was established as fact that Humes said that, then I
> was wrong to do so.

> The only reason that I believe Humes was at least involved in the "discussion"
> about the possibility a disintegrating bullet, such as one made of plastic or
> ice, was used (yes, causing the back wound)is because it helps explain other
> events that occurred during the autopsy that otherwise didn't make a lick of
> sense.

> At this time I'd rather not expound on that....the entire theory, and that's all
> it really is, is complex (not necessarily convoluted and arcane) and would
> amount to being a distraction from accomplishing what I think should be the
> primary objective, i.e. convincing the masses that there was a BOH wound.

> Maybe privately we can get into it when we have time?

> JC