Throat wound... for Pat Speer
Stugrad98
I am curious is about JFK's non-fatal wounds. As I see it there are
four options
(A) Two direct bullet strikes, back and front, neither penetrating
(B) Back wound = non-penetrating round; throat wound caused by non-
direct strike (shrapnel from back shot, shrapnel from head shot, bone
frag from head shot or rose prick)
(C) Both wounds are non-bullet events; back wound from richochet and
throat wound same as option B
(D) Transiting bullet with shored throat wound
Now, I have a big problem with A. It would involve two rounds,
which if they are not reduced charge or misfires, would had to have
penetrated several inches into the body with both (not on the X-rays)
coming out. Unless you purport some kind of Lifton-esque body
alteratio, I find these more unlikely than the SBT.
In terms of B, my problem is two fold. In terms of any of the head
shot or post-head shot (rose prick) related options, my read of the Z-
film suggests that, while he may be reacting to a back wound up until
the 270s or so, eventually he appears to be fully reacting to a throat
wound BEFORE 313. I happen to think he has some kind of mixed
reaction even before that. So, in other words, it appears to me that
the throat wound was caused before the head shot per my interpretation
of the Z-film. That would only leave shrapnel from a non-penetrating
but direct back hit. But wouldn't shrapnel leave an irregular wound
in the throat, not a neat type hole that the the Dallas Docs saw? And
why didn't the other metal frags in JFK move farther within JFK?
C falls short for the same reasons as I outline in B (the reaction),
but has the additional problem of a richochet with a trajectory that
can clear the rear portion of the limo and have enough force to
penetrate JFK.
To me that leaves D. It is the most consistent with velocity
studies. I know that you have problems with a shored wound but I find
it more likely that the Dallas docs misread the extent of the
underlying damage in the throat and obliterated the wound collar than
the "cons" for options A-C. That does not mean I endorse the SBT. I
think the combined work of Tink Thomspon in 67, Thomspon/Aguilar
recently, and John Hunt recently, raise very serious questions about
the chain of evidence re: CE399. The kind of questions that would
convince anyone in any other case if its name was not the JFK
case. But another bullet, in my opinion, transited JFK-- not sure
what happened after.
What are your thoughts?
-Stu
Anthony Marsh
> Hi Pat,
>
> I am curious is about JFK's non-fatal wounds. As I see it there are
> four options
>
> (A) Two direct bullet strikes, back and front, neither penetrating
> (B) Back wound = non-penetrating round; throat wound caused by non-
> direct strike (shrapnel from back shot, shrapnel from head shot, bone
> frag from head shot or rose prick)
> (C) Both wounds are non-bullet events; back wound from richochet and
> throat wound same as option B
> (D) Transiting bullet with shored throat wound
>
> Now, I have a big problem with A. It would involve two rounds,
> which if they are not reduced charge or misfires, would had to have
> penetrated several inches into the body with both (not on the X-rays)
> coming out. Unless you purport some kind of Lifton-esque body
> alteratio, I find these more unlikely than the SBT.
>
Solution A is possible only if you postulate different types of bullets
such as low caliber, like .22s. But did you really mean not penetrating
or not perforating? There were actual bullet wounds so obviously
something penetrated.
> In terms of B, my problem is two fold. In terms of any of the head
> shot or post-head shot (rose prick) related options, my read of the Z-
> film suggests that, while he may be reacting to a back wound up until
> the 270s or so, eventually he appears to be fully reacting to a throat
> wound BEFORE 313. I happen to think he has some kind of mixed
> reaction even before that. So, in other words, it appears to me that
> the throat wound was caused before the head shot per my interpretation
> of the Z-film. That would only leave shrapnel from a non-penetrating
> but direct back hit. But wouldn't shrapnel leave an irregular wound
> in the throat, not a neat type hole that the the Dallas Docs saw? And
> why didn't the other metal frags in JFK move farther within JFK?
>
The shrapnel theory doesn't work because the angles are wrong.
> C falls short for the same reasons as I outline in B (the reaction),
> but has the additional problem of a richochet with a trajectory that
> can clear the rear portion of the limo and have enough force to
> penetrate JFK.
>
The angles don't work.
> To me that leaves D. It is the most consistent with velocity
> studies. I know that you have problems with a shored wound but I find
The velocity studies assume a WCC bullet fired from Oswald's rifle. The
wacky theories do not. Remember that Dr. Chapman theorized a dud shot.
> it more likely that the Dallas docs misread the extent of the
> underlying damage in the throat and obliterated the wound collar than
> the "cons" for options A-C. That does not mean I endorse the SBT. I
Why does there need to be a wound collar?
> think the combined work of Tink Thomspon in 67, Thomspon/Aguilar
> recently, and John Hunt recently, raise very serious questions about
> the chain of evidence re: CE399. The kind of questions that would
> convince anyone in any other case if its name was not the JFK
> case. But another bullet, in my opinion, transited JFK-- not sure
> what happened after.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
Did you look at the Humes SBT?
> -Stu
>
pjspeare
seems clear the head shot at 313 did not impact on the back of the
head, and the shot striking Kennedy in the back did not transit, two
wounds are left open: a small entrance on the back of the head and a
throat wound. I discuss the possibility these two wounds were
connected, and conclude they probably were, My study of the
eyewitnesses and Zfilm, moreover, suggest this shot impacted just
before Z224, but was not heard by the majority of witnesses. In such
case, it would appear to have been a subsonic shot. Which could help
explain the small fractures on the back of the head in the occipital
region and small exit on the throat.
Ironically, I found a large amount of support for the notion a bullet
descended in the neck in the works of the Clark Panel, Lattimer and
Sturdivan. In their haste to assert the back wound was above the
throat wound, even though the photos show this not to be true, they
all admit that the x-rays show that a bullet descended in the neck.
From patspeer.com, chapter 17:
http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
After reading Lipsey’s account of the autopsy, and considering the 45
degree coincidence, I went back and re-read most of the other
accounts, and found another reference supporting Lipsey’s contention
that the doctors suspected a bullet came down the neck. In the HSCA
interview of autopsy photographer John Stringer, he distinctly
recalled the autopsists having a “conversation about the pathway
through the neck and specifically discussion about air in the throat.”
This implies that, far from believing the throat wound was a mere
tracheotomy incision, the doctors had other suspicions all along. The
“air in the throat” is, almost certainly, a reference to the chest/
neck x-ray.
Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
(representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
President’s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
importance to this “interstitial emphysema” (air in the tissues), even
though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it “highly
suspicious compared with the other side,” whilst simultaneously
embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
more than an inch and a half to the right of the President’s mid-line
and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
of the President’s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy’s spine,
while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
follow the evidence. Or make sense.
While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious, I
found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
track. People who have seen a few wound tracks. Amazingly, the Clark
Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
declares: “There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
the x-rays…” Well, I’ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the Clark
Panel’s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds—
while they could see that the bullet came down the neck, they just
couldn’t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
If someone were to coin the expression “assassination research makes
strange bedfellows,” this would be a perfect example.
Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
Strdivan declares “The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow of
a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.” Since Sturdivan
adds “The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
first thoracic vertebra” however, it’s clear he’s trying to have it
both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA’s entrance
location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
Sturdivan’s conclusion. Moreover, I find it interesting that
Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
the government’s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
killed by a conspiracy, when it’s not consider unpatriotic,
unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
why this case is still relevant.
http://www.patspeer.com/lathsca.jpg/lathsca-full.jpg
One of the great surprises one receives with the conviction that a
bullet traveled down the neck is that Dr. John Lattimer, who has
devoted years of study to try and prove that Oswald acted alone,
agrees. (That’s right, on this issue, the Clark Panel, Lattimer,
Sturdivan, and I all agree!) In his book, Kennedy and Lincoln,
Lattimer shares his interpretation of the line of injuries in
Kennedy’s neck. He declares, proudly, that his drawing is based upon
an actual x-ray. That his drawing distorts the arrangement of
Kennedy’s clothes and the shape of his body, so that a bullet could
create an entrance on his jacket 5 inches from the top of his collar,
enter his back at the level of his “Adam’s Apple,” and travel inches
down his neck, reveals how desperate Lattimer is to make his
interpretation of the x-ray fit his beloved lone-nut theory.
When one compares Lattimer’s drawing of the President’s wounds to a
similar drawing created by the HSCA, one can notice many other
distortions as well. The HSCA drawing, for starters, has the bullet
entering Kennedy’s back heading slightly upwards through the body
while Lattimer’s drawing has the bullet headed sharply downwards. The
HSCA, in keeping with the autopsy photographs, places the back wound
on the back while Lattimer lifts it up onto the neck. While the two
present the lungs in the same place in comparison to the bullet track,
this is not an agreement between the two but is actually a
discrepancy, as Lattimer’s bullet track is much higher within the
body. While the HSCA presents the lungs as just below the level of
exit when the body is erect, but higher than the exit due to Kennedy’s
severe forward pitch, Lattimer presents the lungs as being higher than
the exit even when erect. Since Lattimer does not dispute that the
bullet exited the throat midway between the Adam’s apple and the bony
notch at the bottom of the throat, this means he believes Kennedy’s
lungs extended above his rib cage, into his neck. Of course, this is
preposterous. It’s clear that Lattimer, as Sturdivan, was trying to
have it both ways: while his interpretation of the x-rays led him to
believe the bullet traveled down the neck, he still wanted to be able
to say the passage of this bullet bruised Kennedy’s lung, even though
this trajectory would pass approximately three inches away from the
nearest lung. While some, including Lattimer, have argued that the
confusion around Kennedy’s back wound is related to the fact that
Kennedy’s Addison’s disease made him a hunchback, I don’t believe that
even one of these men has been foolish enough to suggest Kennedy’s
lungs changed position and rose above the level of his ribcage as a
result.
It was while comparing the lungs in these drawings that I had a bit of
a breakthrough. While the HSCA and Lattimer were in agreement on the
shape of the bruise on Kennedy’s lung, which is consistent in relation
to the bullet cavity and is thus supportive that the cavity did indeed
create this bruise, I realized that on this issue both drawings were
wrong. While the photograph of this bruise is one of the photographs
that the doctors remembered taking, but never saw again, Dr. Humes’
testimony on the bruise is quite clear, and is in disagreement with
the drawings. He told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5
centimeters at its greatest diameter “and was wedge shaped in
configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex
down towards the substance of the lung,” and repeated that it “was a
roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the
upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue.”
Humes was telling them, therefore, that the bruise came to a point.
Such a bruise would not be expected from a temporary cavity, which
radiates in an oval, but could very well have come as a result of a
bullet deflecting from an overlying bone. Articles on pulmonary
contusions from gunshot wounds reflect that they are far more
prominent when a bullet slaps against a rib or chest wall than when a
bullet actually traverses the substance of the lung. One such article
by Dr. Rollin Daniel in a 1944 edition of Surgery, in which dogs were
shot and immediately studied, connected the level of pulmonary
contusion to the amount of energy released into the adjacent non-lung
tissue. In the single-bullet scenario, in which the bullet magically
slid between the strap muscles and did not damage the arteries, the
damage to the surrounding tissue would have to be quite small. As the
first thoracic vertebrae attaches to the spine just above the
uppermost margin of the lung, the shape of this bruise could very well
indicate that a bullet deflected off this bone from above.
Larry Wexler
So to be clear: you are proposing that a bullet struck JFK at the rear
of the head at sometime before 220 and then the bullet exited
downward, through the front of the throat? Two questions:
(1) Doesn't this still present the same exit/entrance wound
characteristics problems as a rear-entering upper-back bullet
transiting through the throat?
(2) Wouldn't such a bullet have caused damage to the seat in front of
JFK?
Just being curious, not confrontational.
-Stu
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 8, 10:32 pm, pjspeare<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> Stu, I discuss my thoughts on this in chapter 17. Basically, since it
>> seems clear the head shot at 313 did not impact on the back of the
>> head, and the shot striking Kennedy in the back did not transit, two
>> wounds are left open: a small entrance on the back of the head and a
>> throat wound. I discuss the possibility these two wounds were
>> connected, and conclude they probably were, My study of the
>> eyewitnesses and Zfilm, moreover, suggest this shot impacted just
>> before Z224, but was not heard by the majority of witnesses. In such
>> case, it would appear to have been a subsonic shot. Which could help
>> explain the small fractures on the back of the head in the occipital
>> region and small exit on the throat.
>>
>> Ironically, I found a large amount of support for the notion a bullet
>> descended in the neck in the works of the Clark Panel, Lattimer and
>> Sturdivan. In their haste to assert the back wound was above the
>> throat wound, even though the photos show this not to be true, they
>> all admit that the x-rays show that a bullet descended in the neck.
>>
>> From patspeer.com, chapter 17:
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
>>
>> degree coincidence, I went back and re-read most of the other
>> that the doctors suspected a bullet came down the neck. In the HSCA
>> interview of autopsy photographer John Stringer, he distinctly
>> through the neck and specifically discussion about air in the throat.�
>> This implies that, far from believing the throat wound was a mere
>> tracheotomy incision, the doctors had other suspicions all along. The
>> neck x-ray.
>>
>> Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
>> (representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
>> exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
>> to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
>> have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
>> the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
>> importance to this �interstitial emphysema� (air in the tissues), even
>> though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it �highly
>> suspicious compared with the other side,� whilst simultaneously
>> embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
>> the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
>> probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
>> their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
>> and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
>> while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
>> actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
>> follow the evidence. Or make sense.
>>
>> While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious, I
>> found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
>> track. People who have seen a few wound tracks. Amazingly, the Clark
>> Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
>> indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
>> Panel�s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds�
>> while they could see that the bullet came down the neck, they just
>> If someone were to coin the expression �assassination research makes
>> strange bedfellows,� this would be a perfect example.
>>
>> Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
>> Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
>> a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
>> adds �The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
>> first thoracic vertebra� however, it�s clear he�s trying to have it
>> both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA�s entrance
>> location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
>> the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
>> on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
>> Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
>> theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
>> had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
>> head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
>> Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
>> since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
>> wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
>> question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
>> unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
>> killed by a conspiracy, when it�s not consider unpatriotic,
>> unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
>> Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
>> why this case is still relevant.
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/lathsca.jpg/lathsca-full.jpg
>>
>> One of the great surprises one receives with the conviction that a
>> bullet traveled down the neck is that Dr. John Lattimer, who has
>> devoted years of study to try and prove that Oswald acted alone,
>> Sturdivan, and I all agree!) In his book, Kennedy and Lincoln,
>> Lattimer shares his interpretation of the line of injuries in
>> an actual x-ray. That his drawing distorts the arrangement of
>> create an entrance on his jacket 5 inches from the top of his collar,
>> down his neck, reveals how desperate Lattimer is to make his
>> interpretation of the x-ray fit his beloved lone-nut theory.
>>
>> similar drawing created by the HSCA, one can notice many other
>> distortions as well. The HSCA drawing, for starters, has the bullet
>> while Lattimer�s drawing has the bullet headed sharply downwards. The
>> HSCA, in keeping with the autopsy photographs, places the back wound
>> on the back while Lattimer lifts it up onto the neck. While the two
>> present the lungs in the same place in comparison to the bullet track,
>> this is not an agreement between the two but is actually a
>> body. While the HSCA presents the lungs as just below the level of
>> severe forward pitch, Lattimer presents the lungs as being higher than
>> the exit even when erect. Since Lattimer does not dispute that the
>> notch at the bottom of the throat, this means he believes Kennedy�s
>> lungs extended above his rib cage, into his neck. Of course, this is
>> have it both ways: while his interpretation of the x-rays led him to
>> believe the bullet traveled down the neck, he still wanted to be able
>> this trajectory would pass approximately three inches away from the
>> nearest lung. While some, including Lattimer, have argued that the
>> Kennedy�s Addison�s disease made him a hunchback, I don�t believe that
>> even one of these men has been foolish enough to suggest Kennedy�s
>> lungs changed position and rose above the level of his ribcage as a
>> result.
>>
>> It was while comparing the lungs in these drawings that I had a bit of
>> a breakthrough. While the HSCA and Lattimer were in agreement on the
>> to the bullet cavity and is thus supportive that the cavity did indeed
>> create this bruise, I realized that on this issue both drawings were
>> wrong. While the photograph of this bruise is one of the photographs
>> testimony on the bruise is quite clear, and is in disagreement with
>> the drawings. He told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5
>> configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex
>> roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the
Not my argument, but one of the earliest solutions offered was that the
throat wound was a fragment or the bullet exiting from the head wound.
http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/Globe11-23-63.jpg
Of course you know that there are huge problems with this solution, but
at the time this is all they knew, based entirely on early reports.
And BTW in case you didn't know about it, there WERE rumors of finding a
hole in the floor. Problem is that Connally's seat was in the way of
such an exiting bullet, not to mention the rest of Kennedy's body.
pjspeare
the bullet striking JFK near the EOP and exiting his neck need not
have been a high-velocity bullet. In fact, I theorized it was a
subsonic bullet that barely exited his throat. This led me to think
the bullet hitting Connally was a second subsonic bullet, fired from
an automatic weapon. This led me to read about subsonic weapons.
Although several of the macho shooting experts on the various forums
assured me that no shooter would use a subsonic .22, I found that the
CIA's manual on assassination prepared for the Guatemala Operation
discussed subsonic weapons, and that the paramilitary trainers for
this operation--Rip Robertson and David Morales, requested .22 caliber
rifles equipped with silencers.
I then realized that the silencers for .22 cal automatics (AR-15s or
M-16s) were designed at Aberdeen Proving Ground (the home turf for the
HSCA's Larry Sturdivan).) I then realized that someone had changed
Sturdivan's testimony to hide from the public that he'd discussed the
wound ballistics of .22 subsonic ammunition.
As a result, I have a suspicion someone used .22 cal subsonic
ammunition in the assassination attempt on Kennedy, but no hard
conviction. It certainly seems possible some other kind was used.
As far as what happened to the bullets--well, what happened to the
other 1 1/2 bullets of M/C ammunition? They were either taken as a
souvenir or cleaned up in the limo.
From patspeer.com, chapter 11:
a less-conspiracy-oriented answer to the "Where's the third bullet"
question is also available. It goes like this...IT...GOT...LOST. The
FBI and Secret Service certainly believed as much. Their official
reports on the shooting concluded that all three shots hit Kennedy and
Connally, even though only one and a half bullets had been retrieved;
the FBI's report even specified that CE 399 fell from Kennedy's back.
Apparently, neither agency had any problem believing that the bullet
striking Connally, the third bullet, had gotten lost in the Parkland
shuffle.
For this conclusion, they had plenty of support. In his 1970 book,
Legal Medicine, the Clark Panel's Dr. Alan Moritz offered that "Often
a bullet that has had sufficient velocity to pass through the body
will be so nearly spent that it will fail to penetrate the head
covering or clothing at the site of exit. Unless the doctor, nurse, or
accident ward attendant is alert to this possibility, such a bullet
may be lost." Elsewhere, Dr. Moritz explained that "Years of
medicolegal experience in the investigation of firearm injuries
confirm the truth of the generalization that the only things likely to
be seen and remembered are those that are looked for with knowledge of
their potential significance." Those arguing that CE 399 created
Connally's wounds and was found on his stretcher, and thus that the
bullet had been overlooked by at least five nurses and hospital
employees prior to its discovery, thereby inadvertently confirm that
other bullets, potentially including the bullet that ACTUALLY created
Connally's wounds, could have been lost in the madhouse that was
Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.
Another top pathologist believed that it was just that simple--that
the bullet had been lost. Dr. Milton Helpern, who'd supervised over
10,000 autopsies of gunshot victims in his long career, explained
that, clean-up or no clean-up, one can not always find the bullets
involved in a homicide. Specific to the Kennedy assassination, in an
interview for the book, Where Death Delights, he told former FBI man
Marshall Houts: “It is not unusual at all for spent bullets that have
passed through a human body to become lost…If I had to venture a guess
as to what happened to the bullet that wounded Governor Connally, I
would suggest that it fell out of his pants leg while he was being
removed from the car and placed on the stretcher; or it could have
fallen out at any stage of his hospital experience.” He said it.
And the FBI's Robert Frazier, the man tasked with inspecting the
limousine on the night of the assassination, apparently shared his
belief that this was possible. In 1995, undoubtedly as a response to
the then-widespread criticism of the FBI crime lab, a book entitled
Hard Evidence was published to help promote the FBI crime lab. This
book, written by David Fisher, featured an interview with Frazier.
When musing on the whereabouts of the still missing remnants of the
bullet found in pieces on the front seat of the limousine, the carpet
beneath Nellie Connally's seat, and in the President's skull, Frazier
declared "What happened, I think probably in the confusion when they
got to the hospital, everybody jumped out of the car, and if there
were lead fragments on their clothes or in their pockets or anywhere
else, they fell on the ground and were just trampled on and that was
the end of it." While some might say that the likelihood of losing
fragments in the chaos was significantly greater than that of losing a
nearly-intact bullet, the bullet may have been in pieces and a nearly-
intact bullet could easily have been picked up in the treads of a car
tire. Sometimes things get lost.
But even if one should refuse to believe it got lost, there is the
possibility that it simply was overlooked. On May 13, 1964, in
testimony before the Warren Commission, Robert Frazier described his
search of the limousine for bullet fragments late on the night of the
shooting. Two bullet fragments had already been retrieved from the
front seat by the Secret Service. First, Frazier described the car:
"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood,
the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs,
the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the
side rails or tops of the doors of the car." Then Frazier described
his search: "I examined the car to determine whether or not there were
any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the
back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which
indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the
car." At this point he found three small bullet fragments on the
carpet under Nellie Connally's jump seat. By his finding these three
fragments, and by his using the word "examine" to describe his search,
Frazier gave the clear implication that he was extremely thorough in
his search for bullet fragments.
When asked if he felt his search was indeed a "thorough examination of
all aspects of the interior of the automobile," however, Frazier's
response was not without its qualifications. He replied: "Yes, sir;
for our purpose. However, we did not tear out all of the rugs on the
floor, for instance. We examined the rugs carefully for holes, for
bullet furroughs, for fragments. We examined the nap of the rug, in
the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and bullet holes. We pulled
the rug back as far as we could turn it back and even tore the glue or
adhesive material loose around the cracks at the edges of the rug so
we could observe the cracks to see whether they had been enlarged, and
we examined all of the upholstery covering, on the back of the front
seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat compartment, the jump seats,
the actual rear seat, the back of the rear seat, and we examined the
front seat in a similar manner, and we found no bullet holes or other
bullet impact areas, other than the one on the inside of the
windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome." (5H58-74).
An 11-27-63 Secret Service report on this inspection, included in the
Secret Service's report on the limo to the Warren Commission, CD80,
confirms "a meticulous examination was made of the back seat of the
car and the floor rug." But this wasn't exactly true.
In Hard Evidence, Frazier was more forthcoming about this examination.
He revealed "The President's limousine arrived back in Washington
about six o'clock. Around one o'clock the next morning, Cort (Cortland
Cunningham) and I started sifting through the blood looking for lead
fragments. It was tough; it was very tough...We'd just reach down into
the clots of blood and scoop it up in our hands and let it dribble
through. Whenever we felt something gritty, we'd clean it up and if it
was lead, we'd save it in a pillbox. We didn't really recover a lot of
lead." Evidently, they never thought of sponging off the blood and
inspecting the carpet with a metal detector and a magnifying glass.
In any event, according to the Secret Service's own report on the
limo, CD80, by the afternoon of the 23rd a Secret Service agent was
requesting permission to clean the rest of the blood from the back
seat and floor of the limo. At this time, he was told to wait for FBI
approval. The very next day he made a second request, this time noting
"that the odor from the car was becoming offensive." This request,
almost certainly made after the announcement of Oswald's death, was
granted "after clearance from the FBI." Late that evening, the
limousine was cleaned up. No FBI agent was present. According to the
Secret Service's own records, "there were still fragments of bone and
hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI
search team." There's no record of what became of this "bone and
hair." There's no indication that this clean-up crew looked for small
fragments of lead hidden amongst this bone and hair. A Ford Motor
Company memo first obtained and reported by researcher Pamela McElwain-
Brown, moreover, demonstrates that within 10 days of the shooting, the
carpet of the limousine had been removed by "the White House
upholstery man" and had been replaced by the writer of the memo, Ford
Motor company employee Vaughn Ferguson. There's no record of what this
"upholsterer" did with this carpet. There's no reason to believe that
a thorough inspection of this carpet was ever undertaken.
And should one STILL have any doubts, and STILL cling to the notion
that the bullet hitting Connally must have remained on his person or
in the limousine, and could not possibly have been cleaned-up, stolen,
lost or overlooked, there is this: there is a similar-sized piece of
metal from the limousine that disappeared after the shooting. Nellie
Connally, in her 2003 memoir From Love Field, reported that a Mexican
peso worn by her husband as a cuff link was shot off his wrist during
the shooting and was never recovered. She reported that she had a
bracelet made from the remaining cuff link, and wore it thereafter as
a memento of her husband's close brush with death. It follows then
that any explanation for what happened to this cuff link could apply
to a bullet as well.
> ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
> Because of the timing of the impacts in the Z-film, I concluded that
> the bullet striking JFK near the EOP and exiting his neck need not
> have been a high-velocity bullet. In fact, I theorized it was a
> subsonic bullet that barely exited his throat. This led me to think
> the bullet hitting Connally was a second subsonic bullet, fired from
> an automatic weapon. This led me to read about subsonic weapons.
> Although several of the macho shooting experts on the various forums
> assured me that no shooter would use a subsonic .22, I found that the
> CIA's manual on assassination prepared for the Guatemala Operation
> discussed subsonic weapons, and that the paramilitary trainers for
> this operation--Rip Robertson and David Morales, requested .22 caliber
> rifles equipped with silencers.
>
> I then realized that the silencers for .22 cal automatics (AR-15s or
> M-16s) were designed at Aberdeen Proving Ground (the home turf for the
> HSCA's Larry Sturdivan).) I then realized that someone had changed
> Sturdivan's testimony to hide from the public that he'd discussed the
> wound ballistics of .22 subsonic ammunition.
>
> As a result, I have a suspicion someone used .22 cal subsonic
> ammunition in the assassination attempt on Kennedy, but no hard
> conviction. It certainly seems possible some other kind was used.
>
You know nothing about ballistics. You have no real life experience. I
have been shooting .22s for 55 years. The special TOP SECRET CIA sub sonic
.22 bullets are just the same as the normal everyday .22 bullets shot by
millions of people every day. They just make sure to select brands that
stay sub sonic. The AR-15 and M-16 are not .22s. You can make a sub sonic
round for them, but then you lose all the advantages. And a sub sonic
AR-15 or M-16 round is not going to produce the wounds we see.
> As far as what happened to the bullets--well, what happened to the
> other 1 1/2 bullets of M/C ammunition? They were either taken as a
> souvenir or cleaned up in the limo.
>
About a third of one of the bullets escaped the limousine and are lost in
Dealey Plaza or unrecovered from the limousine. One bullet seemed to miss
entirely and is probably still somewhere in Dealey Plaza.
> From patspeer.com, chapter 11:
> a less-conspiracy-oriented answer to the "Where's the third bullet"
> question is also available. It goes like this...IT...GOT...LOST. The
> FBI and Secret Service certainly believed as much. Their official
> reports on the shooting concluded that all three shots hit Kennedy and
> Connally, even though only one and a half bullets had been retrieved;
> the FBI's report even specified that CE 399 fell from Kennedy's back.
I'd like to see a quote on that. I don't think they specified which
bullet. They merely accepted the initial report from their agents at the
hospital.
This may have even been before the WC numbered that bullet.
> Apparently, neither agency had any problem believing that the bullet
> striking Connally, the third bullet, had gotten lost in the Parkland
> shuffle.
>
> For this conclusion, they had plenty of support. In his 1970 book,
> Legal Medicine, the Clark Panel's Dr. Alan Moritz offered that "Often
> a bullet that has had sufficient velocity to pass through the body
> will be so nearly spent that it will fail to penetrate the head
> covering or clothing at the site of exit. Unless the doctor, nurse, or
> accident ward attendant is alert to this possibility, such a bullet
> may be lost." Elsewhere, Dr. Moritz explained that "Years of
That is certainly true and other forensic pathologists have made the same
point, but they were talking about LOW caliber bullets, not the WCC M-C
ammunition. That has much greater penetrating ability. It is NOT going to
be stopped by a jacket. When you read something you don't understand you
need to get some real life experience to understand the context.
> medicolegal experience in the investigation of firearm injuries
> confirm the truth of the generalization that the only things likely to
> be seen and remembered are those that are looked for with knowledge of
> their potential significance." Those arguing that CE 399 created
> Connally's wounds and was found on his stretcher, and thus that the
> bullet had been overlooked by at least five nurses and hospital
> employees prior to its discovery, thereby inadvertently confirm that
> other bullets, potentially including the bullet that ACTUALLY created
> Connally's wounds, could have been lost in the madhouse that was
> Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.
>
> Another top pathologist believed that it was just that simple--that
> the bullet had been lost. Dr. Milton Helpern, who'd supervised over
> 10,000 autopsies of gunshot victims in his long career, explained
> that, clean-up or no clean-up, one can not always find the bullets
> involved in a homicide. Specific to the Kennedy assassination, in an
> interview for the book, Where Death Delights, he told former FBI man
> Marshall Houts: ?It is not unusual at all for spent bullets that have
> passed through a human body to become lost?If I had to venture a guess
> as to what happened to the bullet that wounded Governor Connally, I
> would suggest that it fell out of his pants leg while he was being
> removed from the car and placed on the stretcher; or it could have
> fallen out at any stage of his hospital experience.? He said it.
>
On the other hand, in a TV interview one of the doctors said that he
planned to remove the bullet from Connally's leg the next day.
> And the FBI's Robert Frazier, the man tasked with inspecting the
> limousine on the night of the assassination, apparently shared his
> belief that this was possible. In 1995, undoubtedly as a response to
> the then-widespread criticism of the FBI crime lab, a book entitled
> Hard Evidence was published to help promote the FBI crime lab. This
> book, written by David Fisher, featured an interview with Frazier.
> When musing on the whereabouts of the still missing remnants of the
> bullet found in pieces on the front seat of the limousine, the carpet
> beneath Nellie Connally's seat, and in the President's skull, Frazier
> declared "What happened, I think probably in the confusion when they
> got to the hospital, everybody jumped out of the car, and if there
> were lead fragments on their clothes or in their pockets or anywhere
> else, they fell on the ground and were just trampled on and that was
> the end of it." While some might say that the likelihood of losing
> fragments in the chaos was significantly greater than that of losing a
> nearly-intact bullet, the bullet may have been in pieces and a nearly-
> intact bullet could easily have been picked up in the treads of a car
> tire. Sometimes things get lost.
>
Fragments could also have been lost when they rebuilt the limousine and
simply threw away the old pieces.
> But even if one should refuse to believe it got lost, there is the
> possibility that it simply was overlooked. On May 13, 1964, in
> testimony before the Warren Commission, Robert Frazier described his
> search of the limousine for bullet fragments late on the night of the
> shooting. Two bullet fragments had already been retrieved from the
> front seat by the Secret Service. First, Frazier described the car:
> "There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood,
> the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs,
> the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the
> side rails or tops of the doors of the car." Then Frazier described
> his search: "I examined the car to determine whether or not there were
> any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the
> back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which
> indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the
> car." At this point he found three small bullet fragments on the
> carpet under Nellie Connally's jump seat. By his finding these three
> fragments, and by his using the word "examine" to describe his search,
> Frazier gave the clear implication that he was extremely thorough in
> his search for bullet fragments.
>
No, he wasn't. He didn't take the car apart and did not pull up the
carpet to look for holes in the floor. There are rumors that when the
car was rebuilt they found a hole in the floor.
Thought of what? The floor is metal right under the carpet, so how are
they going to pick up only very tiny lead fragments in the carpet?
> In any event, according to the Secret Service's own report on the
> limo, CD80, by the afternoon of the 23rd a Secret Service agent was
> requesting permission to clean the rest of the blood from the back
> seat and floor of the limo. At this time, he was told to wait for FBI
> approval. The very next day he made a second request, this time noting
> "that the odor from the car was becoming offensive." This request,
> almost certainly made after the announcement of Oswald's death, was
> granted "after clearance from the FBI." Late that evening, the
> limousine was cleaned up. No FBI agent was present. According to the
> Secret Service's own records, "there were still fragments of bone and
> hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI
> search team." There's no record of what became of this "bone and
> hair." There's no indication that this clean-up crew looked for small
> fragments of lead hidden amongst this bone and hair. A Ford Motor
> Company memo first obtained and reported by researcher Pamela McElwain-
> Brown, moreover, demonstrates that within 10 days of the shooting, the
> carpet of the limousine had been removed by "the White House
> upholstery man" and had been replaced by the writer of the memo, Ford
> Motor company employee Vaughn Ferguson. There's no record of what this
> "upholsterer" did with this carpet. There's no reason to believe that
> a thorough inspection of this carpet was ever undertaken.
>
Lots of evidence was simply thrown away.
> And should one STILL have any doubts, and STILL cling to the notion
> that the bullet hitting Connally must have remained on his person or
> in the limousine, and could not possibly have been cleaned-up, stolen,
> lost or overlooked, there is this: there is a similar-sized piece of
> metal from the limousine that disappeared after the shooting. Nellie
> Connally, in her 2003 memoir From Love Field, reported that a Mexican
> peso worn by her husband as a cuff link was shot off his wrist during
> the shooting and was never recovered. She reported that she had a
I don't believe that story. I believe a nurse picked it up and pocketed it.
> bracelet made from the remaining cuff link, and wore it thereafter as
> a memento of her husband's close brush with death. It follows then
> that any explanation for what happened to this cuff link could apply
> to a bullet as well.
>
Why don't you mention Hoover's comment that a whole bullet fell out of
the President's head when they unwrapped his body?
>
>
> On Jul 9, 6:01 am, Larry Wexler<lwexler1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 10:32 pm, pjspeare<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> Stu, I discuss my thoughts on this in chapter 17. Basically, since it
>>> seems clear the head shot at 313 did not impact on the back of the
>>> head, and the shot striking Kennedy in the back did not transit, two
>>> wounds are left open: a small entrance on the back of the head and a
>>> throat wound. I discuss the possibility these two wounds were
>>> connected, and conclude they probably were, My study of the
>>> eyewitnesses and Zfilm, moreover, suggest this shot impacted just
>>> before Z224, but was not heard by the majority of witnesses. In such
>>> case, it would appear to have been a subsonic shot. Which could help
>>> explain the small fractures on the back of the head in the occipital
>>> region and small exit on the throat.
>>
>>> Ironically, I found a large amount of support for the notion a bullet
>>> descended in the neck in the works of the Clark Panel, Lattimer and
>>> Sturdivan. In their haste to assert the back wound was above the
>>> throat wound, even though the photos show this not to be true, they
>>> all admit that the x-rays show that a bullet descended in the neck.
>>
>>> From patspeer.com, chapter 17:
>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
>>
>>> After reading Lipsey?s account of the autopsy, and considering the 45
>>> degree coincidence, I went back and re-read most of the other
>>> accounts, and found another reference supporting Lipsey?s contention
>>> that the doctors suspected a bullet came down the neck. In the HSCA
>>> interview of autopsy photographer John Stringer, he distinctly
>>> recalled the autopsists having a ?conversation about the pathway
>>> through the neck and specifically discussion about air in the throat.?
>>> This implies that, far from believing the throat wound was a mere
>>> tracheotomy incision, the doctors had other suspicions all along. The
>>> ?air in the throat? is, almost certainly, a reference to the chest/
>>> neck x-ray.
>>
>>> Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
>>> (representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
>>> exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
>>> to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
>>> have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
>>> the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
>>> President?s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
>>> importance to this ?interstitial emphysema? (air in the tissues), even
>>> though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it ?highly
>>> suspicious compared with the other side,? whilst simultaneously
>>> embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
>>> the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
>>> probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
>>> their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
>>> more than an inch and a half to the right of the President?s mid-line
>>> and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
>>> of the President?s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy?s spine,
>>> while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
>>> actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
>>> follow the evidence. Or make sense.
>>
>>> While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious, I
>>> found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
>>> track. People who have seen a few wound tracks. Amazingly, the Clark
>>> Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
>>> declares: ?There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
>>> indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
>>> the x-rays?? Well, I?ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the Clark
>>> Panel?s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds?
>>> while they could see that the bullet came down the neck, they just
>>> couldn?t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
>>> If someone were to coin the expression ?assassination research makes
>>> strange bedfellows,? this would be a perfect example.
>>
>>> Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
>>> Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
>>> Strdivan declares ?The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow of
>>> a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
>>> photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.? Since Sturdivan
>>> adds ?The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
>>> first thoracic vertebra? however, it?s clear he?s trying to have it
>>> both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA?s entrance
>>> location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
>>> the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
>>> on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
>>> Sturdivan?s conclusion. Moreover, I find it interesting that
>>> Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
>>> theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
>>> had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
>>> head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
>>> Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
>>> since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
>>> wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
>>> question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
>>> unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
>>> the government?s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
>>> killed by a conspiracy, when it?s not consider unpatriotic,
>>> unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
>>> Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
>>> why this case is still relevant.
>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/lathsca.jpg/lathsca-full.jpg
>>
>>> One of the great surprises one receives with the conviction that a
>>> bullet traveled down the neck is that Dr. John Lattimer, who has
>>> devoted years of study to try and prove that Oswald acted alone,
>>> agrees. (That?s right, on this issue, the Clark Panel, Lattimer,
>>> Sturdivan, and I all agree!) In his book, Kennedy and Lincoln,
>>> Lattimer shares his interpretation of the line of injuries in
>>> Kennedy?s neck. He declares, proudly, that his drawing is based upon
>>> an actual x-ray. That his drawing distorts the arrangement of
>>> Kennedy?s clothes and the shape of his body, so that a bullet could
>>> create an entrance on his jacket 5 inches from the top of his collar,
>>> enter his back at the level of his ?Adam?s Apple,? and travel inches
>>> down his neck, reveals how desperate Lattimer is to make his
>>> interpretation of the x-ray fit his beloved lone-nut theory.
>>
>>> When one compares Lattimer?s drawing of the President?s wounds to a
>>> similar drawing created by the HSCA, one can notice many other
>>> distortions as well. The HSCA drawing, for starters, has the bullet
>>> entering Kennedy?s back heading slightly upwards through the body
>>> while Lattimer?s drawing has the bullet headed sharply downwards. The
>>> HSCA, in keeping with the autopsy photographs, places the back wound
>>> on the back while Lattimer lifts it up onto the neck. While the two
>>> present the lungs in the same place in comparison to the bullet track,
>>> this is not an agreement between the two but is actually a
>>> discrepancy, as Lattimer?s bullet track is much higher within the
>>> body. While the HSCA presents the lungs as just below the level of
>>> exit when the body is erect, but higher than the exit due to Kennedy?s
>>> severe forward pitch, Lattimer presents the lungs as being higher than
>>> the exit even when erect. Since Lattimer does not dispute that the
>>> bullet exited the throat midway between the Adam?s apple and the bony
>>> notch at the bottom of the throat, this means he believes Kennedy?s
>>> lungs extended above his rib cage, into his neck. Of course, this is
>>> preposterous. It?s clear that Lattimer, as Sturdivan, was trying to
>>> have it both ways: while his interpretation of the x-rays led him to
>>> believe the bullet traveled down the neck, he still wanted to be able
>>> to say the passage of this bullet bruised Kennedy?s lung, even though
>>> this trajectory would pass approximately three inches away from the
>>> nearest lung. While some, including Lattimer, have argued that the
>>> confusion around Kennedy?s back wound is related to the fact that
>>> Kennedy?s Addison?s disease made him a hunchback, I don?t believe that
>>> even one of these men has been foolish enough to suggest Kennedy?s
>>> lungs changed position and rose above the level of his ribcage as a
>>> result.
>>
>>> It was while comparing the lungs in these drawings that I had a bit of
>>> a breakthrough. While the HSCA and Lattimer were in agreement on the
>>> shape of the bruise on Kennedy?s lung, which is consistent in relation
>>> to the bullet cavity and is thus supportive that the cavity did indeed
>>> create this bruise, I realized that on this issue both drawings were
>>> wrong. While the photograph of this bruise is one of the photographs
>>> that the doctors remembered taking, but never saw again, Dr. Humes?
>>> testimony on the bruise is quite clear, and is in disagreement with
>>> the drawings. He told the Warren Commission that the bruise was 5
>>> centimeters at its greatest diameter ?and was wedge shaped in
>>> configuration, with its base toward the top of the chest and its apex
>>> down towards the substance of the lung,? and repeated that it ?was a
>>> roughly pyramid-shaped bruise with its base toward the surface of the
>>> upper portion of the lung, and the apex down into the lung tissue.?
>>> Humes was telling them, therefore, that the bruise came to a point.
>>> Such a bruise would not be
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more ?
>
>
pjspeare
related to the shooting of JFK/Connally circa Z224. Might a .22 cal not
penetrate the skull and descend in the neck, and barely escape the throat?
Might a .22 cal not travel along a man's rib and fall from his chest?
Might a .22 cal smash a man's wrist and bounce from his leg? I'm not
convinced one way or the other... But I do find it extremely interesting
that the HSCA changed Sturdivan's exhibit and testimony to hide that he
spoke of .22 cal subsonic ammunition.
> ...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony, context is everything. My discussion of .22 subsonic bullets is
> related to the shooting of JFK/Connally circa Z224. Might a .22 cal not
> penetrate the skull and descend in the neck, and barely escape the throat?
Not likely. More likely that the .22 would stay in the head.
> Might a .22 cal not travel along a man's rib and fall from his chest?
Probably not.
> Might a .22 cal smash a man's wrist and bounce from his leg? I'm not
Not from the damage we see in Connally.
And some of these bullets would leave behind fragments and those .22
fragments would not have similar antimony levels to the WCC M-C ammo.
You'd find antimony levels in the range of several thousand ppm instead
of the WCC range of 0-2000 ppm.
> convinced one way or the other... But I do find it extremely interesting
> that the HSCA changed Sturdivan's exhibit and testimony to hide that he
> spoke of .22 cal subsonic ammunition.
>
Anyway, it doesn't matter. You're just guessing, not examining the evidence.
>> read more �
>
>