I have one other question, if I may.
Is the incidence of clean entry as indicated there, and then great fragmentation on exit, is that a normal consequence of this type of would?
Commander HUMES. Sir, we feel that there are two potential explanations for this.
One, having traversed the skull in entrance in the occiput as depicted on 388, the missile begins to tumble, and in that fashion it presents a greater proportion of its surface to the brain substance and to the skull as it makes its egress.
The other and somewhat more difficult to measure and perhaps Colonel Finck will be able to testify in greater detail on this, is that a high velocity missile has tremendous kinetic energy, and this energy is expanded against the structures which it strikes, and so that much of this defect could be of the nature of blast, as this kinetic energy is dissipated by traversing the skull. Is that the sense of the question, sir?

Mr. Dulles.

Yes.
Senator COOPER. I will ask a question, and perhaps this isn't in your field. But assuming that the shot which struck President Kennedy at point A was fired by a gun from the window of the Texas School Book Depository, and which has been testified to, and assuming that you could locate the position of the President at the time he was struck by a bullet, you could then, could you not, establish the degree of the missile?
Commander HUMES. The degree of angle?
Senator COOPER. The angle, yes, the degree of angle of the missile from the building.
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; there is one difficulty, and that is the defect of exit was so broad that one has to rely more on the inclination of the entrance than they do connecting in this instance entrance and exit because so much of the skull was carried away in this fashion.
Senator COOPER. That was my second question.
My first question was would it be possible physically to establish the degree of angle of the trajectory of the bullet?
Commander HUMES. Within limited accuracy, sir.
Senator COOPER. Within limited accuracy.
That being true then my second question was whether the point of entry of the bullet, point A, and the, what you call the exit--
Commander HUMES. Exit.
Senator COOPER. Did you establish them so exactly that they could be related to the degree of angle of the trajectory of the bullet?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; to our satisfaction we did ascertain that fact.

Mr. Dulles.

Just one other question.
Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President: it had to be fired from behind the President?
Commander HUMES. Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.

Mr. Mccloy.

This is so obvious that I rather hesitate to ask it. There is no question in your mind that it was a lethal bullet?
Commander HUMES. The President, sir, could not possibly have survived the effect of that injury no matter what would have been done for him.

The Chairman.

Mr. Specter.

What conclusions did you reach then as to the trajectory or point of origin of the bullet, Dr. Humes, based on 388?
Commander HUMES. We reached the conclusion that this missile was fired toward the President from a point above and behind him, sir.

Mr. Specter.

Now, on one detail on your report, Dr. Humes, on page 4, on the third line down, you note that there is a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. which on the smaller size is, of course, less than 6.5 mm.?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. Specter.

What would be the explanation for that variation?
Commander HUMES. This is in the scalp, sir, and I believe that this is explainable on the elastic recoil of the tissues of the skin, sir. It is not infrequent

« Previous | Next »

Found a Typo?

Click here

Last Update: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:56:32 CET