Article Test

There is wide agreement that the partner image (on the lateral X-ray) of this mysterious 6.5 mm object must appear at the rear of the skull (near the cowlick area—Figure 2). However, when the forensic radiologist, Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, reviewed the X-rays (as the premier expert for the ARRB) he remained puzzled by this object, even returning for a second day in an attempt to extract its secrets. Ultimately, however he failed in this task, saying,

No object directly and clearly corresponding to the bright, 6.5 mm wide radio- opaque object in the A-P X-Ray could be identified by the consultant on the lateral skull X-Rays. Although there is a mere trace of some additional density near the fragment bilocation at the vertex of the skull, the consultant did not feel this object was anywhere near the density/brightness required for it to correspond to the bright, radio-opaque object on the A-P X-Ray. After briefly speculating that the small metallic density behind the right eye in the lateral X- Rays might correspond to the bright radio-opaque density in the A-P X-Ray, this idea was abandoned because neither the locations nor the density/brightness of the 2 objects are consistent [2].

For all practical purposes, after this failed attempt (by the most appropriate specialist for the task) this 6.5 mm object become the most curious—and unsolved— mystery in the history of diagnostic radiology.

During the lifetime of the HSCA, Larry Sturdivan served as its ballistics consultant. In his subsequent book [14] he emphasized that he had never, in his entire career, seen a cross section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull. So, totally contrary to all prior government investigations, he concluded that the 6.5 mm object could not be a metal fragment:

I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have great optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [on the lateral X-ray]….The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (e-mail from Larry Sturdivan to Stuart Wexler on 9 March 1998).

This was a radical statement. After all, the HSCA in particular, had relied on the (metallic) authenticity of this fragment in the most fundamental manner: based on the supposed reality of this 6.5 mm object, the HSCA had concluded that the bullet (from the sole headshot) had deposited this 6.5 mm “metal fragment” near its entry site at the back of the skull. So now, if this was merely an artifact, what was to become of the HSCA’s conclusion?

In 1993 I had two telephone conversations with the (sole) autopsy radiologist, Dr. John Ebersole. On the second occasion, he telephoned me. That call was recorded and later transcribed [7]. After (somewhat reluctantly) discussing the autopsy, I asked him about this 6.5 mm object—and Ebersole instantly stopped the conversation. In fact, that was Ebersole’s final comment to history about the JFK autopsy, as he died shortly afterwards [4].