C.S.I.- Take Two

If I was confused after reading Sherry’s first posted blood spatter analysis, I am even more confused after reading Sherry’s reply to my critique of her analysis. I do, however, wish to offer a thank you for clearing up some issues and providing more rules of blood spatter analysis. Yet, I think a lot of questions have been raised.

She has stated that, “It has never been my objective to address the precise location of the entry or exit wounds. That area of expertise is best left to persons with the necessary knowledge of the medical evidence.” While thoughts of the HSCA and WC investigations come to mind, I will not hold Sherry to anything beyond blood spatter evidence although I think that it would be considered as part of a full forensic investigation. It should also be noted that this discussion is not to include any other physical evidence. There will be no discussion of bullet fragments, cracked windshields or dented chrome strips. This is not part of Blood Spatter Analysis, but would be considered as part of a larger, more complete analysis.

Sherry has gone to some length to document the gore of the crime scene. She has cited Robert Frazier’s statement that, "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area." (31) (Added emphasis)”

However, her explanation is a little light in this area. As part of her argument she states,

“Tissue fragments when located in back spatter are consistently minute in nature; however, the fragments in forward spatter vary in size and are occasionally large. Back spatter is normally found within 4-5 ft. of the wound. Forward spatter can travel up to 20 ft. or more depending on the velocity of the projectile. The blood, bone and tissue located behind the President and in front of him within the limousine are consistent with forward spatter and are not consistent with back spatter.” (Emphasis added)

This statement, as you will see later in this rebuttal, causes some problems. So, we have a statement that says that the “blood, bone and tissue located behind the President and in front of him within the limousine are consistent with forward spatter and are not consistent with back spatter”. So, what is consistent with back spatter? Guiterrez states in other areas that she can define a cone depicting spatter direction and can definitively show you where front and back spatter is located, however….we now have her suggesting that the evidence above is ALL consistent with forward spatter. I guess we will have to visit this again later.

In addition, she states in a fairly definitive, matter of fact way that back spatter is “consistently minute in nature”. This isn’t a ‘sometime’ occurrence, but is regular and consistent. Now would be a good time to interject that NO large particulate matter was found towards the rear of President Kennedy. Yet, when viewing the Zapruder film, we can see large fragments creating two significant streaks in a forward direction. So, she confirms this later and says,

“The tissue or bone is consistent with forward spatter. The whitish streak observed in the Zapruder film may be the Harper fragment being projected as spatter. Because spatter moves in all directions, the fragment’s movement forward of the President is not be significant (?) if at the time of the shooting that portion of the head was exposed to a position both forward to and behind the President. Meaning if the head was tilted so the wound is at the highest point on the head and exposed to both the rear and rear the forward spatter would be expelled in directions both in front of and behind the President.”

Now, maybe it is just me, but this causes more questions. Now we have an exit wound at the top of Kennedy's head. And, even though she does not have an opinion beyond the blood evidence, one must wonder where the bullet came from for that trajectory to work. Nevertheless, two cones of spatter are created by forward and back spatter. The cone shape is discerned due to the separate entrance and exit sites. However, now she contends that there must be some type of ‘blending’ effect or at least a large exit hole in the top of the head. She has stated that, in this case anyhow, the blood found behind, and in front of Kennedy is all consistent with forward spatter. Now it must be decidedly difficult to determine what is what. Since the ejecta apparently goes in all directions, how can you tell by looking at a very grainy, poor resolution film and determine what is forward and what is back spatter? At one point, we have a defined cone pattern denoting, apparently definitively, which is forward and which is back spatter. Then, we have her finding that the blood, bone, brain and tissue found in front AND in back of Kennedy are consistent with forward spatter, not back spatter. So, how can you have a defined cone of back and forward spatter and yet have so much debris in front and in back?

Some of Sherry’s material provides insight to her answers. She states,

“Back spatter is normally found within 4-5 ft. of the wound. Forward spatter can travel up to 20 ft. or more depending on the velocity of the projectile.”

This, combined with the apparent fact that spatter ejecta goes in all directions, makes one wonder how to discern forward from back spatter. And, different sized particles are going to travel at different speeds. Not all forward spatter is going to be moving at high speeds. It depends on how much energy is imparted to the particular particle of spatter. She refers to Officer Hargis’ initial and late statements throughout her reply, as well as at some length in her analysis. But, if the ejecta goes in all directions, you cannot reasonably conclude anything by his testimony or statements. Hargis’ recollection has evolved somewhat from “bloody water” to being splashed with “a bucket of blood”. However, one must ask the question: How much blood is actually in a human body? About 5 liters, or 1.32 U.S. Gallons. The human brain requires about 15-20% of the blood in our bodies and utilizes about 20% of the blood oxygen. This translates to about .26 U.S. gallons, or 4.16 cups, of blood in our brain. This is hardly a bucket’s worth of blood. Now, in all fairness, maybe he was referring to the brain…but his initial statement referred to “bloody water” and tiny bits of particulate matter, which is a far cry from large ejecta from a rear exit wound. In fact, the ONLY characteristic that would indicate that the ejecta that hit Hargis and the follow up car is the distance traveled. In addition, none of this forward spatter is seen in the Zapruder film. There is nothing visualized in frame 313 or subsequent frames depicting a large burst to the rear of President Kennedy. This creates a large problem that she explains as,

“Although the exit spatter is not visible in the Zapruder film, it did exist.”

So, we have a big problem now. We have opinion on evidence you cannot see. I may be wrong, but I though Blood Spatter analysts analyzed blood spatter. However, all we have for visual evidence is a grainy, slow Zapruder film that doesn’t show the large amount of exit spatter that hit Hargis. So, it was either very, very small….or very, very fast. Let’s take a look at the latter.

If the trunk of the limo was 8 feet as Sherry surmises, and using the wide frame capture of the Zapruder film, we can estimate a minimum distance that the ejecta would have to travel between frames 312 and 313 in order to not be detected on film. Since we supposedly see the miniscule back spatter to define the cone of entry and exit, we must assume that this would’ve been visualized, but was just too fast for the camera to pick up the streak. The only way this would occur is if it happened before frame 313 was exposed. This helps us provide a timeframe and an ejecta velocity.

Now, the total elapsed time between the closing of the shutter of frame 312 and the opening of the shutter for frame 313 is about 30ms. We know that nothing is seen in 312 and there is no evidence of a large spatter heading rearwards in 313. So, the head would have to be hit and the ejecta would have to have moved at least 10 feet in 30 milliseconds. That equals 333.3 ft/second, or over 227 mph! That’s if Hargis’ head were only 10 feet from Kennedy’s. Even if it had taken the entire length of time from the end of exposure of frame 312 to the end of the exposure of 313 to reach Hargis, it would still have to travel at an astounding 124mph. However, even at that pace, it would’ve been picked up in the exposure. In her illustration of the cone of ejecta in frame 313, Guiterrez draws a wide forward spatter cone where the bottom margin of the cone’s ejecta is a fraction of the distance of the upper margin. One may intuitively think that the lateral margins of the cones should be representative in their projected distance. Maybe it was too fast to be seen, but we have just been through that computation.

The Mist

The ‘mist’ seen in the Zapruder film deserves a lot of attention. Why? Because a mist is indicative of slower moving back spatter. I had posited that the mist is what Officer Hargis was hit or drove in to. Guiterrez goes to some length to explain this, but I feel falls a bit short. In reference to the ‘mist’, she states,

“Frame 313 depicts a forceful impact pattern as evidenced by a conical shaped “mist” that appears toward the front of the limousine from the President’s head. Blood, bone and tissue are found on areas of the scene behind the President where the “mist” could not have deposited them because of its direction of travel. The “mist” is prevented from being deposited on some areas due to body position of the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and the structure of the vehicle. Other blood deposited on the scene outside these parameters would have to come from the corresponding exit or entry wound. The known characteristics of back and forward spatter to blood found elsewhere on the scene and the vehicle and found on the deposits on the limousine exterior, motorcycle officers, and the follow up car is consistent with forward spatter and the 313 pattern created is consistent with back spatter.”

Confused yet?

So, because the back spatter would’ve been obstructed by the car and the occupants, the material that hit the trunk, Hargis and the follow up car could not be back spatter. However, what if, just what if, that explosive wound was a communicating wound at the top of the head being exposed to the front and the back as Guiterrez suggests? In fact, if you believe, as I do, that the autopsy photographs are genuine, then we know that the wound was a communicating wound where the entrance and exit are connected by a blown out area of cranium. We know that the spatter goes in “all directions”. This would significantly skew the obviousness of a cone ejecta pattern. After all, there was a secondary explosion from the build up of intracranial pressure that blew the skull apart. With a communicating wound, the cone would meld together and make interpretation, especially in the grainy, poor resolution Zapruder film very difficult (especially when we cannot see all the pattern because it was too fast for the camera).

I contended in my previous work that there was a ‘mist’ of dissipating blood that evolved in an upward direction and that it was this that Hargis drove through. Sherry dispels this apparent myth by stating,

“Blood expelled in a gunshot injuries can easily travel at 80 miles per hour or faster. I doubt it could be projected into the air at that speed and yet hang there waiting for a vehicle to drive through it. What Mr. Zimmerman is seeing is not visible in the copies Bill Miller graciously provided to me, so it is hard to address what he is specifically describing.”

In addition, I asserted that this mist was “consistent with a rear headshot when wind resistance is taken into consideration”. However, Guiterrez’s response was,

“A strong wind can slow the blood or move it sideways from its trajectory. However, wind speeds would have to be very, very fast to reverse the direction of initial travel.”

However, I had never asserted that the wind completely reversed its travel. To do so would put it back into Kennedy’s head…so to speak. But, to be sure on this, I suggest the following. Go out into your yard on a day where the wind is gently blowing at 10-15 mph. Take a spray water bottle with you. Stand into the wind, hold the bottle up in front of your face and spray it. The tiny droplets weigh very little and easily succumb to the forces of wind. You must understand that since the wound was apparently very close to the axis that separates front from back, and that spatter goes in “all directions”, a fair amount of fine blood ejecta went straight up. Some went forward, some went back. And, in all fairness to the discussion, I don’t know of any calculation that puts that ‘mist’ at moving at 80mph. Yet, in all fairness to physics….what goes up, must come down. Of course, all you need is your trusty spray bottle to confirm or deny my assumption. Or, you can actually watch it on my webpage at __________________________________. I did not invent this crazy sounding idea. It can be easily seen in the film.

Blood Spatter Standards

To diverge for a second, Guiterrez delves into the necessary ingredients for a good blood spatter analysis. She states,

“Bloodstain Pattern Analysis is a science in itself. Patterns are analyzed independent of other evidence present on scene. Evidence that is used in Bloodstain Pattern Analysis to determine if a pattern is back or forward spatter includes the following:

Volume of bodily fluids

Tissue and particulate projected

Droplet size

Blood stain distribution

Number of stains

Travel distance”

Out of the 6 cited subjects, several are incomplete or cannot be determined. First, the volume of bodily fluids cannot be assessed. However, this has been quantified earlier as a maximum of 4.16 cups of blood if ALL the blood in President Kennedy’s head were expelled in the ejecta. Second, the tissue and particulate projected can be partially assessed, but is somewhat subjective. All of the large bone fragments found were in positions forward of Kennedy. The blood, which goes in “all directions” cannot be accurately ascertained since some, apparently, was not captured by the film and good close-ups of Hargis, his motorcycle, the follow up car, the back of the trunk, the interior of the car, the windshield, the hood of the car and the surrounding crime scene showing the dispersion and size of the matter do NOT exist. That answers the question of ‘droplet size’, since there were no measurements taken, only subjective analysis of testimony can be used. Blood stain distribution is very difficult if the ejecta moves in “all directions”. The number of stains is impossible to determine. Travel distance can be estimated by correlating some of what is seen in the Zapruder film (of course only what is seen!) and through testimony. It appears that there are severe limitations to the availability of the necessary evidence. One should wonder if an analysis, void of any other physical evidence other than blood, should even be considered. I mean, how can you apply good scientific technique to testimony about blood, instead of blood itself. How can you apply good technique when you cannot even see what allegedly spattered Hargis, the follow up car, the trunk, etc.? There’s NO physical blood evidence. That’s like asking an old German soldier how the blood spatter pattern looked after Hitler shot himself in his bunker. You cannot take his word for it without proof. However, we cannot see this alleged “bucket of blood”. It must’ve been too fast.

Additional Considerations

Two very large premises in Guiterrez’s work rely on interpretation of Officer Hargis’ statements and testimony and the blood and tissue evidence on the trunk and follow up vehicles. To corroborate this as forward spatter (which goes in all directions) and indicating a frontal shot, Guiterrez utilizes the following:

“Back spatter rarely travels over 4-5 feet.”

This is then applied to the testimony of Agent Frazier who said,

“We found blood and tissue all over the outside of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car; that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and, of course, considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area.”

Sherry interprets this as:

“The President was approximately 20 feet from the hood ornament. So this blood had to travel approximately 20 feet. Back spatter rarely travels over 4-5 feet. The pattern observed in the Zapruder film does not have this large a distribution area and although it is moving in the correct direction, other occupants and the vehicle structure would block it.”

This is theoretically true if the matter was ejected at a plane level to or below the structures involved. But, since the spatter ejects in “all directions” one must wonder if it is possible for some of this matter to go over a structure and fall back onto the car. One must also ponder another question. Since back spatter only travels 4-5 feet, except with rare exception, was Hargis, the follow up car and the trunk hit with forward spatter? And, if so, since the debris on the hood of the car and the windshield, as well as that in the front seat, must’ve been caused by forward spatter from the ejection of matter in “all directions”. Since the windshield of the follow up car was a lightly estimated “17 feet”, as determined by Guiterrez, and the front of the limo was about an estimated “20 feet” from President Kennedy, another question arises. What on earth was analyzed to determine shot direction other than frame 313? We can plainly see that the ‘evidence’ cannot be justified to any great deal of certainty due the multidirectional capability of spatter in conjunction with the placement of the wound. And, with the justified possibility of a very large, communicating exit wound, could a defined cone be seen…especially when so much else is apparently NOT seen in the Zapruder film. So, just how reliable is Blood Pattern Analysis in this case when:

1. You do not have any photographic record of static blood patterns other than the grainy Zapruder film.

2. You rely on testimonials about relative volumes of matter and blood, when a possibly equal share of material ended up in front due to the multidirectional ability of this wound.

3. There isn’t any physical blood spatter evidence that can be used. The shirt and coat cannot show the directionality of the shot. The blood spatter on the car was washed away.

More Questions

While I feel that Blood Pattern Analysis is a vital and important science, I ponder just how accurately it can be used on this subject when all is rationally considered. Sherry has reduced the evidence to that which only contains blood evidence. When asked about the large bone fragments (of which were only found in front of Kennedy), she feels that they are all part of forward spatter from an exploding exit wound on the top of the head. Where was the shooter to pull that one off? Under the seat? When the Harper fragment, as well as the other fragments in the front seat are considered, we are left with a forward spatter pattern that enveloped 20 feet in front of the limo and a conservative 17 feet in back of the limo. We are to assume that things were there, even when not visualized on the film. So, are we now into analyzing the testimony for accuracy against non-existent physical evidence?

Using her own rules as a guide, more questions than answers arise. Is this entire theory a product of a still picture from the Zapruder film since the “all direction”-ality of the forward spatter contaminates the elusive crime scene. If the entrance and exit wound in the top of the head communicated following the initial burst of explosive energy, is it still possible to define the cones of entry and exit? Kennedy had a 'flap' of bone above and in front of his right ear. This was pushed open by the force of blood and tissue pushing against it. Part of what is seen in frame 313, where Guiterrez draws the entry cone, is tissue being ejected from that area. Now, since the blood and tissue is pushing out, causing the acceleration of the bone fragment, wouldn't the blood and tissue contain more energy and force? If so, when the flap opens, wouldn't this allow blood and tissue to protrude out around the borders of the bone. And, if this is true, is this the cause of the 'entry cone'? If the debris travels in “all directions”, wouldn’t the entrance and exit in a communicating wound meld together and make identification of such a cone very difficult at the least?

When you look at her frame 313 illustration you see two defined cones. One line is consistent with the 'white streak' which may contain the Harper fragment or another large piece of skull or brain. The other, lower line marginalizing the cone is drawn completely out of context. It travels from Kennedy's head to the right side of the trunk, near the middle and is not consistent with any streak of matter, not that this need be. However, only a very, very small amount of debris is ejected in that direction and appears to be only a short distance from the head, while the 'white streak' is several feet above Kennedy's head. Is this second line in the exit cone really accurate, or a broad interpretation based on the Hargis testimony? In addition, if you rotate from the upper 'exit cone' line, and faintly visible, is another streak of tissue or bone...which rests outside the parameters drawn in the exit cone. This brings me back to my central question. If the ejecta goes in "all directions", which must be needed in order to have forward spatter 20 feet in front and a conservative 17 feet to the rear, can you really have a well defined cone of exit and entry...or is it an educated guess?