News Archive


Latest News | Press Reports | Articles -1- -2- | Photos | Test Report / Documents

UPDATE 5-19-99


© Joseph Backes, with research by Debra Conway

In an effort to learn more about the testing results of CE 567 Debra Conway made some inquiries of the people involved in the initial discovery of the organic material and from the people at Archives II who are overseeing the testing. In response Deb received some interesting materials from Steve Hamilton of Archives II.

The first item of the materials Mr. Hamilton sent is most peculiar. It is an undated, unsigned, press release, of sorts, that is not on NARA stationary at all. [NARA Press Release] The last sentence of the first paragraph announces, "testing is now complete." It is this announcement, yet the lack of information as to what the results of the testing is that has been the impetus for these now two articles on CE 567.

This piece of paper states that a panel of experts from the FBI lab, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner, the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine of the Maimonides Medical Center, the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), and the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, met at NARA to examine CE 567. These experts were not named. This document states that some evaluations were performed at Archives II. What these examinations were are not specified. Further testing was to be done at the FBI Lab, described as "instrumental analysis of a portion of the fibrous material." Histological preparations of samples taken from the four organic fragments were processed at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (Walter Reed Complex). Mitochondrial DNA examinations of samples taken from the four organic fragments were conducted at AFDIL.

Apparently, the FBI tests are done. The FBI lab concluded,

"the fibrous debris recovered from the bullet fragment of CE 567 was determined to consist of paper fibers and unidentified proteinaceous material of non-textile origin, and accordingly did not originate from the clothing of John F. Kennedy or John B. Connally."

Unfortunately, this piece of paper does not state whether testing was done to compare the cotton wadding the bullet fragment was once stored in with the mysterious "paper fibers and unidentified proteinaceous material of non-textile origin" ?

There is a statement about the organic matter but it is unspecified as to which testing and by whom this result is supposedly coming from,

"The four smaller fragments of organic material were determined on microscopic examination to consist of human skin tissue, but it was not possible to establish the precise body area of origin. DNA analyses of these tissue fragments yielded inconclusive results, accordingly, no comparison of the questioned material with known sources is currently possible."

Now one assumes this is coming from AFDIL, but this paper doesn't state the source of the statement. I find this paragraph to be extremely troubling. It is my understanding, and I grant I know little or nothing about DNA testing procedures, however, that it is possible to get a DNA sample from organic matter, use that as a fingerprint and compare it to a DNA sample of other organic matter to get a match or not get a match, then make a conclusion. And that it is similar to fingerprint testing in that way. There are four samples. It is not explained if a DNA print was found on any of the four at all. There must be DNA in each sample. There just has to be. That they may or may not match with each other is irrelevant, and it is in this author's opinion that AFDIL found differences in one or perhaps all of the four samples, decided that that was an "inconclusive" result and stopped the testing procedure, never testing any of the four samples with any known DNA sources for JFK or Connally.

It is this author's opinion that samples for President Kennedy's and Gov. Connally's DNA exist, either in material in NARA, or through still living blood relatives, such material should be collected and tested against each and every one of these four samples. It seems that based on this piece of paper and this particular paragraph that the decision to go with an inconclusive result is what happened. I find this to be totally unacceptable.

Lastly, and somewhat surprisingly, the paper implies some testing is still going on, or was when this was written. "On completion of final laboratory reports by the participating agencies, NARA will make available to the public all documentary materials generated in the course of these recent examinations." Debra Conway, and myself were led to believe that testing was completed, which may be the case, but it is the language of this particular piece of paper that seems to indicate otherwise, at least up to the time it was written.

Recent attempts to contact Steve Hamilton have not been successful, leading Debra Conway and this author to believe we were never supposed to see the contents of this piece of paper, and strengthening in our own minds ideas as to why it is not on NARA stationary, why it is not dated or signed.

In addition to this troubling non-press release press release were some pieces of paper from the HSCA related to the firearms examination panel's report. First, is what appears on it's face to be page 22 of their report. Of note is the first sentence describing CE 567, "This exhibit is a small lead fragment and the nose portion of a damaged 65. mm caliber full metal jacketed lead core bullet." That means there are or were two bullet fragments for CE 567. Not one. Two! There appears to be only one bullet fragment in the current photos of CE 567. Where did the other bullet fragment go?

Also included with the materials Hamilton faxed to Conway is a sheet of paper used as a form for noting distinguishing characteristics of the samples the Firearms Panel examined. It clearly states, "White (fiberous) substance should be subjected to microchemical analysis to determine origin." This is repeated on page 33 of the report in the panel's recommendations. It is this recommendation which was deleted from the HSCA's final report and buried.


The panel was asked if CE 567 the nose portion of a bullet and CE 569, (which is not a subject of any current testing,) the base portion of a bullet came from the same bullet. The panel could not identify or eliminate whether CE 567 and CE 569 came from the same bullet.

In a call from Conway, the FBI's Fire Arms Examiner, Robert Frazier, stated:

"They [the fragments] were copper jackets. They represented the front
and back [sections of bullets].

I reported the edges were not suitable for comparison [to tell if one
bullet or two] They matched as type, but [you] couldn't tell if they
were from the same bullet or not."

He stated much the same to the Warren Commission:

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you determine whether this bullet fragment,
567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. You cannot?

Mr. FRAZIER. There is not enough of the two fragments in
unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments
actually fit together.

However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment,
such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base
section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of
course, they could be parts of separate bullets. (WC V 3, p434)

As we have seen in many instance with the WC and the HSCA, when they couldn't rule something in or out they pretend they got the result they wanted and ran with it.

To review, you are supposed to believe that a full metal copper jacketed 6.5mm Western Cartridge Company bullet struck JFK in the head, fragmenting when it was designed not to, expelling a recognizable nose portion and base portion, leaving a nearly perfect round cross section fragment behind JFK's right eye that could be measured as coming from a 6.5 mm bullet, as though it was a slice of baloney, which is an apt description of the whole official story. You are supposed to believe they came from the same bullet. If they did not, if they came from two separate bullets that is proof positive of a fourth shot, and prime facia case for conspiracy, regardless of what the DNA testing results are.

Could not a test be done today to determine if CE 567 and CE 569 came from one bullet or two different bullets? I would think that would be possible.

Irrefutable proof of a fourth shot, and a conspiracy rests on this question.



© JFK Lancer // Website and graphics by Julianne Rhodes

Visit our online Partners: The Continuing InquiryThe Mary Ferrell Foundation