A FRAGMENT OF TRUTH?
Latest
News | Press Reports | Articles
-A- -B- | Photos | Test
Report / Documents
UPDATE 5-19-99
MYSTERY CONCLUSIONS
© Joseph Backes
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.
TWO FRAGMENTS EQUALS FOUR BULLETS
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.
-30-
joebackes@aol.com
Copyright 1999.
All rights reserved. Use
of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service.
