Grant responds to Milicent Cranor's comments of 14 November 1999
(Received 15 November 1999)
Cranor's response is primarily a mixture of ad hominem (e.g. trying
to impugn Dr. Baden's credentials), irrelevancy and misunderstanding.
For example, her example of a "shored entrance wound" has nothing to do with any wounds suffered by JFK. It involves a person being shot while pressing against a door. But a bullet going through a door can have its flight altered and almost certainly will cause pieces of the door to enter the victim's body thereby altering the wound. Tight clothing can and does shore exit wounds and tight clothing, in the area of JFK's shirt collar, is the only possible shoring material relevant to this case.
She misunderstands my comments about the possibility of the bullet falling out of JFK's back. I only mentioned it so as to avoid the accusation of not mentioning this as a possibility that has been raised by multiple gunman advocates such as Josiah Thompson in his book Six Seconds in Dallas.
The bottom line remains: all of the physical evidence such as the clothing and the autopsy photos and X-rays prove beyond any possible doubt that the wound in JFK's back was an entrance wound. No significant portion of a bullet was found in JFK's torso. Therefore the bullet exited. The only possible exit site was JFK's throat, through the wound observed (but not closely examined; they did not wipe the blood from the margins, for example) at Parkland Memorial Hospital. The one forensic pathologist and two clinical pathologists who examined JFK's body at Bethesda came to this conclusion. Something like fourteen forensic pathologists who have studied the autopsy documentation have come to the same conclusion.
If Ms. Cranor, who is not a forensic pathologist and has not studied the original materials, believes that cherry-picking gunshot wound literature in hopes of a way out carries more weight, she is quite welcome to that view.
Back to M. Cranor's response