Commander HUMES. Yes, sir; it is.
Mr. DULLES. We think we know what the bullet is, we may be wrong but we
think we know what it was, is this wound consistent with that type of
bullet?
Commander HUMES. Quite consistent, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. There is no evidence of any keyholing of the bullet before
it hit, before the point of impact?
Commander HUMES. I don't exactly follow your question.
Mr. McCLOY. Was the bullet moving in a direct line or had it begun to
tumble?
Commander HUMES. To tumble?
That is a difficult question to answer. I have the opinion, however,
that it was more likely moving in a direct line. You will note that
the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388
is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not
yet discussed in the low neck. We believe that rather than due to a
tumbling effect, this is explainable on the fact that this missile
struck the skin and skull at a more tangential angle than did the other
missile, and, therefore, produced a more elongated defect, sir.
Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? Perhaps you have done
this, but if not, how would you explain the difference of the courses
of the fragments which you traced and described as, I think, being
discovered behind the right eye?
Commander HUMES. Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. And the course of the fragment which was believed
caused the large defect?
Commander HUMES. Caused the large defect?