Letter to the editor. NAA and JFK: Can revisionism take us home?

TL;DR

This paper critically examines a flawed study claiming multiple bullets imply a second shooter in JFK's assassination, reaffirming the validity of neutron activation analysis and clarifying misconceptions.

Contribution

It refutes misconceptions in a prior study, reaffirming the reliability of neutron activation analysis in forensic investigations of JFK's assassination.

Findings

The original study's conclusion about multiple bullets indicating a second shooter is false.

Neutron activation analysis remains a valid forensic tool.

Clarification of misconceptions about JFK forensic evidence.

Abstract

Occasionally during the course of the human learning experience we are faced with an anomaly. An aberration of sorts, which try as we might, defies appropriate classification. The recent paper by Spiegelman et al.--Chemical and forensic analysis of JFK assassination bullet lots: Is a second shooter possible?--is one such aberration. It is riddled with both misconceptions and errors of fact. Purporting to cast doubt on the NAA (neutron activation analysis) work conducted by Dr. Vincent Guinn in the investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it fails miserably. The paper offers two central conclusions, one which is demonstrably false, and the other which is specious. The authors opine; ``If the assassination fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not be attributable to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald.'' This statement relating to the likelihood of a second assassin based on the premise of three or more separate bullets is demonstrably false. The available evidence indicates that Oswald fired three shots, one of which is believed to have missed. However, on the off chance that all three shots hit (even though there is absolutely no other supporting forensic evidence for such a notion) those three shots alone in no way would indicate then that ``a second assassin is likely.'' The authors' erroneous conclusion was achieved because they have either been misled (which I personally believe is the case) or they simply aren't familiar with the evidence.