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?