Please note that I have adjusted the arm penetration estimate of 6" in my previous post to a calculated figure of 5" based on the scale provided in II-A. This is a conservative figure since there is some foreshortening (perspective distortion) in the photograph which would result in making a precise measurement underestimate the penetration slightly.
In regard to the illustrations, they're depictions of what may have happened.
...
The illustration of the bullet's path through Platt's upper arm (Figure II-3) is different in the 3rd printing than the bullet path depicted in in the Paladin Press version. It appears to have been changed as a result of this information:
I'm not talking about illustrations, I'm referring to an autopsy photograph (which I provided as a clickable link) with an included scale and showing an inserted probe.
Unless there's proof the photo is faked or doctored there's no way to explain how it would be different in different printings.
Figure II-2, which depicts Platt crawling out the passenger window of the Monte Carlo, shows the bullet striking his upper arm in the area of the triceps muscle, and is not accurate when one compares it to the autopsy photo...
That is correct. However, correcting the error so that the wound matches the autopsy photo doesn't substantially change the position of the arm--other than the illustration shows the armed turned inwards slightly more than it actually was. If anything, the error in the figure implies less penetration that the actual photograph shows.
If you press your upper arm against your chest then you'll see that what appears to be 6" of penetration through the arm (as it seems in autopsy photo Plate II-A) becomes about 3" inches.
The problem is that if the arm were pressed against the chest there would be no way the bullet could have taken the path that it did.
The
autopsy photograph II-A (not an illustration--an actual photograph) demonstrates that the bullet entered the front of the arm just above (and inside) the bend of the elbow and exited about an inch or two below the armpit. For the bullet to have taken that path and continued into the chest, penetrating horizontally to the midline, the arm would have to be outstretched, at an angle only slightly lower than horizontal.
There are two figures (II-2, and II-3) (illustrations) in Anderson's book showing Platt's position when this bullet hit him and both of them show his right arm outstretched, just as I have described it. With good reason--that's the only position that is consistent with the bullet's established trajectory.
If his arm had been pressed against his chest, the bullet would have had to exit the arm travelling nearly parallel to the arm and then make a nearly 90 degree turn before entering the chest and penetrating at nearly right angles to the arm until it reached the body midline as shown in the autopsy X-Ray and autopsy diagrams. Clearly that doesn't make sense.
That explanation should suffice, but it's really not necessary because Plate II-B (photograph) eliminates any questions. For the wound channels to line up as shown by the inserted probe, the arm must be outstretched, leaving a gap of approximately 2.5" between the arm exit wound and the chest entry wound and eliminating any possibility that the arm was pressed against the chest when the shot struck Platt.
Plate II-B (autopsy photo of Platt's armpit) clearly shows how high up in the arm pit area the bullet was when it exited the arm and entered the chest.
What II-B (autopsy photograph with an inserted probe and provided scale) clearly shows is that with the probe inserted through the arm wound and into the chest wound (lining them up as they would have been at the time the wound was administered) that there has to be a gap between the arm exit wound and the chest entry wound of about 2.5" when the arm is positioned properly to line up the two wound paths.
There is no room for debate because there is no perspective distortion in the photograph and the provided scale in the photo is conveniently positioned so that it is aligned with the probe to facilitate determining the actual scale.
This clearly demonstrates that the arm exit wound was an unshored exit and that the arm could not have been pressed against the chest when the bullet hit Platt.
The photographs and X-Ray tell the story and leave no room for debate. Short of proving that the photos and X-Ray in Anderson's book are doctored/faked or that Platt's chest was remarkably small for a man his height and weight, it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that an 8" total penetration figure could possibly be accurate. For what it's worth, there is no indication in the autopsy notes that Platt's chest was unusually small, nor do the crime scene photographs of Platt (see Plate IV-F on p 84 of Anderson's book) suggest such a thing.
The arm penetration is easily determined to be 5" from autopsy photograph II-A. That means that if 8" is actually the total penetration, it must have taken only 3" of penetration to penetrate from under Platt's right armpit to about an inch short of midline on his chest. That could only be realistic if Platt's chest measured 8" or less from side to side at his armpits--half of what would be normal for someone his size.
The 8" penetration figure makes sense if it ONLY takes the chest penetration into account, but not if it is supposed to be a total penetration figure.
From what I can find on the web, a man who is about 5'9" tall (an inch shorter than Platt) would be expected to have a chest width of about 16". Based on the autopsy X-Ray, the bullet penetrated half of Platt's chest less about an inch. That would be about 7" of penetration which is close enough to the 8" figure you are quoting to be reasonable.
