The Entrance Wound in the Throat, the Front Shirt Slits, and Tie Knot Nick

[Tom Graves]

If that is the best rebuttal you got, I must have presented a very compelling case. Thank you.

LOL!

The probability of your presenting a compelling case regarding any aspect of the JFK assassination, Storing, is about the same as Donald Trump's releasing the complete and unredacted (except for identifying information about the victims) Epstein Files.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I cherry-picked nothing. . . .

Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)

When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:

When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)

Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf, p. 14)

Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60). 

The interviews with Jones and Goldstritch were made 60 years after the fact, and their memories have had decades to decay and be infiltrated by external factors. The WC testimony of Perry, Jones, Carrico, et al, was taken mere months after the assassination when the events in question still lay fresh in their minds. The only real reason to prefer the decades-later recollections over the 1964 testimony is an irrational desire to believe the latter accounts. You could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1. He's one of those guys who just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later.

So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?

Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later." You haven't watched the Paramount documentary, have you? Nobody but a diehard SBT believer would believe that Goldstrich fabricated his account. By the way, when Goldstrich was interviewed again in 2023, he said he is "almost certain" the throat wound was an entrance wound, and he noted that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head:

"I am now almost certain that it is an entrance wound. This should have been obvious
to me sooner because the wound at the back of the head was too large to ever be
considered an entrance wound." (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/107504)

[Michael T. Griffith]

We don't really "know" this, do we? There is nothing to this effect in the ARRB final report, which does highlight what was learned about the autopsy. Aren't what you are calling "ARRB disclosures" actually more like "Doug Horne's speculation" in this 1996 memorandum: https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/TEAMA/MEDICAL/CHAIN2.WPD.pdf.

Actually, yes, we most certainly do know this. Your reply leads me to wonder what you have read on the subject. Just from the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript alone we know this. Rankin referred to a version of the autopsy report that said the throat wound was made by a fragment from the head shot. Boggs then referred to the FBI report on the autopsy, which said the back wound had no exit point. Multiple official leaks on the autopsy, published soon after the autopsy, said the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment, and the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript confirms that those leaks came from sources who had read an early draft of the autopsy report, the same one that Rankin cited.

The ARRB final report said nothing about the vast majority of the historic disclosures from the released autopsy-related files and from the new autopsy witness interviews. The ARRB board members knew little about this evidence. I doubt they even read the released documents and the interview transcripts.

I suggest you sit down and actually watch Doug Horne's detailed and documented video on this evidence: The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report:

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

Mr. Griffith,

Thank you for an interesting OP. I agree with your statements on the cause for the slits in the shirt collar and the nick on the tie. However, I think a number of questions arise from the notion that the throat wound was an entrance wound:

1) the size and shape of the wound; 3 to 5 mm, almost circular. What conclusions can you arrive at using these parameters regarding the caliber of the weapon and the location of the assassin?

2) where did the bullet go after it entered the anterior neck?

3) Do you think Dr. Humes et al were correct in their hypothesis that the bullet that entered the president's back had no point of exit and had fallen out during external cardiac massage? Could this be CE 399? This is in fact my own theory, and it gets rid of ridiculous 'planting' of evidence considerations. But will it damage the chain of custody of CE 399?

4) Dr. Burkley, in JFK's death certificate which the Warren Commission overlooked and forgot to publish, stated the back wound was located at the level of the T3 vertebrae. Do you think that is accurate?

I am here to learn something on the assassination and hope you will be able to answer my questions.

[Michael T. Griffith]

"If a bullet goes through multiple layers of cloth, bullet wipe may be present only around the defect in the cloth that was perforated first." -- pages 354 and 355 of Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.

Oh, now you're willing to listen to DiMaio! You've ignored the fact that DiMaio said that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo, and that when FMJ bullets do fragment, even when they penetrate bone, the fragments will be "very sparse in number." In fact, let's read him again on this point:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments
are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(p. 166)

Yet, the JFK skull x-rays show a "snow storm" of numerous tiny fragments in the right frontal region and a number of fragments to the left of the cluster that trail upward and backward without reaching the rear of the skull--the exact opposite of what DiMaio said we'll see in x-rays of people shot with FMJ bullets.

Anyway, regarding DiMaio's comment about bullets leaving metallic traces as they go through "multiple layers of cloth," we're talking about the third layer of clothing. And notice that DiMaio did not say it was the norm for bullets to leave bullet wipe only around the cloth layer that was first penetrated. He said this "may" happen, not that it normally happens.

Furthermore, let's keep in mind that the FBI lab initially said the slits looked like they were made by a fragment, not by a whole bullet, and said nothing about the fibers being bent outward. And then there is the crucial fact that no fabric was missing from the slits, a clear indicator that no projectile created the slits. Of course, we know that no bullet made the slits because we know that the Parkland nurses made the slits and nicked the tie knot when they hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing.

"The nine representative rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition were fired into 100% white cotton t-shirts, fitted over a device to approximate body torso thickness, at a muzzle to target distance of six feet (72 inches) in a manner that created an entrance hole in the front and an exit hole in the back of the t-shirt for each shot. All nine bullet entrance holes and exit holes were subjected to XRF analysis. Entrance hole residues ranged in lead concentration levels from 190 parts per million (ppm) to over 1,000 ppm while exit hole residue lead levels ranged from zero to 74 ppm. In all cases, entrance hole lead concentrations were at least six times higher than exit hole lead levels." (https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2009-A181.pdf)

I guess you failed to notice when you read this article that in every single case, including in the test firing that you didn't mention, the bullets created "holes" when they exited the clothing, not vertical slits with no fabric missing.

Anyway, it's too bad the author did not specify how many of the nine bullets failed to leave any traces of lead. Her wording suggests that the majority of the bullets left lead traces around the exit holes.

When are you guys going to face the determinative fact that the tie had no hole in it, and that no bullet exiting the front shirt slits could have magically weaved around the body of the tie knot and nicked the knot, especially since the nick is actually not on the left edge of the knot but only near the left edge? Even if we assume the tie was untied and then retied before the evidence photos were taken, and that the nick was originally on the knot's left edge, there is still no way that a bullet exiting the slits could have maneuvered around the body of the knot to nick its left edge--it would have had to tear through the knot. The FBI fought so doggedly to keep all the tie photos from being released because they knew they would reveal that the tie had no hole in it. There was a reason the WC's photos of the tie were poor in quality and did not show any closeup views (CEs 394 and 395). There was also a reason the WC did not include the photo of the shirt slits among its published exhibits.

[Tim Nickerson]

Oh, now you're willing to listen to DiMaio! You've ignored the fact that DiMaio said that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo, and that when FMJ bullets do fragment, even when they penetrate bone, the fragments will be "very sparse in number." In fact, let's read him again on this point:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments
are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(p. 166)

DiMaio didn't say that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo. In fact, he said that there are some FMJs that will massively fragment, even without penetrating bone.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

I suggest you sit down and actually watch Doug Horne's detailed and documented video on this evidence: The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report:

Thanks for the link to the Horne presentation. I have to watch it again to take it all in as it lasts for more than an hour. One peculiar paragraph in the autopsy report, CE 387, page 4, deserves some attention. Dr. Humes wrote

The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax.

The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region.

I have emphasized the word presumably twice. English is not my primary language, but when i google translate it, the synonyms are probably, likely, maybe. It seems therefore that the conclusions regarding entry and exit are less based on certainty than perhaps desirable in the homicide of a president.

Another aspect of the autopsy report is that of the 88 facts stated, only 24 have a basis in the notes of the pathologist. 68 have no basis at all.

[Mitch Todd]

Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:

Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)

When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:

When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)

Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf, p. 14)

Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60). 

So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?

Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later." You haven't watched the Paramount documentary, have you? Nobody but a diehard SBT believer would believe that Goldstrich fabricated his account. By the way, when Goldstrich was interviewed again in 2023, he said he is "almost certain" the throat wound was an entrance wound, and he noted that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head:

"I am now almost certain that it is an entrance wound. This should have been obvious
to me sooner because the wound at the back of the head was too large to ever be
considered an entrance wound." (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/107504)

MG: Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:

No, he didn't. And let me show you what he actually said, since you totally missed it.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--

In Carrico's own words, the wounds was "located in the lower third of the neck" "just about where your tie would be." His use of "where your/the tie" puts the wound below the top of the collar, ipso facto. And "the lower third of the neck" would also located it under the top of the collar on any human being not named "Giraffe." Note how well these statements matches up to "we opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck." If you go by what Carrico actually says, in his own words, the wound is most definitely below the top of the collar. You, on the other hand, want to rely on something Dulles says about Carrico's hand instead. That's not a very smart way to deal with it.

As to your channeling the ghost of Harold Weisberg:

HW: When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.”

Of course Carrico wouldn't have. His concern was for the patient, not the patient's clothing! Why on earth would Weisberg or you or anyone else expect him to in the first place? Weisberg says as much in Never Again.


HW: I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar.

What a vague and roundabout way of dealing with the problem! You'd think that Weisberg would have directly asked Carrico about the exact location of the wound, and then quoted Carrico's response in one of his writings. I mean, let's say that you are Weisberg. And you are interviewing Carrico about the throat wound. One of the first questions you are going to ask is "where was the throat wound? Was it above or below the collar?" So why don't we hear about that at all? why does Weisberg resort to the vague, indirect, and quoteless reference to Carrico's WC testimony? I'm certain that Weisberg did ask that question, but Carrico's answer wasn't what Weisberg needed to hear. So Weisberg asked Carrico

MG: Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding

Reading through Weisberg's comments on the subject I don't get where Carrico actually says they used scalpels. "{Carrico} told me that the President's shirt and tie were cut off in 'the usual emergency procedures,' he demonstrated it using his own tie slashing with an imaginary scalpel." But the only person who seems to be imagining a scalpel here is Weisberg. In fact, all of the "scalpel" talk appears to comes from Weisberg, and no one else. I can't find anyone but Weisberg saying they used scalpels to cut clothing off, unless they are referencing Weisberg. He seems to be the ultimate source of all this scalpel talk.

As for "the big hurry," it would have been faster to use bandage scissors than scalpels. Scalpels are carefully packaged and stored in such a way as to preserve the blade's sharp edge, maintain their sterility, and prevent anyone from being accidentally injured by the things while they are being transported, stored, and readied for action. Getting one out of its packaging and ready to go is not trivial and takes time, especially if you prefer not to maim yourself. On the other hand, almost every nurse involved in clinical activity in a hospital will be carrying bandage scissors, trauma shears, or both, in their pockets. They are also readily available in examination rooms, etc, as they do no need to be sterile, and are fairly safe handle by design.  And they are designed specifically to cut through bandages and clothing from a human body without causing injuries in the process. Scalpels are designed specifically to cause injuries in patients. They are not forgiving to misuse, and cutting clothing is not a use they are designed for.

MG: So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?

The location that CTs want to put the throat wound has been public knowledge for a long time. CTs aren't shy about pelting witnesses with leading questions, and enough of them over the years will start becoming memory contaminants. Loftus, et al, demonstrated this decades ago. Or Consider the case of the "McClelland drawing." It was originally drawn by a medical illustrator under the commission of Tink Thompson based on comments made by McClelland. Over time, McClelland began to say that he was responsible for having it created. And eventually, he actually started to say that he'd drawn it. He wasn't trying to claim credit for something that he didn't do, but inadvertently came under the influence of the mass of literature and discussion about the assassination. John Connally, in his autobiography, said that most of what he "remembered" about 11/22/63 wasn't actually his own memories, but things he heard from others, watched on TV, or read in the years after the event.

Again, if you go by Jones' and Perry's testimony to the WC in 1964, Jones could not have seen the wound before the shirt and tie had been cut away from that area.     


MG: Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later."

The earliest reference to him as a JFKA witness dates to about 2015, 52 years after the assassination. And, again, you could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1 that day. The WC asked the 11/22/63 staffers who was in the room there and involved with the efforts to treat JFK. Who the noted Goldstritch's presence?