JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

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

<< < (13/14) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 03, 2025, 01:01:34 AM ---Dear Comrade Griffith,

Please freshen my memory: Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
--- End quote ---

LOL! The nick on the tie???! Umm, you realize that it was just a nick, not a hole, that it did not go through the tie but was only on the surface of the tie knot, right? You know this, right? Right?

Are you ever going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have nicked the top of the tie knot without first tearing through the knot, given that we have undeniable photographic proof that the tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the slits would have had to tear through the center of the bottom half of the knot? I've asked you this at least 10 times now, but you keep ducking it.

As for the direction of the fibers of the shirt slits, you continually dredge up myths that were debunked decades ago and refuse to face contrary evidence. One, the first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers being pointed outward--not one word. I'm guessing you didn't know that. Two, by all accounts, the throat wound itself was punched inward, i.e., the smooth edges of the round wound were facing inward. That's why it was described as "punched in" and as a "puncture." Pray tell how an exiting bullet can created a punched-in wound. Three, Dr. Carrico said he saw no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing. Four, one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt that the nurses made the slits and the tie nick.

The refusal/inability of WC apologists to acknowledge the cold, hard evidence of the shirt slits and the tie resembles the inability of Flat Earthers to acknowledge the cold, hard scientific evidence of a round Earth. 

Tom Graves:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 03, 2025, 12:34:39 PM ---The first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers being pointed outward -- not one word.

--- End quote ---

Comrade Griffith,

You forgot to add the word "inward."

As in, "The first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers' being pointed outward or inward."

Heck, even Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar was honest enough to say that.

Regardless, didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry eventually say that the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound, and that its small size is what led him to believe it was an entrance wound?

Royell Storing:

--- Quote from: Tom Graves on July 30, 2025, 02:42:04 AM ---Storing,

The AUTOPSY photo was MISLEADING because JFK was a bit of a HUNCHBACK and because RIGOR MORTIS had ALREADY set IN.

Do'h.

--- End quote ---

   So now in order to make the BACK Wound exit from JFK's throat, the LN's are transforming JFK into a "Hunchback"? What's that tell you? As Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE proved, the SBT "Is Impossible".

Michael T. Griffith:
It is worth repeating that when Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of JFK's shirt at the National Archives, he noticed there was less blood inside the collar band than on the outside, which doesn't fit the SBT scenario. If a bullet had exited the throat, one would expect there would be just as much blood, if not more, on the inside of the collar band as on the outside of it. Not only did Weisberg find this is not the case, but he also discovered that where the sides of the shirt overlapped, there was no blood at all:

There is less blood inside the collar band than on the outside of the fabric, not consistent
with the bloodstains coming from the body side. Where the sides of the shirt overlapped
in wearing, no blood. (Post Mortem, p. 347)

One WC defender in the EF suggested the JFK's neck was shored when the bullet allegedly transited his neck and that this could explain why there was more blood outside the collar band than on inside the collar band, but this won't work. If the throat wound was behind the collar band, i.e., if the collar band was covering the throat wound, as WC apologists claim, any blood exiting the wound could have first hit the inside of the collar band and would have then had to soak through to the outside of the band. Thus, the inside of the collar band should have had the most blood on it, not the outside.

Yet, there was more blood on the outside of the band than on the inside, exactly what you would expect if a bullet entered the throat above the collar band, because blood would then flow out of the wound and onto the outside of the band and would deposit very little blood on the inside of the band. This would also explain why the sides of the shirt that overlapped had no blood on them.

And, of course, we should always remember that we know for an absolute fact that no bullet exited the shirt slits because the tie had no hole through it. Any bullet exiting the slits would have torn through the bottom half of the tie knot, but, again, there was no hole through the tie. This supports a Parkland nurse's report that nurses made the shirt slits and made the shallow nick on the top of the tie knot. This also supports Dr. Carrico's statement that he saw no nick in the tie and no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing..

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Mitch Todd on August 07, 2025, 06:35:54 AM ---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 went roundabout, having Carrico "confirm" his testimony. But note that Weisberg doesn't actually quote what Carrico said.

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?

--- End quote ---

Another sad display of sophistry and distortion. You told me you were going to show me what Carrico "actually" said--and then, incredibly, you ignored the part where Dulles specifically asked Carrico to show him where the wound was, then asked him to confirm that he was putting his hand just above his tie, and then Carrico said yes. So Carrico was demonstrating where the wound was with his hand; he put his hand just above his tie, and then he confirmed this placement when Dulles asked him to confirm it. Let's read it again:

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)

Your apparent willingness to ignore plain English continues with your curious charge that Weisberg did not directly ask Carrico where the throat wound was! Say what??? Were you just hoping that no one would go back and read what Weisberg said, or that I would forget what he said, which I quoted? I mean, wow. Just wow.

Let's read what Weisberg said, again:

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)

This reminds me of your amazing refusal to acknowledge Vincent DiMaio's plain-English statements that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments in bone and that if an x-ray shows numerous small fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo as the ammo. He said this, several times, in plain English. Yet, you danced and danced around his wording, pretended I was talking about a different kind of "lead snowstorm," and then cited one of his x-rays as proof without realizing, or perhaps hoping I wouldn't notice, that the x-ray was of fragments from non-FMJ ammo.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page