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

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

There is no reason to guess at the location of the anterior neck wound. The autopsy protocol (CE 387) clearly states on page 3:

Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges.

This image might be helpful:

[Michael T. Griffith]

In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:

Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.

Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:

“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”

Four days later the same newspaper printed that,

“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”

Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."

Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:

“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”

The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:

“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”

Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a  scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .

It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)

Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.

[Tom Graves]

In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:

Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.

Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:

“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”

Four days later the same newspaper printed that,

“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”

Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."

Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:

“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”

The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:

“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”

Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a  scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .

It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)

Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.

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

[Lance Payette]

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

Well, the FBI said they were pointed outwards - but then they would say that, wouldn't they?

The big hang-up for me, as Joffrey kind of suggests above, is that with the Griffith/Varnell approach we have (1) a back entry wound so shallow that the bullet falls out; (2) a throat entry wound for which there is no exit; (3) the fibers on the shirt indicating the back wound is one of entry and the throat wound is one of exit; and (4) the two supposed entry wounds and the holes in the clothing "just happening" to line up so closely that umpteen medical and ballistic experts have opined that one is an entry wound and the other an exit. How fantastically unlikely is that? Unlikely enough that Cliff Varnell is forced to resort to a CIA-issued melting ice bullet for the throat wound. I have a feeling William of Ockham would look askance at the Griffith/Varnell approach, which would seem to make the explanation vastly more complicated than the evidence necessitates.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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

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]

The first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers being pointed outward -- not one word.

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]

Storing,

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

Do'h.

   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..