NEW ARTICLE: JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible

[David Von Pein]

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-115.html#The-Clark-Perry-Press-Conference-At-Parkland-Hospital-On-November-22-1963

[Jack Nessan]

If anyone has any questions about the arguments being made by SBT defenders in this thread, please message or email me and I'll address them. Unless something changes, I'm probably not going to spend any more time responding to their strained, evasive arguments.

You'll notice that not one of them is explaining how a bullet exiting the throat wound and shirt slits could have missed the tie knot, and how such a bullet could have weaved around the body of the knot to nick its outer surface on the left area of the bottom half of the knot (and not on the edge).

Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.

In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.

Less than two hours after JFK died, the Parkland Hospital doctors held a press conference. During the presser, Dr. Malcolm Perry identified the throat wound as an entrance wound three times. Dr. Perry, who had much more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes or Boswell, diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound because it was small (3-5 mm), neat, circular, and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind the wound.

We have the transcript of the press conference, but not any film footage of it. Why? How could this be? Because the Secret Service confiscated all film footage of the presser, and it has not surfaced since then.

Moreover, the Secret Service lied to the WC and said they could not locate the films or the transcript of the press conference. Thanks to the ARRB, we now know that the Secret Service had the transcript in their possession by 11/26, four days after the shooting.

With no film or transcript of the press conference, the WC claimed that press reports that quoted Perry as saying the wound was a neat puncture wound were inaccurate, and that all the journalists at the presser somehow misunderstood what Perry said. The Commission even pressured Perry into endorsing this claim.

The Church Committee discovered in the 1970s that the Secret Service pressured Dr. Perry to change his story long before he testified before the WC.

It gets worse. Journalist Martin Steadman and two other journalists spoke with Dr. Perry about a week after the assassination. Steadman knew that Perry had identified the throat wound as an entrance wound at the 11/22 press conference. Steadman wrote that Dr. Perry said he thought the throat wound was an entrance wound because the hole was small, circular, and clean (not ragged). Perry added that he had treated hundreds of patients with gunshot wounds and knew the difference between an exit wound and entrance wound.

Steadman reported that Dr. Perry then told him that during the night of the assassination, he got several phone calls from the doctors at Bethesda. He said they were very upset about his statement that the neck wound was an entry wound.

Let me pause to note that this debunks the autopsy doctors' lie that they knew nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. The Parkland press conference had been widely reported on by major news outlets. Even without Dr. Perry's disclosure, it would be hard to believe that the autopsy doctors heard nothing about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy.

Anyway, to continue. Steadman reported that Perry said that the autopsy doctors asked him if he or another Parkland doctor had turned over the body to see the wound in Kennedy’s back. Perry said they had not. They then argued that he could not therefore be certain about the throat wound, that there was no evidence of a shot from the front, and that he should stop saying the throat wound was an entrance wound.

Moreover, Steadman said that Dr. Perry told him that when he insisted he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him he would be brought before a medical board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they even threatened that he would lose his medical license.

Crucially, Parkland nurse Audrey Bell confirmed in her 1997 ARRB interview that Dr. Perry told her that he received several calls on the night of the assassination from Bethesda Naval Hospital pressuring him to change his story about the throat wound:

Saturday morning, when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to
the office. I said, "You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?"

He said, "Well, not too much, between the calls from Bethesda
that came in during the night." ["Bethesda" refers to Bethesda Naval
Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.]

I said, "What about?"

He said, "Oh, whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound
in the throat."

He said, "They were wanting me to change my mind."
(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm)

All of this makes perfect sense when we acknowledge the hard physical evidence that no bullet could have exited the throat and shirt slits without tearing through the tie, that no such bullet could have magically flown around the knot and nicked its outer surface, which facts in turn confirm that the throat wound was above the tie knot and could have only been an entry wound.

MG ”Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
 
Where does Sherlock say if lacking evidence for your grand proclamation, it is OK to fabricate your own evidence? Must be in a different nugget of wisdom.

MG “In this case, the remaining explanation is eminently probable on its face, and it is proven beyond any rational doubt by JFK's shirt, coat, and tie.”

Great explanation, except the autopsy photos do not support this nonsense and show the bullet hole lower on JFK’s throat and then there is the problem of the bullet went on to strike JBC in the back. Other than that, a very inspirational observation.
 

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think this is a good time to quote some of Dr. Jerry McKnight's research on the shirt slits and the tie. This comes from his article "Bugliosi Fails to Resuscitate the Single-Bullet Theory":

-----------QUOTE-------------

The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.”

The FBI knew that the origin of the slits and the nick in the tie were not caused by a bullet fragment, but it was essential to stay on message: The official story decided upon over the weekend of the assassination was locked into all three shots originating from above and to the rear of the presidential limo, so the FBI was willing to go the extra mile and pretend that a fragment from the bullet that struck Kennedy from the rear caused the “holes” (the report’s description) in the collar and the nick in the tie. . . .

Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.

Bugliosi attempts to validate the Commission’s single-bullet construction is really a fatuous exercise in trying to make the worst appear the better case. He cites a 1965 memorandum from Dr. Pierre A. Finck, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital prosectors, to his commanding officer in which the Army pathologist contends that there was a "bullet hole perforating both flaps of the [Kennedy] shirt, right and left." It is necessary to point out that Finck and the other prosectors did not see Kennedy’s clothes until March 1964 when Specter made them available in preparation for their appearances before the Commission. Even more to the point, according to Finck when he attempted to examine the President’s clothes during the Bethesda autopsy he was blocked by an "officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest". . . .

If the FBI had a reasonable doubt or even a fleeting suspicion that the “holes” or perforations in JFK's collar were caused by a bullet or a missile fragment, it would have subjected the collar to testing to determine whether the “holes” or slits overlapped or coincided and whether the fibers around the perforations were pointing in or out. The specialist who would have conducted these tests was SA Paul M. Stombaugh, the FBI’s chief hair and fiber expert. Stombaugh did appear before the Commission but during his lengthy testimony not a single question was asked about an examination of JFK’s collar and whether in his expert opinion the slits or “holes” in the collar overlapped or coincided.

Was Stombaugh ever tasked to make an examination of JFK’s collar and tie? According to Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s firearms expert, Stombaugh ran tests on JFK’s collar and tie at Frazier’s request. In 1977 Frazier was deposed in a FOIA suit brought by prominent JFK assassination researcher Harold Weisberg. Frazier was under oath and admitted that Stombaugh ran tests on the collar and tie. He also admitted that Stombaugh made a report of his findings. Whatever the results, that report is not in the Warren report or the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. . . .

Harold Weisberg interviewed both Carrico and Perry at Parkland Hospital on 12/1/1971. His notes on the conversation that Carrico acknowledged that he was talking about a scalpel when he told Specter “... I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure” (3 H 359). Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “... Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing” (6 H 136). The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)

-----------------------END QUOTE---------------------

We should keep in mind that the claim that the shirt slits' fibers were pushed outward was not made in the FBI lab report on the clothing. This claim was only made later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.

Also, neither Frazier nor Stombaugh nor Hoover nor Finck ever tried to explain how a bullet that exited the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how a bullet could have performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface. And, again, it should noted that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but visibly inward from the edge.

In fact, in FBI Exhibit 60, the FBI twisted the knot to make it appear that the nick was in the center of the knot, giving the false impression that there was a hole through the knot. The HSCA, to its great credit, admitted that the nick was only on the "outer facing" of the knot and that the lining under the nick was not damaged.

[Jack Nessan]

I think this is a good time to quote some of Dr. Jerry McKnight's research on the shirt slits and the tie. This comes from his article "Bugliosi Fails to Resuscitate the Single-Bullet Theory":

-----------QUOTE-------------

The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.”

The FBI knew that the origin of the slits and the nick in the tie were not caused by a bullet fragment, but it was essential to stay on message: The official story decided upon over the weekend of the assassination was locked into all three shots originating from above and to the rear of the presidential limo, so the FBI was willing to go the extra mile and pretend that a fragment from the bullet that struck Kennedy from the rear caused the “holes” (the report’s description) in the collar and the nick in the tie. . . .

Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.

Bugliosi attempts to validate the Commission’s single-bullet construction is really a fatuous exercise in trying to make the worst appear the better case. He cites a 1965 memorandum from Dr. Pierre A. Finck, one of the Bethesda Naval Hospital prosectors, to his commanding officer in which the Army pathologist contends that there was a "bullet hole perforating both flaps of the [Kennedy] shirt, right and left." It is necessary to point out that Finck and the other prosectors did not see Kennedy’s clothes until March 1964 when Specter made them available in preparation for their appearances before the Commission. Even more to the point, according to Finck when he attempted to examine the President’s clothes during the Bethesda autopsy he was blocked by an "officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest". . . .

If the FBI had a reasonable doubt or even a fleeting suspicion that the “holes” or perforations in JFK's collar were caused by a bullet or a missile fragment, it would have subjected the collar to testing to determine whether the “holes” or slits overlapped or coincided and whether the fibers around the perforations were pointing in or out. The specialist who would have conducted these tests was SA Paul M. Stombaugh, the FBI’s chief hair and fiber expert. Stombaugh did appear before the Commission but during his lengthy testimony not a single question was asked about an examination of JFK’s collar and whether in his expert opinion the slits or “holes” in the collar overlapped or coincided.

Was Stombaugh ever tasked to make an examination of JFK’s collar and tie? According to Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s firearms expert, Stombaugh ran tests on JFK’s collar and tie at Frazier’s request. In 1977 Frazier was deposed in a FOIA suit brought by prominent JFK assassination researcher Harold Weisberg. Frazier was under oath and admitted that Stombaugh ran tests on the collar and tie. He also admitted that Stombaugh made a report of his findings. Whatever the results, that report is not in the Warren report or the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. . . .

Harold Weisberg interviewed both Carrico and Perry at Parkland Hospital on 12/1/1971. His notes on the conversation that Carrico acknowledged that he was talking about a scalpel when he told Specter “... I proceeded with the examination and the nurses removed his clothing as is the usual procedure” (3 H 359). Nurse Diane Bowron told Specter “... Miss Henchliffe and I cut off his clothing” (6 H 136). The instrument used was a scalpel, Carrico told Weisberg. The record of this conversation can be found in the Weisberg Subject Index File under “Dr. Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html)

-----------------------END QUOTE---------------------

We should keep in mind that the claim that the shirt slits' fibers were pushed outward was not made in the FBI lab report on the clothing. This claim was only made later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover in a letter to the WC's chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin.

Also, neither Frazier nor Stombaugh nor Hoover nor Finck ever tried to explain how a bullet that exited the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or how a bullet could have performed like a guided missile and weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface. And, again, it should noted that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but visibly inward from the edge.

In fact, in FBI Exhibit 60, the FBI twisted the knot to make it appear that the nick was in the center of the knot, giving the false impression that there was a hole through the knot. The HSCA, to its great credit, admitted that the nick was only on the "outer facing" of the knot and that the lining under the nick was not damaged.

Did Sherlock Holmes state when your story is shown to be completely bogus, double down on the assertion it is correct and then accuse everyone of being part of the conspiracy? Maybe it was Confucius who stated it.

Just curious but do sparks fly from a bullet that comes to a grinding screeching halt in flesh? Probably not given it was lead and copper, but in this story you never know. To go from 2100 feet/second to zero instantly and leaving no trace of it. That is amazing, considering this would defy all of the laws of physics.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.

Mind you, in posing these two questions, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the throat wound was behind the shirt slits and that the slits were made by the bullet that allegedly exited the throat. If one wants to interpret the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits, then one needs to explain (1) how the alleged exiting bullet could have missed tearing through the tie knot, (2) how the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge, (3) the Parkland accounts that the nurses nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, and (4) the fact that three Parkland doctors independently said that they saw the throat wound before the clothing was removed and that the wound was immediately above the tie knot.

Finally, SBT believers, incredibly, are still making the downright silly argument that only the SBT can solve the "problem" of the bullet that "went on to strike JBC in the back." This is no problem at all. It's only a "problem" in their minds because they can't unchain themselves from the SBT myth. As many researchers have pointed out many times,

-- Connally himself did not believe he was hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

-- Since Connally was seated several inches to the left of JFK, a bullet that narrowly missed JFK could have easily hit Connally in the back.

-- Connally's back wound and interior chest wound refute the SBT from the get-go, because the SBT requires that the Connally bullet was traveling sideways when it hit his back and smashed his rib, but his back wound was only 1.5 cm in width, and the wound path through Connally's chest was narrow, so much so that Dr. Shaw noted that when the bullet smashed 5 inches of the fifth rib it did little damage to the surrounding tissue.

-- The initial FBI and Secret Service analyses concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.

SBT defenders just keep ignoring these facts, and just keep repeating the nonsense that only the SBT can explain the bullet that hit Connally, while refusing to explain how the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat and shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot and nicked the knot's outer surface inward from the knot's left edge. As I've said before, dealing with SBT believers is not much different than dealing with Moon-landing deniers and 9/11 Truthers. When you try to get them to deal with hard physical evidence that destroys their myths, they duck and dodge and bob and weave and refuse to directly confront that hard physical evidence.

[Jack Nessan]

Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.

Mind you, in posing these two questions, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the throat wound was behind the shirt slits and that the slits were made by the bullet that allegedly exited the throat. If one wants to interpret the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits, then one needs to explain (1) how the alleged exiting bullet could have missed tearing through the tie knot, (2) how the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge, (3) the Parkland accounts that the nurses nicked the tie and made the shirt slits, and (4) the fact that three Parkland doctors independently said that they saw the throat wound before the clothing was removed and that the wound was immediately above the tie knot.

Finally, SBT believers, incredibly, are still making the downright silly argument that only the SBT can solve the "problem" of the bullet that "went on to strike JBC in the back." This is no problem at all. It's only a "problem" in their minds because they can't unchain themselves from the SBT myth. As many researchers have pointed out many times,

-- Connally himself did not believe he was hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

-- Since Connally was seated several inches to the left of JFK, a bullet that narrowly missed JFK could have easily hit Connally in the back.

-- Connally's back wound and interior chest wound refute the SBT from the get-go, because the SBT requires that the Connally bullet was traveling sideways when it hit his back and smashed his rib, but his back wound was only 1.5 cm in width, and the wound path through Connally's chest was narrow, so much so that Dr. Shaw noted that when the bullet smashed 5 inches of the fifth rib it did little damage to the surrounding tissue.

-- The initial FBI and Secret Service analyses concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate non-fatal bullets.

SBT defenders just keep ignoring these facts, and just keep repeating the nonsense that only the SBT can explain the bullet that hit Connally, while refusing to explain how the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat and shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot and nicked the knot's outer surface inward from the knot's left edge. As I've said before, dealing with SBT believers is not much different than dealing with Moon-landing deniers and 9/11 Truthers. When you try to get them to deal with hard physical evidence that destroys their myths, they duck and dodge and bob and weave and refuse to directly confront that hard physical evidence.

MG “Notice that the SBT believers here are still declining to explain how a bullet exiting the throat and the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie knot, much less how such a bullet could have miraculously weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface at point that was not on either edge of the knot. Crickets. Silence. They have nothing to say on this determinative issue.”

The autopsy photo speaks for itself. Despite your posting to the contrary, the wound is below the collar. JBC was struck by the bullet passing through JKS’s neck. In your own words:

MG ---“Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you eliminate the impossible, however improbable, whatever remains must be the truth." To put it another way, once all impossible scenarios are removed from consideration, the only remaining explanation, even if it seems unlikely, must be the correct one.”
 
-----------------------------------------------------------

MG--" the autopsy photo of the gaping tracheostomy as indicating the throat wound was low enough to make the shirt slits,"

MG “the bullet could have nicked the outer surface of the knot inward from the knot's left edge”

I think you are right. The bullet made the shirt slits and nicked the edge of the tie. Good thinking Michael.

 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Now is a good time to quote Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt's excellent analysis of the throat wound, the tie knot, and the shirt slits:

That front neck wound, of course, was largely believed to have
been one of entry by those experienced observers at Parkland Hospital.
That was the thrust of their initial impressions and was stated
several times at a press briefing conducted at the hospital by a White
House official.

But the official version ruled that it was a wound of exit and
suggested that the exiting bullet caused the nick on the knot
of the President's tie. The government version also suggested
that the slits through the front of the neckband of the President's
shirt were caused by an exiting bullet." The initial difficulty with the
government's case was that the laboratory—after spectrographic
analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of
the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had
caused the damage.

The second major problem was one that often plagued the
commission: a highly credible witness who saw and said things that
contradicted the larger picture. Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who
examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie
were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed
in an interview) that the anterior neck wound was above the
knot of his tie.'"

A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the
whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission
ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was
the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.)

Weisberg pressed his case in court to have the National Archives
release clear photographs of the President's shirt and tie, because
the pictures that had been provided by the FBI to the Warren
Commission were unclear and virtually worthless. The photographs
finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes
in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are
slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's
necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding
impressive credence to Weisberg's observations.

The other astonishing confirmation is that the bullet hole in the
back of the shirt is precisely where the first body chart placed it.
That chart had been ignored by the commission and disavowed by
the doctor who prepared it.

The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.

Where, then, did the frontal neck wound come from? That is a
question never pursued by the commission. The answer is one the
government seems not to want to know. (Reasonable Doubt: An
Investigation into the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 60)

This is another good example of the fact that the facts about JFK's clothing and their destruction of the SBT have been known for decades, but WC apologists refuse to face them.

One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.

[Jack Nessan]

Now is a good time to quote Rockefeller Foundation fellow and investigative journalist Henry Hurt's excellent analysis of the throat wound, the tie knot, and the shirt slits:

That front neck wound, of course, was largely believed to have
been one of entry by those experienced observers at Parkland Hospital.
That was the thrust of their initial impressions and was stated
several times at a press briefing conducted at the hospital by a White
House official.

But the official version ruled that it was a wound of exit and
suggested that the exiting bullet caused the nick on the knot
of the President's tie. The government version also suggested
that the slits through the front of the neckband of the President's
shirt were caused by an exiting bullet." The initial difficulty with the
government's case was that the laboratory—after spectrographic
analysis—could find no metal traces on the tie or the neckband of
the collar, traces that should have been there if a bullet had
caused the damage.

The second major problem was one that often plagued the
commission: a highly credible witness who saw and said things that
contradicted the larger picture. Dr. Charles Carrico, the doctor who
examined Kennedy in the emergency room before his shirt and tie
were removed, testified to the Warren Commission (and later confirmed
in an interview) that the anterior neck wound was above the
knot of his tie.'"

A wound location this high in the front would render fatuous the
whole teetering premise of the Warren Commission. (The commission
ignored Dr. Carrico's testimony on this point, even though he was
the doctor in the best position to have any direct knowledge.)

Weisberg pressed his case in court to have the National Archives
release clear photographs of the President's shirt and tie, because
the pictures that had been provided by the FBI to the Warren
Commission were unclear and virtually worthless. The photographs
finally disclosed to Weisberg show that the suggested bullet holes
in the shirt's front neckband are not bullet holes at all. They are
slits made by scalpels used by nurses to cut off the President's
necktie. One nurse who cut off the clothing confirmed this, adding
impressive credence to Weisberg's observations.

The other astonishing confirmation is that the bullet hole in the
back of the shirt is precisely where the first body chart placed it.
That chart had been ignored by the commission and disavowed by
the doctor who prepared it.

The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.

Where, then, did the frontal neck wound come from? That is a
question never pursued by the commission. The answer is one the
government seems not to want to know. (Reasonable Doubt: An
Investigation into the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,
Henry Holt and Company, 1985, p. 60)

This is another good example of the fact that the facts about JFK's clothing and their destruction of the SBT have been known for decades, but WC apologists refuse to face them.

One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.

MG  “The testimony of Dr. Carrico, combined with the revelations in
the photographs, shows with absolute certainty to almost any layman
that the bullet that entered Kennedy's back nearly six inches below
his collar at a sharply downward angle could not possibly have exited
from Kennedy's neck, above the collar, where Dr. Carrico saw the
wound.”

Exactly right. The photos clearly show the bullet exit wound was below the collar where it then nicked the tie and wounded JBC.

MG “One important contribution of my article is that it proves that the tie knot was centered in the middle of JFK's collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the knot and could not have nicked the outer surface of the knot.”

Could not be more wrong about the tie knot, the exit wound, and any supposed fictional contribution.