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

[Michael T. Griffith]

No he wasn't, and no you haven't.

Yes, Manchester was correct. And, yes, I have proven my point. But you're another SBT true believer who can't bring himself to face self-evident facts that refute the SBT myth.

I notice that you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.

Funny how you keep avoiding this issue, even though it's the subject of this thread.

While you're at it, you might explain why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

You haven't presented evidence that proves Humes did know about the throat wound before autopsy. Audrey Bell never claimed that he did. Dr Perry never claimed that he did.

Bell said that one or two of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry that night, the night of the assassination, and tried to pressure him into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound. Dr. Perry confirmed that this happened when he spoke with journalist Martin Steadman, adding that he was even threatened with being brought before a medical board and losing his medical license if he didn't stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound.

So at the bare minimum, this proves that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy, and that they lied when they said they knew nothing about it until the following day.

After Oswald was killed, the tale was spun that the autopsy doctors had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. If you could allow yourself to be objective, you would quickly see the absurdity of this cover story. Reports about about Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the radio and TV. Most Americans were glued to their TVs or radios anxiously trying to get the latest news on the assassination. But the cover story would have us believe that nobody at the autopsy heard or saw any of the news reports about the throat wound before the autopsy, including the autopsy doctors, JFK's personal doctor (Burkley), the medical technicians, the military officers in attendance, the federal agents in attendance, the morticians--nobody, not a single soul.

When William Manchester was conducting hundreds of interviews for his famous book on JFK's death, The Death of a President, he learned that, yes, the autopsy doctors did hear about the throat wound before the autopsy. Well of course they did. That's why they probed the throat wound during the autopsy, as we now know they did from ARRB and other disclosures.

Livingston was lying or suffering from dementia.

Dr. Livingston, a Nobel Prize winner, a prominent neuroscientist, the founder of the first neuroscience department at a university in the world, and the director of two NIH institutes--he was lying or hallucinating? Oh, okay.

From Pat Speer over on the ED forum: Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's. . . . [SNIP]

Oh, yes, you guys love to quote Pat Speer on those few issues where he agrees with you, but you reject him the rest of the time. I've already answered Speer's arguments in a previous reply. Speer has an ideological bias--some would say an almost pathological bias--against the very idea of evidence alteration and fabrication, and this bias leads him to make weak and sometimes downright ridiculous arguments against solid evidence of alteration and fabrication, even against scientific evidence of tampering and fakery.

I'd bet money you have not read Dr. Livingston's statements on his phone call with Humes. You're determined to reject them no matter what anyway, but I'm guessing you haven't even read them. Lots of witnesses came forward in the 1990s due to the impact of Oliver Stone's movie JFK and the formation of the Assassination Records Review Board.

Speer says Livingston's story is "bizarre." Humm, now what would be bizarre about a former Navy surgeon and the director of two NIH institutes, which Livingston was at the time, calling one of the two Navy autopsy doctors before the autopsy to discuss news reports about one of JFK's wounds? Hey? What exactly would be "bizarre" about that?
 

You haven't convinced anyone but yourself that JFK's tie and shirt slits prove beyond any rational doubt that no bullet exited the throat and the slits.

Such a silly statement proves you have no business even discussing the JFK case on a public board. Scholars who reject the lone-gunman theory have been making the point for years that there is no way a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot, and no way such a bullet could have magically weaved around the body of the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface. Harold Weisberg--you might have heard of him--devoted large chunks of two of his books to this crucial issue.

The main contribution of my article on JFK's clothing and the SBT is that it presents abundant photographic evidence that just before and during the motorcade, JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band, something that no other article on the subject has done.

And I again note that, while adamantly claiming I have not proved my point, you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.

BTW, I looked at dozens of pre-assassination photos showing JFK wearing a tie, including photos taken in Fort Worth just a few hours before the Dallas motorcade. I found that most of the time he wore his tie the way we would expect a snappy dresser to have worn it: with the tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band. I've compiled some of those photos on a webpage I just published titled More Photos of JFK Wearing a Tie:

https://sites.google.com/view/jfkwearingatie/home

Yes, if you look through all the known photos of JFK wearing a tie, you can find some pictures--a minority of pictures--where the tie knot was slightly off-center, but only slightly, not nearly enough off-center to enable a 1.2 inch x 0.25 inch bullet exiting the shirt slits to weave around the body of the knot and nick the knot's outer surface, even if you want to assume the nick was on the left edge of the knot--never mind that both evidence photos of the tie knot show the nick inward from the left edge.

We are asking lone-gunman theorists to be objective and candid about clear, self-evident evidence that refutes their version of the shooting, and so far we see that none of them can bring themselves to do so.

[Tim Nickerson]

Yes, Manchester was correct. And, yes, I have proven my point. But you're another SBT true believer who can't bring himself to face self-evident facts that refute the SBT myth.

Nope. Manchester was wrong. And no, you have not proven your point.

I notice that you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot or could have magically weaved around the knot and nicked the knot's outer surface.


Funny how you keep avoiding this issue, even though it's the subject of this thread.

You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.

While you're at it, you might explain why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

Where can one read those first two drafts of the autopsy report?

Bell said that one or two of the autopsy doctors called Dr. Perry that night, the night of the assassination, and tried to pressure him into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound. Dr. Perry confirmed that this happened when he spoke with journalist Martin Steadman, adding that he was even threatened with being brought before a medical board and losing his medical license if he didn't stop saying the throat wound was an entry wound.

So at the bare minimum, this proves that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound during the autopsy, and that they lied when they said they knew nothing about it until the following day.

Steadman's claim was made 50 years after the fact. Not credible. Audrey Bell said that Perry told her that calls came from Bethesda through the night. He didn't say who it was that made the calls. Nor did he give any specific times. I think that Bell was misremembering. Dr Humes called Perry in the morning. After being informed by Perry about the wound in the throat, he informed Perry that the wound had to have been an exit wound.

[Michael T. Griffith]

A crucial point to keep in mind is that the damage behind and below the throat wound described by the Parkland Hospital doctors renders impossible the right-to-left or back-wound-to-throat-wound trajectory required by the SBT. This is a powerful evidentiary convergence with the physical evidence of JFK's tie and shirt.

Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the damage behind the throat wound described by the Parkland doctors was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indicator the wound was an entry wound (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158). Moreover, when we read the Parkland descriptions of the damage behind and below the throat wound, we learn there was considerable damage to the right lateral portion of the neck and the right superior mediastinum (i.e., the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity). This damage is incompatible with the trajectory required by the SBT, especially the trajectory from the back wound to the left edge of the tie knot. 

Let's take a minute and read some of what the Parkland doctors said about the damage behind and below the throat wound. 

Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), neat (no ragged edges), and punched-in, and because of the damage he saw behind and beneath the throat wound. He believed the missile had entered the throat and then ranged downward into the chest. Recall that Tom Robinson told the HSCA that he believed that the autopsy doctors found a bullet fragment in the chest.

Dr. Kemp Clark said that Dr. Perry discovered that the trachea was deviated, and that Perry believed the missile had ranged downward into the chest:

He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the
missile had entered the President's chest. (6 H 22)

Dr. Clark said that Dr. Perry also saw blood in the strap muscles of the neck and that Perry believed this was another indication that the bullet had entered the chest:

The part pertaining to the bullet entering the President's chest rests
on the reasons for the placing of the chest tubes which were being
inserted when I arrived. It was the assumption, based on the previously
described deviation of the trachea and the presence of blood in the
strap muscles of the neck that a wound or missile wound might have
entered the President's chest. (6 H 28)

Dr. Perry explained that in addition to the damage to the trachea and the blood in the strap muscles, he also found “free air and blood” in the “superior right mediastinum” (again, the upper-right part of the central compartment of the chest cavity), which further led him to believe the missile had entered the chest:

I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried
it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying
the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral
aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea
was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the
strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea.
At this point, I recall. Dr. Jones right on my left was placing a catheter
into a vein in the left arm because he handed me a necessary
instrument which I needed in the performance of the procedure.

The wound in the trachea was then enlarged to admit a cuffed
tracheotomy tube to support respiration. I noted that there was
free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum. Although I saw
no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free
blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right
hemithorax, and I asked that someone put a right chest tube in for
seal drain age. At the time I did not know who did this, but I have
been informed that Dr. Baxter and Dr. Paul Peters inserted the chest
tube and connected it to underwater drainage. (6 H 10)

Dr. Perry also noted there was considerable bruising in “the right lateral portion of the neck” and also the right upper mediastinum:

Mr. Specter. What did you observe, if anything with respect to bruising
in the interior portion of the President's neck?

Dr. Perry. There was considerable hematoma in the right lateral portion
of the neck and the right superior mediastinum, as I noted. (6 H 11)

Again, the fact that this damage was on the upper righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity and the right lateral portion of the neck is important because it destroys any attempt to get the alleged magic bullet to nick the outer surface of the tie knot near or on the knot's left edge. Given the thickness of the tie knot and the fact that the knot was centered in the middle of the collar band, there's no remotely plausible trajectory from this right-side damage to the left side of the tie knot, especially for a bullet that was 1.2 inches long and 0.25 inches wide. 

Finally, it is worth mentioning again that both of the evidence photos of the tie knot show that the nick was not on the left edge of the knot. This means the bullet would have had to magically fly around the body of the knot and then make a sharp turn to nick the knot inward from the left edge.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Nope. Manchester was wrong.

You're just reflexively saying this because to say otherwise would be to admit that your version of the shooting is wrong. I bet you haven't even read Mancheter's book. Do you have any idea how many dozens of people he interviewed for the book? He based his observation on his interviews. You've said nothing about the fact that Perry's account of the throat wound was naturally all over the news on TV and radio because the whole country was understandably anxious to hear every little bit of information about JFK's death.

But, nah, you declare that Manchester was wrong and imply that not a single soul at the autopsy had heard any of the news reports about the throat wound, while ignoring the ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, dismissing Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy, and dismissing Nurse Bell's account of her conversation the morning after the autopsy.

And no, you have not proven your point.

Yes, I have proven my point. I've proved that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band before and during the motorcade. I've proved with the evidence photos of the tie knot that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but inward from the edge. I've proved with the photo of the shirt slits that the bottom half of the tie knot would have been directly over the slits. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and bob and weave around these facts.

I see in the thread on the sighting-in of the alleged murder weapon that you make the bogus claim that Lattimer duplicated CE 399's alleged journey through the shirt slits to the nick on the knot. He did no such thing. The nick on his tie knot was much bigger than the nick on JFK's tie, at least twice as large, and it was also noticeably deeper, extending noticeably below the outer surface, unlike the nick in JFK's tie knot. Moreover, the nick on his tie knot was on the edge of the knot, unlike the nick on JFK's tie knot.

Furthermore, if the exit hole in Lattimer's shirt looked like the JFK shirt slits, let's see a non-washed-out version of Lattimer's photo of his shirt slits. We should keep in mind that Lattimer was caught falsifying his test data on several occasions.

You like to quote Pat Speer on the very few issues where he agrees with you. Okay, how about you quote from Speer's massive demolition of Lattimer's SBT nonsense? Hey? Try these three chapters from his book for starters:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12bbullspombleprofglidnoctobunsandbeyond
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-26

You haven't shown why the bullet should have torn through the tie knot.

To any objective, candid person, yes, I have. Is this why you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge?

Where can one read those first two drafts of the autopsy report?

You don't know??? Your question reveals how shallow and one-sided your research has been. You could start with the released transcript of the WC's January 27 executive session. Then, you could graduate to former ARRB chief analyst Doug Horne's detailed documentation of this fact.

Steadman's claim was made 50 years after the fact. Not credible.

Oh! So Steadman was lying or hallucinating, right?! And just never mind that Nurse Bell's account supports his account, right? They were both lying or "misremembering," right? And just never you mind that we now know from ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, right? (I'm waiting for you to reply, "What?! Where can I read that the throat wound was probed?! This is news to me!")

Let's read some of what Steadman said:

"...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound.  He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front.  When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...."

Steadman just made it all up, huh? Or, hallucinating, huh?

Audrey Bell said that Perry told her that calls came from Bethesda through the night. He didn't say who it was that made the calls. Nor did he give any specific times. I think that Bell was misremembering.

You obviously haven't even bothered to read the transcripts of her two interviews, i.e., her 1991 recorded interview and her 1997 ARRB recorded interview. She specified in both interviews that the calls came "from Bethesda," that the calls came "during the night" and "in the middle of the night." Let's read what she said in her 1991 interview:

“Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”

And from her 1997 ARRB interview:

"Saturday morning when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course, he had been the primary until Dr. Clark came. He sat down in the chair. 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.' 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 that it was an entrance wound.'"

"Misremembering," huh? Never mind that Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy corroborates Nurse Bell's account, and vice versa? Just a big, whopping coincidence, hey?

Dr. Humes called Perry in the morning. After being informed by Perry about the wound in the throat, he informed Perry that the wound had to have been an exit wound.

LOL! Just repeat the implausible, debunked cover story that was concocted after Oswald was killed, hey? And the Earth is flat, right? If Humes didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, why did he have the throat wound probed during the autopsy?

For those who want to learn more about these historic disclosures, I recommend the following article as a good starting point:

"The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry

And, again, when are you going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?

[Michael T. Griffith]

You're just reflexively saying this because to say otherwise would be to admit that your version of the shooting is wrong. I bet you haven't even read Mancheter's book. Do you have any idea how many dozens of people he interviewed for the book? He based his observation on his interviews. You've said nothing about the fact that Perry's account of the throat wound was naturally all over the news on TV and radio because the whole country was understandably anxious to hear every little bit of information about JFK's death.

But, nah, you declare that Manchester was wrong and imply that not a single soul at the autopsy had heard any of the news reports about the throat wound, while ignoring the ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, dismissing Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy, and dismissing Nurse Bell's account of her conversation the morning after the autopsy.

Yes, I have proven my point. I've proved that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band before and during the motorcade. I've proved with the evidence photos of the tie knot that the nick was not on the edge of the knot but inward from the edge. I've proved with the photo of the shirt slits that the bottom half of the tie knot would have been directly over the slits. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and bob and weave around these facts.

I see in the thread on the sighting-in of the alleged murder weapon that you make the bogus claim that Lattimer duplicated CE 399's alleged journey through the shirt slits to the nick on the knot. He did no such thing. The nick on his tie knot was much bigger than the nick on JFK's tie, at least twice as large, and it was also noticeably deeper, extending noticeably below the outer surface, unlike the nick in JFK's tie knot. Moreover, the nick on his tie knot was on the edge of the knot, unlike the nick on JFK's tie knot.

Furthermore, if the exit hole in Lattimer's shirt looked like the JFK shirt slits, let's see a non-washed-out version of Lattimer's photo of his shirt slits. We should keep in mind that Lattimer was caught falsifying his test data on several occasions.

You like to quote Pat Speer on the very few issues where he agrees with you. Okay, how about you quote from Speer's massive demolition of Lattimer's SBT nonsense? Hey? Try these three chapters from his book for starters:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12bbullspombleprofglidnoctobunsandbeyond
https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-26

To any objective, candid person, yes, I have. Is this why you still have not explained how a bullet exiting the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge?

You don't know??? Your question reveals how shallow and one-sided your research has been. You could start with the released transcript of the WC's January 27 executive session. Then, you could graduate to former ARRB chief analyst Doug Horne's detailed documentation of this fact.

Oh! So Steadman was lying or hallucinating, right?! And just never mind that Nurse Bell's account supports his account, right? They were both lying or "misremembering," right? And just never you mind that we now know from ARRB disclosures that the throat wound was probed during the autopsy, right? (I'm waiting for you to reply, "What?! Where can I read that the throat wound was probed?! This is news to me!")

Let's read some of what Steadman said:

"...But [Dr. Malcolm Perry] told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound.  He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front.  When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said...."

Steadman just made it all up, huh? Or, hallucinating, huh?

You obviously haven't even bothered to read the transcripts of her two interviews, i.e., her 1991 recorded interview and her 1997 ARRB recorded interview. She specified in both interviews that the calls came "from Bethesda," that the calls came "during the night" and "in the middle of the night." Let's read what she said in her 1991 interview:

“Dr. Perry was up all night. He came into my office the next day and sat down and looked terrible, having not slept. I never saw anybody look so dejected! They called him from Bethesda two or three times in the middle of the night to try to get him to change the entrance wound in the throat to an exit wound.”

And from her 1997 ARRB interview:

"Saturday morning when I got over there, Dr. Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course, he had been the primary until Dr. Clark came. He sat down in the chair. 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.' 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 that it was an entrance wound.'"

"Misremembering," huh? Never mind that Steadman's account of his conversation with Perry barely a week after the autopsy corroborates Nurse Bell's account, and vice versa? Just a big, whopping coincidence, hey?

LOL! Just repeat the implausible, debunked cover story that was concocted after Oswald was killed, hey? And the Earth is flat, right? If Humes didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, why did he have the throat wound probed during the autopsy?

For those who want to learn more about these historic disclosures, I recommend the following article as a good starting point:

"The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry

And, again, when are you going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot and could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?

I should add that on 11/24/1966, Richard Levine of the Baltimore Sun conducted an extensive interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell. In Levine's article on the interview published the next day, he noted that, before the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were made aware of JFK's wounds and what the Dallas doctors had done:

The pathologists had already been told the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by the physicians in Dallas ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).

Yes, of course the autopsy doctors had been told about, or had heard about, JFK's wounds before the autopsy. Again, Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the news on TV and radio.

I should also add that Dr. Perry, in a long interview with Harold Weisberg, said there was a ring of bruising around the throat wound, a ringed bruise, another typical indicator of an entry wound (Never Again, p. 220). When describing the ringed bruise around the wound, Perry twice said "as they always are" (pp. 220-221). This is key because entry wounds are always bruised, but exit wounds are not always bruised. Perry had seen and treated hundreds of gunshot wounds and knew the different traits of entry and exit wounds.

BTW, Perry twice wiped blood off the throat wound and examined it before he began doing the tracheotomy (Never Again, p. 220). As I've noted previously, Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark described damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, a reliable indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, that damage was on the righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity (right superior mediastinum) and the right lateral portion of the neck, whereas no such damage was done to the left side of the superior mediastinum and the left lateral portion of the neck, even though the alleged SBT bullet was supposedly traveling right to left.

This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot. This explains why the slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them. This explains why Dr. Perry saw damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, why the damage was on the righthand side of the upper chest area and the right lateral part of the neck, and why the wound was small, neat, punched-in, and had a bruised ring around it. The rear clothing holes prove the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the get-go, which explains and corroborates the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound and that no bullet exited the shirt slits.

[Jack Nessan]

I should add that on 11/24/1966, Richard Levine of the Baltimore Sun conducted an extensive interview with Dr. J. Thornton Boswell. In Levine's article on the interview published the next day, he noted that, before the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were made aware of JFK's wounds and what the Dallas doctors had done:/size]

The pathologists had already been told the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by the physicians in Dallas ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).

Yes, of course the autopsy doctors had been told about, or had heard about, JFK's wounds before the autopsy. Again, Dr. Perry's comments about the throat wound were all over the news on TV and radio. 

I should also add that Dr. Malcolm Perry, in a long interview with Harold Weisberg, said there was a ring of bruising around the throat wound, a ringed bruise, another typical indicator of an entry wound (Never Again, p. 220). When describing the ringed bruise around the wound, Perry twice said "as they always are" (pp. 220-221). This is key because entry wounds are always bruised, but exit wounds are not always bruised. Perry had seen and treated hundreds of gunshot wounds and knew the different traits of entry and exit wounds.

BTW, Perry twice wiped blood off the throat wound and examined it before he began doing the tracheotomy (Never Again, p. 220). As I've noted previously, Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark described damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, a reliable indicator of an entry wound. Moreover, that damage was on the righthand side of the central compartment of the chest cavity (right superior mediastinum) and the right lateral portion of the neck, whereas no such damage was done to the left side of the superior mediastinum and the left lateral portion of the neck, even though the alleged SBT bullet was supposedly traveling right to left.

This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot. This explains why the slits had no fabric missing from them and no metallic traces around them. This explains why Dr. Perry saw damage behind and below the throat wound that was larger than the wound itself, why the damage was on the righthand side of the upper chest area and the right lateral part of the neck, and why the wound was small, neat, punched-in, and had a bruised ring around it. The rear clothing holes prove the back wound was well below the throat wound, rendering the SBT impossible from the get-go, which explains and corroborates the evidence that the throat wound was an entry wound and that no bullet exited the shirt slits.

This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot.

Unfortunately, the autopsy photos show that the wound was not above the knott, it was much lower.

If they had known there were only two shots what would these people have stated? You seem to not want to prove there even was three shots.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is a powerful convergence of evidence. JFK's tie and shirt slits prove that no bullet exited the slits, so it is no surprise that the throat wound was above the tie knot.

Unfortunately, the autopsy photos show that the wound was not above the knott, it was much lower.

So your answer to all the evidence I've presented is to cite the autopsy photos, which do not show the throat wound when JFK was wearing a shirt and tie and which show the wound after it was substantially enlarged???

If the throat wound was much lower, then how could a bullet exiting that wound and then exiting the shirt slits have avoided tearing through the tie knot, much less magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the knot's outer surface inward from the left edge, given that we know that JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of his collar band and that there was no hole through the tie?

Your ongoing refusal to address this crucial issue is revealing.

For further photographic evidence that the tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band, see "Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory," https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home.

If they had known there were only two shots what would these people have stated? You seem to not want to prove there even was three shots.

Thanks for providing this reminder that you are even on the fringe of the lone-gunman theory. Even most of your fellow lone-gunman theorists reject the ridiculous idea that there were only two shots. All of your leading WC defenders--Posner, Bugliosi, Holland, Down, Von Pein, Litwin, etc.--all of them say there were three shots.