JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory

[John Corbett]

One, I never cited DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds handbook as evidence that he rejected the lone-assassin theory.I cited it to prove that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. To refresh your memory, DiMaio said that if a skull x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo; and that when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking skull bone, they will only leave a few fragments. You still refuse to face these facts.

Not all FMJ bullets are alike. Most homicides committed with FMJ ammo are with handguns which have a much lower velocity. What matters is how Carcano 6.5mm FMJ ammo reacts when striking a skull. I doubt Di Maio ever addressed that point in his textbook.

Two, toward the end of his life, DiMaio told British physiologist Russell Kent, after corresponding extensively with Kent, that he no longer believed in the single-bullet theory.

Tell us what your source for that claim is. A direct quote would be nice, not your typical spin on what somebody else has said.

This is just so much comedy and nonsense. I see that you simply refuse to deal with evidence honestly and credibly.

You don't present evidence, you present your spin. You have no qualifications as a forensic pathologist or a ballistics expert yet you pontificate as if you do. No court in the land would allow you to testify as an expert in either of these fields and as such, your opinions do not constitute evidence.

Even when you're caught in bald-faced error, you won't admit it, and then, amazingly, you repeat your error more emphatically, as if that somehow makes it correct, such as your fiction that Connally's back wound was elongated.

Even using your figures of a wound 1.5cm by 0.8cm, that is an elongated wound. If it were a round entry, it would have a single diameter.

I literally burst out laughing when I read your argument that JFK's rear head entry wound was not elongated because his head was tilted forward but that Connally's back wound was elongated because he was sitting upright. Holy cow. Never mind that both wounds were 1.5 cm wide! Yeah, just ignore that fact!

Aside form the fact your reading comprehension on this point is amazingly poor, the fact you reject the point I made makes it more credible. I would have to rethink my position if you ever agreed with me on anything.

Every other SBT defender who has claimed Connally's back wound was elongated has done so by citing the wound's post-surgery width of 3.0 cm. Why? Because they've recognized that a wound that is only 1.5 cm wide is hardly an "elongated" wound and could not have been caused by a tumbling or severely yawing bullet. But, here you are making this silly argument, an argument that every one of your fellow SBT defenders has known better than to make.

It doesn't matter how elongated the wound was, the fact is it was elongated. A stable bullet is not going to make an elongated entrance wound unless it has a tangential angle of entry. That would not have been the case with JBC's back wound. It is elongated because the bullet yawed.

I guess you didn't know that the official version, which you supposedly accept, says the head-shot bullet hit the head virtually straight on in its horizontal angle. Have you not seen the WC's and the HSCA FPP's wound diagrams of the rear head entry wound? Apparently you're unaware that your side, in order to explain the right-parietal exit wound, has claimed that the head-shot bullet magically veered to the right and upward after it entered at the EOP site.

I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth.

An even bigger howler is your argument that the narrow wound track through Connally's chest "is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso." Umm, no, it is not. It indicates the exact opposite. If the bullet had been tumbling through the chest, the wound track would not have been narrow. How on Earth can you not understand this? I mean, do you have a lick of common sense when it comes to the JFK case? Do you have any clue how silly you look here?

You can't admit that the Connally chest-wound bullet was not tumbling when it hit and did not tumble through the chest because admitting this would debunk the SBT, so you resort to abject nonsense instead.

Rather than the two of us continuing to put our lack of expertise about wound ballistics on full display, suffice it to say that the flattening at the base of the bullet is prima facie evidence that the bullet was yawing when it struck JBC's wrist. Had it been a stable bullet, it would have struck the wrist nose first and the flattening would be on the nose of the bullet, not the base. It's also unlikely the bullet would have deposited lead flakes into JBC's wrist because the lead  was only exposed at the base.

For those who may be new to this subject, the tumbling-bullet myth is an attempt to explain the fact that CE 399, the alleged magic bullet in the single-bullet theory (SBT), is slightly deformed in a way that proves that whatever it hit, it hit while traveling sideways. So the SBT fundamentally requires that when the bullet hit Connally's back, it hit while flying sideways -- not just markedly yawing, but sideways, because the deformation could have only occurred by hitting an object sideways.

It almost seems like you are finally catching on. The flattening on one side of the base is an indication the bullet struck a hard object, probably the wrist bone, while traveling sideways. We can safely say the bullet did not smash nose first into his wrist because that would have flattened the nose of the bullet. The bullet had to be yawing when it struck the wrist bone.

Comically, you again resort to appealing to the FPP's conclusion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat! Oh, so you're back to this line, huh?! Did you forget that the FPP also said the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where Humes and the WC placed it, that the back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet that hit the back struck at an upward angle? Did you forget all that?

Since I wasn't at the autopsy nor was I present when the autopsy evidence was presented to the FPP, I'm not going to quibble about which of them correctly placed the wound. It is enough to know that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. That is the only explanation that makes the least bit of sense. A bullet exiting JFK's throat on a downward angle would have been heading directly toward the right side of JBC's back given that he was sitting approcimately half a body width inboard from JFK. It could hardly have missed him.

Did you forget that the only explanation the FPP offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory, and that the only way that Baden could explain the bullet's upward trajectory was to assume that JFK was leaning well over 50 degrees forward when the bullet struck? Did you forget all that? Surely you didn't think I would forget all that, did you? Don't you get tired of being proven to be so incompetent, inaccurate, and contradictory all the time?

I don't have the expertise to judge whether JFK's collar and tie contributed to the neat round exit wound or if the fact it was an FMJ bullet is enough to explain that. Since neither the original autopsy team nor the FPP saw the wound as it appeared before the tracheostomy, they were left to speculate regarding its appearance. That doesn't change the fact they were able to determine, without dissent, that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat. We can accept that finding or we can go with your goofball interpretation of the medical evidence. That's not a difficult choice at all.

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how your magic bullet could have exited the throat without tearing a hole through the tie knot or without at least nicking the right or left edge of the knot. You keep dodging the fact that we have ample photographic evidence that JFK's tie knot was neatly centered in the middle of his collar band. Any bullet exiting the throat/shirt slits would have had to tear through the tie knot or at least nick its left edge. For years the FBI created the false impression with a manipulated evidence photo that there was a hole in the middle of the tie knot, but we now know there was no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the knot.

I don't know what your source is for your claim that there was no nick in the know of the tie and you are the only one I've ever seen make that claim, but whether that is true of not, it in no way invalidates the SBT. The bullet did pass through his shirt collar. Those fibers were pushed outward while the fibers in the back of his shirt and jacket were pushed inward. It doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out what that means.

.

Incredibly, you claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," and that what really matters is "their final conclusion"!

Of course it doesn't matter. During a fact finding process, hypotheses are developed and compared to the available evidence to determine their validity. As further evidence is gathered, early hypotheses can be validated or discarded depending on what is found.

In creating the electric light bulb, Edison failed over 1000 times. He said those weren't failures. He said with each of them, he discovered something that didn't work. I doubt the autopsy team discovered over 1000 things that didn't work, but no doubt that had several before they reached the correct answer.

To support this odd argument, you repeat the long-debunked myth that Humes didn't talk with Perry until the following morning, when we have known for years that Humes was in contact with Perry well before the autopsy ended. I documented this fact earlier in this thread, and I have documented it in greater detail in other recent threads, but you continue to ignore it.

Humes talked to Perry several times, some that night and some the next morning. Why do you find that odd?

I'm trying to fathom the thought process behind the unserious, vacuous claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," especially given how contradictory they were, given that we've known for years that Humes knew about the throat wound long before the autopsy ended, and given the disclosures about the back-wound probing.

I gave uo trying to understand your thought process a long time ago. It has never made any sense.

As for your claim that the Australian SBT test bullet and CE 399 have virtually the same amount of deformation, people are going to see what a total clown you are when they look at the test bullet and CE 399. CE 399 is clearly far less deformed than the test bullet. I'm guessing you're just hoping that most readers won't bother to look at the side-by-side comparison of the two bullets, or else you're legally blind. Here's the link again:

I said the Australian test bullet and CE399 had similar damage. If you want to interpret that to mean the same, that's on you. What their experiment showed is a bullet could pass through layers of flesh and bone and emerge largely intact and without a deformed nose. That negates the argument that the single bullet couldn't have caused all those wounds and ended up like CE399.

"Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" (See Figure 4.)

It says volumes about your honesty and credibility that you would claim that the only difference between CE 399 and the Australian test bullet is that the test bullet has "a little bit more bend in it." Oh! A "little bit more bend," huh?! What do you suppose people will think of you when they look at Figure 4 in Hunt's article and see the obvious difference between the two bullets? It seems you will tell any lie and dismiss any fact rather than just admit the SBT is fiction.

in typical CT fashion, Hunt displays CE399 from the perspective that hides the deformation of the bullet.  Rotating the bullet a half turn would reveal the true extent of the damage, including the bend and the flattening of the base. Contrary to what CTs have long claimed, CE399 was far from pristine and it's damage is obvious when looked at from the proper angle.

In response to my quoting of Frazier on CE 399's "slight" deformity and virtually zero loss of substance, you falsely label this "a strawman argument" because "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." You completely avoided Frazier's comments about the minimal amount of deformity to CE 399, including the fact that its lands and grooves were intact and that the deformation is barely visible unless you view the bullet from the base.

What an idiotic argument. Of course you have to view CE399 from the correct perspective to see the true extend of the damage. The damage is there. Yes, the damage can be hidden if the bullet is photographed from the opposite side. So what?

You just whiffed on all that and focused on his remark about the loss of substance with the inane argument that "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." Can you read? I didn't say that anyone had ever said the bullet lost "a lot of its substance." The argument has always been that the bullet should have lost a lot of its substance if it did all the damage claimed for it.

That's a real dumbass supposition.

The fragments in Connally's wrist were not "flakes." Good grief, even Humes and Finck noted this to the WC in explaining why they did not think CE 399 could have caused Connally's wrist wound. How can you not know this? The "flakes" myth was buried for good in the 1990s with the ARRB disclosures. Nurse Bell, who assisted with the wrist surgery, handled the fragments from the wrist -- she noted they were definitely not flakes. But of course you know nothing about any of this because you won't read anything that disagrees with you.

The flakes were described as having the weight of a postage stamp. Why are Humes and Finck's comments about Connally's wrist wound the least bit relevant. They looked at JFK's body. They never saw Connally. It's pretty moronic to even mention them in a discussion about JBC's wrist wound.

In reply to my point that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing, you said,

Huh? Just Huh? How does this address the point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wrist wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited no fibers in the back wound? Huh? How does that work, especially if we assume the bullet was tumbling when it hit?! Sheesh, is there no end to your silliness.

I'm trying to understand what your point was, which isn't an easy task. What is it you are trying to claim by pointing out there were no fibers in JBC's back wound. Are you trying to suggest that the bullet that entered his back hadn't gone through his jacket and shirt first. Why did you even bring that up?

If the Connally back-wound bullet only tore through two layers of clothing, i.e., Connally's coat and shirt, one could understand why the bullet did not deposit fibers in the back wound; but if the bullet tore through six layers of clothing before hitting the back, surely it would have deposited some fibers in the wound, given that fibers were deposited in the wrist wound

Now you are pretending to be an expert on fiber evidence. Is there no end to the fields you will pontificate on in which you have zero expertise? You seem to just pull things out of your ass because they sound good to you. Maybe you should run them by a fifth grader first to find out if they actually make sense.

I notice you dismissed the 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test and Lattimer's SBT wound ballistics test, both of which failed to support the SBT, with the lame, evasive argument that they did not "duplicate" the shooting of JFK. One, Lattimer's test actually did duplicate every part of the SBT's alleged journey, but the resulting bullets were badly damaged. Two, the CBS test, as you surely already knew, was not designed to duplicate every part of CE 399's supposed journey but only part of its alleged journey through Connally's chest and then through his wrist and into his thigh -- yet, even then, not one of the test bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them failed to leave the wrist at all. But you just dishonestly dismiss these facts with another one of your lame evasions.

You continue to operate under the ridiculous premise that a shooting can be perfectly replicated. You could take just about any shooting and try to replicate it 1000 times without reproducing exactly the same result. It is a moronic argument the CTs have floated for years when they claim Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated. Of course it hasn't. That would be impossible. A result only has to happen one time to be possible. It is ludicrous to demand it be duplicated.

Finally, I come to your repetition of your bogus argument that Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony "explains" the disclosures about the back-wound probing, the early versions of the autopsy report, and the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy. You must be kidding.

I realize this is an inconvenient truth for your silly beliefs.

You simply ignored my point that the disclosures prove that Finck was indeed able to find the end of the wound, not to mention that it was at that point that Finck himself announced for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point. You just ignored all that and repeated your previous nonsense that Finck "explained all that" in his Shaw trial testimony. No, he did not. He did no such thing. He falsely claimed he could not probe the wound path because of the "contraction of muscles." The ARRB disclosures alone prove this was not true. Go read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB interviews, for starters.

I again ask you, why do you suppose Finck failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and then manipulated the body in order to complete the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that he himself declared right after the probing that the back wound had no exit point? Why did not a single autopsy witness recall Finck expressing any doubt whatsoever about his no-exit declaration? (Answer: Because he had no doubt about it, since he could see the same thing that the other man around the autopsy table could see, as we now know.)

Seriously? You need this explained to you? Again? The muscle groups in JFK's back were in a different position when he was shot than when he was laying on the autopsy table. Add to that the effects of rigor mortis and it is not at all surprising that the probe would not pass through the bullet channel. Finck understood that and he explained that in his trial testimony. Apparently, that explanation sailed way over your head.

You complained that I didn't "quote him [Finck] nor cite a source" regarding Finck's "this wound has no exit" statement during the autopsy. Given that I have quoted Finck and provided documentation for the quote in many other replies on the subject in this forum, your complaint is both misleading and pointless.

Whether Finck said that or not is irrelevant. It was not his final conclusion nor that of the final autopsy report. It was not the conclusion of the FPP which unanimously concurred with the finding that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. What reason would I have to care what a dumbass thinks about that conclusion?

If you had read the ARRB materials, which have been available for over 20 years now, you would have already known about Finck's statement and the nature and results of the back-wound probing. Sheesh, med-tech Jenkins disclosed this in the late 1970s in a recorded interview, and the ARRB-era disclosures confirmed his account. Yet, this is all still news to you in 2026. Pathetic.

What is pathetic is your continued practice of always citing the least qualified people available and ignoring the people who have actual know-how. Jenkins was a STUDENT technician when he assisted in the autopsy of JFK. And of course you find his impressions compelling while ignoring the findings of the autopsy team and the entire FPP.
That's comical but expected.

You see, the main problem here, in addition to your woeful lack of research, is that you can't bring yourself to be honest about this crucial issue because you know that if you admit the back wound had no exit point, your entire theory of the shooting collapses. So, rather than judge your theory by the facts, you dismiss the facts because they refute your theory.

I can't dumb his down enough for you to understand. Every qualified person who has seen the medical evidence has concurred with the finding that the bullet tha entered JFK's back exited from his throat. Your dumbass, amateurish analysis of the evidence does nothing to invalidate that finding.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was released in the 1990s when the ARRB released it).

The Back Wound Had No Exit Point

To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:

We probed this hole . . . with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

But when we opened the chest and we got at -- the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)

When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.

We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.

In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”:

A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)

James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).

Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.

In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:

Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined the back wound had no exit point:

Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could not be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)

FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:

Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?

A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. . . .

When they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.

And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.

And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)

FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:

There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .

Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .

Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?

A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)

Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy:

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger. . . . Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)

As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.

The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy

It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "realize" the back-wound bullet "must" have exited the throat, hence the phrase "presumably of exit" to describe the throat wound in the final draft of the autopsy report.

Historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours before the autopsy:

They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester, The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)

Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.

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).

One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)

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. Steadman also 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. I quote from Steadman's article:

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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)

Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)

Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).

[Jack Nessan]

Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was not released until the 1990s when the ARRB released it).

The Back Wound Had No Exit Point

To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:

We probed this hole . . . with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

But when we opened the chest and we got at -- the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)

When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.

We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.

In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”:

A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)

James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).

Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.

In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:

Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined the back wound had no exit point:

Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could not be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)

FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:

Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?

A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. . . .

When they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.

And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.

And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)

FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:

There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .

Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .

Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?

A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)

Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy:

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger. . . . Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)

As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.

The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy

It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "realize" the back-wound bullet "must" have exited the throat, hence the phrase "presumably of exit" to describe the throat wound in the final draft of the autopsy report.

Historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours before the autopsy:

They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester, The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)

Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.

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).

One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)

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. Steadman also 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. I quote from Steadman's article:

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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)

Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)

Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).

Once again, random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts. How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

[John Corbett]

Two of the biggest things the autopsy doctors had to cover up were (1) that they had determined for an absolute fact, through prolonged and careful probing, that the back wound had no exit point; and (2) that they were aware of the throat wound before and during the autopsy. This is why the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy, which revealed the back wound had no exit point, was not published with the Warren Commission (WC) volumes but was sealed (and keep in mind that it was supposed to stay sealed for 75 years -- it was released in the 1990s when the ARRB released it).

I'm always amazed by the Loony CTs who claim alls sorts of people went along with the cover up of the JFKA. Do they think they had these people lined up before the JFKA or did they coerce them after the fact. If they believe the latter, how did the plotters know they would get 100% cooperations.

The Back Wound Had No Exit Point

To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:

We probed this hole . . . with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

But when we opened the chest and we got at -- the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)

When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.

Yes, a perfectly logical approach which explains why the dismissed their initial impression. For some strange reason, MTG wants to cling to that erroneous first impression.

We know this from the testimony of Dr. Robert Karnei. Dr. Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Karnei told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (HSCA interview: Dr. Robert Karnei, 8/27/77, p. 6). This is one of many references from the autopsy witnesses to the fact that photos were taken of the probing, but no such photos made it into the official record and have disappeared.

In a 1991 recorded interview, Dr. Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”:

A: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . .
Q: Why didn't they turn the body over?
A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . .
Q: But this was after the Y incision?
A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest.
(Livingstone interview transcript, p. 10)

James Jenkins confirmed this crucial fact in his HSCA interview nearly 20 years earlier and in his 1979 filmed interview. Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (HSCA interview: James Jenkins, 8/29/77, pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13).

Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays never made it into the official collection of the autopsy materials and have disappeared.

In his 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins explained that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity:

As is SOP for MTG, he cites the least qualified person in the room and ignores what the people with actual know-how concluded. A truly moronic approach but the only one that will lead MTG to his desired conclusion.

Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity.

Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined the back wound had no exit point:

Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could not be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/78, p. 57)

MTG clings to the erroneous first impression because that is what he wants to believe and dismisses the final conclusion which made after ALL the information had been gathered during the course of a the autopsy. A truly bassackwards approach.

FBI agent James Sibert confirmed this in his ARRB interview, and added that the autopsy doctors -- "Finck, in particular" -- said during the autopsy, after probing the wound, that the back wound had no exit point, and that the pathologists also said they could feel the end of the back wound:

Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?

A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. . . .

When they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe.

And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.

And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (ARRB interview: James Sibert, 9/11/97, pp. 59, 111)

FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB the same thing:

There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. . . .

Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. . . .

Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?

A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (ARRB interview: Francis O'Neill, 9/12/97, pp. 30-31)

Let's read what Sibert and O'Neill said about this in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy:

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger. . . . Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.[/i] ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4)

As many here know, we have known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. One draft said the back wound had no exit point and said nothing about the throat wound, while the other draft said a fragment from the head shot exited the throat. In both drafts, the back wound had no exit point. This was first revealed with the release of the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session.

MTG just won't let go of that early "no exit" comment because that is the one that supports his silly beliefs. He won't allow the autopsy team to abandon that early belief once they gathered more and better information. He also beliefs a bullet is only going to penetrate an inch or two into soft tissue. Why does MTG believe such nonsense. One reason. MTG is really, really dumb.

The Autopsy Doctors Knew About the Throat Wound Before the Autopsy, and Humes Talked with Perry by No Later Than 10:30 During the Autopsy

It has become clear that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound before and that Humes talked with Dr. Perry well before the autopsy ended. But, after Oswald was killed, everything changed and along came the lie that Humes had no idea there was a throat wound until the morning after the autopsy, that Humes did not talk with Perry until the morning after the autopsy, and that only then did Humes "realize" the back-wound bullet "must" have exited the throat, hence the phrase "presumably of exit" to describe the throat wound in the final draft of the autopsy report.

Humes talked to Dr. Perry several times before the final report was prepared. That was very sensible approach. He wanted to gather as much information as possible before making that final report. But MTG doesn't want to let Humes do that. MTG wants the autopsy team to stick with their initial erroneous impression based on minimal information. MTG prefers to believe the bullet that hit JFK in the back never exited from his throat. He adopted that position a long time ago and continues to cling to it no matter how much information is gathered to prove him wrong.

Historian William Manchester, in his famous book The Death of a President, based on dozens of interviews with autopsy personnel and with others at the autopsy or in the hospital, acknowledged that the autopsy doctors heard about Dr. Malcolm Perry's comments about the throat wound that Perry made in the Parkland press conference several hours before the autopsy:

They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheotomy. . . ." [Manchester, The Death of a President, pp. 432-433)

Once again MTG wants to cling to an erroneous first impression based on incomplete information. The autopsy doctors initially believed the back wound had no exit because they were unaware of the bullet wound in the throat. Dr. Perry assumed the throat wound was an entrance because he didn't know about the back wound. MTG insists these people have to stick with their erroneous first impressions no matter what they learned later.

Yes, of course the autopsy doctors heard about the throat wound before the autopsy. Perry's comments at the Parkland press conference were all over the news that afternoon and evening.

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).

One of the many historic disclosures from the ARRB materials is Dr. Ebersole's statement to the HSCA FPP that by around 10:00 or 10:30, Humes knew about the throat wound from communications with Dallas. Ebersole said he recalled that "by ten or ten thirty . . . communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned" that "there had been a wound . . . in the lower neck" ("Testimony of John H. Ebersole," HSCA, 3/11/1978, pp. 4-5.)

By 10:30, the autopsy had been going on for several hours.

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. [/quote

Most exit wounds are ragged because most exit wounds are not caused by FMJ military ammo which is designed not to deform when passing through soft tissue. Perry can be forgiven for his erroneous initial first impression. He later acknowledged it could have been either an entrance or an exit.

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. Steadman also 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.

Exactly what I wrote earlier. Perry was unaware of the entrance wound in the back. If he had been, he might not have been so quick to assume the frontal wound was an entrance.

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. I quote from Steadman's article:

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....(https://web.archive.org/web/20241006184009/http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; http://evesmag.com/jfkassassination.htm; https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry) [/quote]

Funny how Perry never told that to anybody else.

Crucially, Parkland supervisory 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)

Nurse Bell told the HSCA the same thing in 1977 (http://www.stickam.com/member/viewMedia.do?mId=184850325&mediaowner=true).

So the Bethesda team told Perry they had concluded that his erroneous belief of an entrance wound in the throat was wrong.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Once again, random nonsense and unbelievably loose with the facts.

"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.

How do you explain Gov Connally's wounds if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?

LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?

The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?"   

MG:
To his great credit, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the three autopsy pathologists, admitted to the ARRB that although they were initially unable to probe the back wound because the muscles had closed the path, they were able to probe the wound after they opened the chest, and that they then saw that the bullet "had not pierced through the lung cavity" but had caused bleeding "just outside the pleura," i.e., just outside the lining of the chest cavity:[/size]

We probed this hole . . . with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

But when we opened the chest and we got at -- the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura [chest cavity lining]. (ARRB interview: Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, 2/26/96, pp. 75-76)

When Boswell said "opened the chest," he was referring to the fact that they removed the chest organs in order to be able to probe the back wound and to see where the probe was going.[/size]

JC: Yes, a perfectly logical approach which explains why the dismissed their initial impression. For some strange reason, MTG wants to cling to that erroneous first impression.

Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.

As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.

People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy. That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point.

He won't allow the autopsy team to abandon that early belief once they gathered more and better information.

LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?

In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.

At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point -- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.

That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.

It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit. 




 

[John Corbett]

"Random"? "Loose with the facts"? I quoted sourced statements from autopsy witnesses, including Dr. Robert Karnei and Dr. John Ebersole, proving that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. I pointed out that the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session proves that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound as an exit point for the back wound. And, I quoted sourced statements that prove the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound before the autopsy and that Humes talked to Perry well before the autopsy ended, contrary to Humes's lie that he didn't talk to Perry until the following morning.

The only thing you have proven is that you are really, really bad at figuring things out. You want to give more weight to a preliminary hypothesis that to a final conclusion that was based upon all information gathered.

LOL! Are you caught in a time warp where it's still 1964? I mean, is this a serious question? Are you aware that the FBI and Secret Service analyses of the shooting concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets? Are you aware that Connally himself insisted he was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JFK in the back? Are you aware that the most sophisticated, advanced SBT trajectory study ever conducted, done by Knott Lab in 2023, determined that JFK and Connally were never in position for the SBT to be possible, proving that they could not have been hit by the same bullet?

Yes, those were the preliminary conclusions. The staff lawyers investigating the shooting later determined that was not what happened and developed the SBT based on solid evidence and logical thinking. Their finding has stood the test of time. Not everyone agrees just as not everyone agrees the earth is round or that American astronauts landed on the moon.

The question you should be asking yourself is, "How can I still believe in the SBT when there is so much compelling evidence that the back wound had no exit point, that no bullet exited the throat, and that the throat wound was an entry wound?" 

The question you should be asking is "Why do I continue to dispute the fact that Oswald assassinated JFK given so much compelling evidence that is what happened."

Can you read? You have totally misread what Boswell said. He said nothing about his "initial impression" or "first impression." He said that initially they were unable to probe the back wound because the muscles blocked the wound path, but that after they opened the chest, they were able to probe the wound and determine that the bullet did not enter the lung cavity but merely caused bruising outside the pleura.

It always get's confusing when MTG chooses to reply to multiple people in the same post but I believe this is where he has switched over to me.

Do you really need to be told that was Boswell's initial impression. That impression was made early in the process and is at odds with the final conclusion which all three members of the autopsy team signed. Unlike you, Boswell understood the earlier impression that the bullet had no exit was an erroneous one as they discovered there was a clear bullet path leading from the back entrance to the throat exit. The discovered the bruised pleura, the perforation of the strap muscles, the grazing of the rings of the trachea, which led them to the tracheostomy. We don't know at one point in the process they began to suspect the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound but they were able to confirm that suspicion when Humes talked to Perry. You, being a silly CT, think the autopsy team should have stuck with that first erroneous impression that there was no exit for the back wound no matter what they learned later in the fact finding process. Somebody on the autopsy teams said early on there was "no exit" and by God, they were stuck with that no matter what they learned afterwards.

As I documented, Dr. Karnei explained that after they removed the chest organs and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." It was this point, explained Sibert and O'Neill, that the autopsy doctors, particularly Finck, announced that the back wound had no exit point.

They thought there was no exit until they discovered the trail of tissue damage leading to the tracheostomy in the throat. Then they understood why there was no bullet in the body. It had exited from JFK's throat.

People are going to easily see through your dishonest, phony argument that this was just a "first impression." No, this was the final, definitive, visually confirmed finding by the end of the autopsy.

You are a damn liar. You get no respect because you deserve no respect.

That's why Sibert and O'Neill, the two FBI agents at the autopsy, included the "no exit" finding in their report on the autopsy. That's why they told the ARRB that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt whatsoever that the back wound had no exit point. 

Moronic. Cite the bystanders instead of the people actually conducting the autopsy.

LOL! I again ask, can you read? Do you understand English beyond a grade-school level? How can you make this argument with a straight face?

In a previous reply, you repeated the long-debunked lone-gunman lie that Humes did not know about the throat wound until the morning after the autopsy. I just proved to you that this is false, that Humes talked to Perry at least 90 minutes before the autopsy ended. So there was no "more and better information" to be gathered.

You have never shown any evidence anyone on the autopsy team knew that. You have shown that Perry said it. There is no evidence any of them saw Perry's presser.

At the end of the autopsy, at least 90 minutes after Humes had talked to Perry about the throat wound, the autopsy doctors were absolutely certain that the back wound had no exit point

More lies. Have you no shame?

-- they knew this because they had been able to probe the wound to its end after they removed the chest organs and had seen with their own eyes that the wound path did not enter the lining of the chest cavity.

How do you suppose they were able to document the bruised pleura, the perforated strap muscles, the damaged trachea rings? Do you think they just made that up after the autopsy was over? Why do you suppose every member of the FPP concurred with the finding that the bullet exited from JFK's throat?

That's why Dr. Karnei explained that after the doctors opened the chest, removed the chest organs, and resumed the probing, the men around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's why Dr. Ebersole said that "further probing" and "inspection" revealed "there was no point of exit." That's why Navy medical technician James Jenkins, serving as Dr. Boswell's assistant during the autopsy, observed that he and others around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that "there was no entry into the chest cavity." That's why Dr. Boswell himself told the ARRB that the bullet "had not pierced through into the lung cavity." That's why Sibert and O'Neill observed in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy that "further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance." That's why Sibert and O'Neill confirmed this fact in the plainest possible English to the ARRB, stressing that the autopsy doctors had no doubt whatsoever about this.

It was only after Oswald was murdered that the no-exit finding was suppressed and replaced by the fiction that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. In order to make that tale even theoretically possible, Humes had to relocate the back wound some 2 inches upward so as to put it above the throat wound and to enable a downward trajectory through the neck, a falsehood that the HSCA FPP corrected, to their credit.

You continue to try to make your case with lies. That says all that needs to be said about your case.