JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 26, 2025, 11:34:56 AM
-
The throat wound was an entrance wound. The wound was immediately below the larynx and above the shirt and tie. It was visible before JFK's shirt and tie were removed. The front shirt slits and the small nick on the left side of the tie knot were made by nurses as they hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing. We learned years ago when photos of the tie were released that there was no hole through the tie, only a small nick near (but not on) the left edge of the tie knot.
Dr. Ronald Jones saw JFK's body before the clothes were removed. Interviewed for the 2023 Paramount documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, Dr. Jones said the throat wound was "visible" and that it was "just above where the shirt and tie was":
The first thing I noticed was a very small wound in his neck in the front. . . .
We could tell that the wound was in the front of the neck just above
where the shirt and tie was. So it was visible to you.
(18:12-18:19, 18:32-18:39)
In the same documentary, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, a fourth-year medical student at Parkland Hospital at the time, said he could see the neck wound when JFK's clothes were still on:
I do remember that very early on, even when his clothes were
still on, I saw the wound in his neck. (18:20-18:28)
He would not have been able to see the throat wound if it had been under/behind the tie knot and the front shirt slits.
Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
Plus, we have Carrico's 11/22/63 admission note, where he said the throat wound was "immediately below the larynx." A wound "immediately below" the larynx would be above the collar and above the shirt slits.
When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf), p. 14)
Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).
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 beneath the throat wound. He believed the missile had entered the throat and then ranged downward into 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” (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)
The fact that this damage was on the righthand side of the superior (upper) mediastinum is important because the nick on the tie knot was on the left edge of the knot, an obviously impossible trajectory given the thickness of the knot and the fact that the knot was neatly centered in the middle of the collar band.
All of these facts enable us to more fully appreciate the ARRB disclosures about the back wound. We now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, completely, and totally certain that the back wound had no exit point. They established this with prolonged probing, both with fingers and with surgical probes, and even removed the chest organs and positioned the body “every which way” to facilitate and observe the probing. A medical technician at the autopsy reported that he could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity and that there was no exit point.
This explains another fact that we now know thanks to ARRB disclosures: the first draft of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot.
-
The throat wound was an entrance wound.
Griffith,
You're so full of beans, I can smell you from here.
-
Griffith,
You're so full of beans, I can smell you from here.
And you are unserious. Your main purpose here seems to be to accuse anyone who doubts the WC of being a Russian disinformation agent, which is just plain weird and silly.
Now, let's see: The throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter. It was punched-in, not gashed out. It was neat, without ragged edges. There was more damage behind the wound than on the surface of the wound. These are all textbook, standard indications of an entrance wound, and Dr. Perry and the other Parkland staff had seen many more gunshot wounds than Humes and Boswell had seen.
Furthermore, the wound was located above the shirt slits and above the tie knot. So, obviously, no bullet exited the shirt slits, which is why there is no fabric missing from them, why the FBI found no metallic traces around them, and why there was no hole through the tie. These facts, in turn, are not at all surprising since we now know that the back wound had no exit point and that this was acknowledged in the first draft of the autopsy report.
We also now know, mainly thanks to ARRB disclosures, that Dr. Perry was severely pressured and badgered into changing his diagnosis of the throat wound from entrance wound to exit wound, but toward the end of his life he told a friend and fellow surgeon that the wound was definitely an entrance wound.
But you folks are simply in denial of all this evidence because it destroys your absurd single-bullet theory, which was only cooked up in desperation when the timing problem and the Tague wounding could not be ignored.
-
Your main purpose here seems to be to accuse anyone who doubts the WC of being a Russian disinformation agent.
Griffith,
People who, after five years or so of serious "study," still doubt the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report aren't necessarily witting "Russian disinformation agents" -- it's much more likely that they're simply "useful idiots" who've been zombified in general by sixty-six years (it started in 1959) of KGB* disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations, and in particular by JFKA disinfo courtesy of Mark "KGB" Lane, Jim "Paese Sera" Garrison, and Oliver "Jim Garrison/Jim Marrs/Jim DiEugenio" Stone, et al. ad nauseam.
However, people like you who don't just "doubt the WC" but actively proselytize against it as much as you do are a different kind of animal altogether, IMHO.
Question: Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
The wound immediately below the larynx and above the shirt and tie.
Wrong again, Griffith!
(https://i.postimg.cc/4y9TJL7y/jfk-profile-and-autopsy-proving-SBF.gif)
JohnM
-
The throat wound was an entrance wound.
If the throat wound was an entrance wound, what happened to the bullet? What happened to the bullet that entered the back of the neck?
-
Wrong again, Griffith!
JohnM
So your answer to the fact that there was no hole through the tie, the fact that there was only a small nick on the left edge of the tie knot, the fact that the damage beneath the throat wound was to the right and below the throat wound, the fact that no metallic traces were found around the front shirt slits, the fact that the first draft of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot, the fact that the throat wound was only 3-5 mm in diameter and was punched-in and had no ragged edges, the fact that Dr. Carrico and Dr. Jones said the throat wound was above the shirt and tie, the fact that the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point (which is why the first autopsy report said the throat wound was the exit point for a fragment from the head shot), and the fact that Dr. Carrico confirmed that the nurses made the shirt slits and nicked the tie knot while they were hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing--your answer to all of these facts is to offer another one of your bogus graphics?
-
Wrong again, Griffith!
(https://i.postimg.cc/4y9TJL7y/jfk-profile-and-autopsy-proving-SBF.gif)
JohnM
Hey John - So are we to believe we are looking at the very same Adam's Apple in both photos? These 2 images of the throat area do Not even look similar.
-
Hey John - So are we to believe we are looking at the very same Adam's Apple in both photos? These 2 images of the throat area do Not even look similar.
Storing,
Which photo do you think (sic) was altered by the evil, evil, evil Deep State bad guys?
Both of them?
Different question:
Which JFK is the imposter?
Both?
-
If the throat wound was an entrance wound, what happened to the bullet? What happened to the bullet that entered the back of the neck?
Throat wound: CIA-issued ice bullet that melted. No exit wound.
Shallow back wound: Bullet fell out somewhere. Possibly CE 399, the magic bullet. No, that won't work. Well, it fell out somewhere. No, wait, it was an ice bullet, too.
Alignment between back wound and throat wound: Pure coincidence, there is no connection.
I have this all on good authority from Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum.
-
This explains another fact that we now know thanks to ARRB disclosures: the first draft of the autopsy report said the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot.
We don't really "know" this, do we? There is nothing to this effect in the ARRB final report, which does highlight what was learned about the autopsy. Aren't what you are calling "ARRB disclosures" actually more like "Doug Horne's speculation" in this 1996 memorandum: https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/TEAMA/MEDICAL/CHAIN2.WPD.pdf.
-
Throat wound: CIA-issued ice bullet that melted. No exit wound.
Shallow back wound: Bullet fell out somewhere. Possibly CE 399, the magic bullet. No, that won't work. Well, it fell out somewhere. No, wait, it was an ice bullet, too.
Alignment between back wound and throat wound: Pure coincidence, there is no connection.
I have this all on good authority from Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum.
Varnell eh?
It's a wonder that they never tried to save the lives of JFK's jacket and shirt at Parkland or that autopsies were not performed on them at Parkland. ;D
I can't remember if it was Varnell who said that Connally was probably swatting at a bee with his Stetson or if it was someone else. I'm thinking that it was Varnell though.
-
We don't really "know" this, do we? There is nothing to this effect in the ARRB final report, which does highlight what was learned about the autopsy. Aren't what you are calling "ARRB disclosures" actually more like "Doug Horne's speculation" in this 1996 memorandum: https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/TEAMA/MEDICAL/CHAIN2.WPD.pdf.
Griffith doesn't know it. He made it up.
-
Throat wound: CIA-issued ice bullet that melted. No exit wound.
Shallow back wound: Bullet fell out somewhere. Possibly CE 399, the magic bullet. No, that won't work. Well, it fell out somewhere. No, wait, it was an ice bullet, too.
Alignment between back wound and throat wound: Pure coincidence, there is no connection.
I have this all on good authority from Cliff Varnell at the Ed Forum.
I believe the shallow back wound bullet is supposed to be the bullet that SA Paul Landis claimed he found inside the JFK Limo. Landis also claimed to have placed that same bullet on a hospital gurney.
-
Try saying "Front Shirt Slits" real fast 5 times!
-
I believe the shallow back wound bullet is supposed to be the bullet that SA Paul Landis claimed he found inside the JFK Limo. Landis also claimed to have placed that same bullet on a hospital gurney.
Storing,
What do you mean by "supposed to be"?
"Supposed to be caused by"?
Is that what you're trying to say?
If so, why don't you think the entry wounds to JFK's upper-back / lower-neck and JBC's back were both caused by CE-399?
-
I believe the shallow back wound bullet is supposed to be the bullet that SA Paul Landis claimed he found inside the JFK Limo. Landis also claimed to have placed that same bullet on a hospital gurney.
Yes, it's too bad Landis didn't reveal his bombshell at the time. I will grant that the autopsy doctors' inability to trace the path of the bullet that caused the back wound is puzzling. I will grant Cliff Varnell's point that the alignment of the holes in the clothing with the throat wound is problematical (yes, I know all about the "bunching" argument regarding the clothes). Add in the condition of CE 399 for all the damage it is supposed to have done, together with Connally's insistence he was hit by a different shot, and the SBT is somewhat (or considerably more than somewhat) difficult to swallow. On the other hand, it's quite difficult to accept the back wound being a Carcano dud that found its target 80+ yards away and penetrated two layers of clothing and an inch or two of skin. In my past experience with reloading, in which I managed to create a fair number of duds, that isn't realistic dud performance.
I tend to think the SBT, with all its problems, is the most likely solution. There are so many variables as to EXACTLY how the rifle was positioned, EXACTLY what the particular cartridge was like, EXACTLY how the car was positioned and moving, EXACTLY how JFK's clothing was positioned (including the possible effect of his back brace), EXACTLY how JFK and Connally were positioned, and EXACTLY what the bullet did upon impact, transit and second and third impacts, for me to place much stock in forensic reconstructions supposedly showing the SBT is impossible. I do like to play around with alternative scenarios and am not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative.
-
Yes, it's too bad Landis didn't reveal his bombshell at the time. I will grant that the autopsy doctors' inability to trace the path of the bullet that caused the back wound is puzzling. I will grant Cliff Varnell's point that the alignment of the holes in the clothing with the throat wound is problematical (yes, I know all about the "bunching" argument regarding the clothes). Add in the condition of CE 399 for all the damage it is supposed to have done, together with Connally's insistence he was hit by a different shot, and the SBT is somewhat (or considerably more than somewhat) difficult to swallow. On the other hand, it's quite difficult to accept the back wound being a Carcano dud that found its target 80+ yards away and penetrated two layers of clothing and an inch or two of skin. In my past experience with reloading, in which I managed to create a fair number of duds, that isn't realistic dud performance.
I tend to think the SBT, with all its problems, is the most likely solution. There are so many variables as to EXACTLY how the rifle was positioned, EXACTLY what the particular cartridge was like, EXACTLY how the car was positioned and moving, EXACTLY how JFK's clothing was positioned (including the possible effect of his back brace), EXACTLY how JFK and Connally were positioned, and EXACTLY what the bullet did upon impact, transit and second and third impacts, for me to place much stock in forensic reconstructions supposedly showing the SBT is impossible. I do like to play around with alternative scenarios and am not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative.
The inability of the autopsy doctors to trace the path of the bullet through JFK's upper torso was probably due to the fact that rigor mortis had set in on JFK's corpse.
IIRC, the path was deduced by their physical examination of JFK's lung, etc, and is verified by hints of it in the X-rays.
-
The inability of the autopsy doctors to trace the path of the bullet through JFK's upper torso is probably due to the fact that rigor mortis had set in on JFK's corpse.
IIRC, the path was deduced by their physical examination of JFK's lung, etc, and is verified by hints of it in the X-rays.
That may well be (rigor mortis can affect the determination of a bullet path) but the doctors were puzzled and the fact that they didn't nail down the issue by dissecting the path is likewise puzzling. One might think "a back wound that goes nowhere" would have been puzzling enough to cause them to dissect the wound path (Finck later testified that some general ordered them not to). Gary Aguilar's oft-cited article, "HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG," contains a good discussion right up front about the issues with the back wound and throat wound at the autopsy: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm. In any event, it's all kind of a mess and doesn't inspire confidence in the SBT even if the SBT is, in fact, correct.
-
"[T]he fact that [the autopsy doctors] didn't nail down the issue by dissecting the path is likewise puzzling."
1) Going from memory, here, but didn't Admiral Burkley communicate to them that Jackie and Bobby, waiting upstairs, were getting impatient for them to finish? Or was it because he (or they) didn't want anyone to know that JFK had a serious problem with his adrenal glands?
2) When did they finally realize that there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat? The next day?
3) These are two examples of how the JFKA was "anomaly-replete," IMHO, readymade for the world-class humanitarian organization known as the KGB* to take advantage of via the likes of Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Comrade Oliver Stone, et al. ad nauseum, so that someone like The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) could eventually be "elected" as our "President."
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I do like to play around with alternative scenarios and am not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative.
The Warren Commission said the same thing.
Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds.
They were wrong and so are you. IMHO.
Without the SBT there had to be more than one shooter.
I guess that I am what you have referred to as an SBT zealot.
-
The Warren Commission said the same thing.
Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds.
They were wrong and so are you. IMHO.
Without the SBT there had to be more than one shooter.
I guess that I am what you have referred to as an SBT zealot.
Spot on.
Equivocating Fancy Pants Lance (who said, "I'm not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative") needs to learn to be more logical.
Unless, of course, he thinks it's plausible that CE-399 wasn't fired during the assassination, that only two shots were fired, that the dented shell found on the Sniper's Nest floor was one Oswald used for dry-firing purposes and/or to "protect" the chamber from moisture, and that the majority of witnesses who heard three shots were WRONG WRONG WRONG because one of those three loud sounds was either a motorcycle backfire, a tire blow-out, or a firecracker that was thrown by some rascal.
-
Hey John - So are we to believe we are looking at the very same Adam's Apple in both photos? These 2 images of the throat area do Not even look similar.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4y9TJL7y/jfk-profile-and-autopsy-proving-SBF.gif)
Royell,
In one photo, JFK is standing upright with full control of his muscles and very much alive, whereas in the other photo JFK is lying horizontally with no control of his muscles, a catastrophic headwound and a bullet which entered from behind and exited his lower neck.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.armoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/bullet-gelatin-slow-moiton.gif?resize=490%2C217)
JohnM
-
Spot on.
Equivocating Fancy Pants Lance (who said, "I'm not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative") needs to learn to be more logical.
Unless, of course, he thinks it's plausible that CE-399 wasn't fired during the assassination, that only two shots were fired, that the dented shell found on the Sniper's Nest floor was one Oswald used for dry-firing purposes and/or to "protect" the chamber from moisture, and that the majority of witnesses who heard three shots were WRONG WRONG WRONG because one of those three loud sounds was either a motorcycle backfire, a tire blow-out, or a firecracker that was thrown by some rascal.
Something like your alternative scenario is no less implausible than the SBT. Because the JFKA is not my religion, I really don't care apart from the historical question of what actually happened. At least one respected LNer, the name escapes me, rejects the SBT.
Were you in Miss Adams third-grade class at Lineweaver Elementary in Tucson? That was the last time I recall anyone thinking names like Fancy Pants Lance were clever. There was little fat kid we used to call Paranoid Tommy, the Wee McCarthyite - could that have been you?
-
2) When did they finally realize that there was a bullet wound in JFK's throat? The next day?
Aguilar's article addresses that extensively. Long before the body got to Bethesda, pretty much the entire country knew, thanks to Dr. Perry's statements at the press conference that afternoon, that there was a throat wound - but, supposedly, no one at the autopsy did. Possible, I suppose, but problematical.
-
Yes, it's too bad Landis didn't reveal his bombshell at the time. I will grant that the autopsy doctors' inability to trace the path of the bullet that caused the back wound is puzzling. I will grant Cliff Varnell's point that the alignment of the holes in the clothing with the throat wound is problematical (yes, I know all about the "bunching" argument regarding the clothes). Add in the condition of CE 399 for all the damage it is supposed to have done, together with Connally's insistence he was hit by a different shot, and the SBT is somewhat (or considerably more than somewhat) difficult to swallow. On the other hand, it's quite difficult to accept the back wound being a Carcano dud that found its target 80+ yards away and penetrated two layers of clothing and an inch or two of skin. In my past experience with reloading, in which I managed to create a fair number of duds, that isn't realistic dud performance.
We're not talking about the autopsy doctors' "inability" to "trace the path" of the back wound bullet. They never tried to trace the wound's path. The only way to trace a wound's path is to dissect the wound, an Autopsy 101 procedure, but the autopsy doctors, incredibly, did not dissect the back wound or the throat wound (they falsely claimed they didn't know about the throat wound until after the autopsy, but the ARRB disclosures destroy that lie).
Connally did not insist he was hit by a different shot than JFK. He allowed that he may have been hit by the same shot that hit JFK, although he clearly doubted this was the case. What he insisted on was that he was not hit before Z229. This was the key part of his adamant position that he was not hit by the first shot. He studied high-quality prints of the Zapruder frames under high magnification for hours and concluded there was "no doubt about it" that he was not hit before Z229. After this, Connally remained adamant that he was not hit by the first shot.
A misfire bullet is a plausible explanation for the back wound's shallow depth and lack of an exit point. A misfired rifle bullet can have a velocity of 800 to 1,000 FPS, which could certainly enable the bullet to penetrate two layers of clothing and penetrate an inch or two of soft tissue. That is entirely possible.
No bullet in the known history of forensic science has done the damage attributed to CE 399 and emerged with only 3-4 grains of its substance missing and with its lands and grooves intact. Even Lattimer's rigged SBT reconstruction did not produce such virtually pristine bullets. The far more realistic AAT SBT simulation produced a severely damaged FMJ bullet.
I tend to think the SBT, with all its problems, is the most likely solution. There are so many variables as to EXACTLY how the rifle was positioned, EXACTLY what the particular cartridge was like, EXACTLY how the car was positioned and moving, EXACTLY how JFK's clothing was positioned (including the possible effect of his back brace), EXACTLY how JFK and Connally were positioned, and EXACTLY what the bullet did upon impact, transit and second and third impacts, for me to place much stock in forensic reconstructions supposedly showing the SBT is impossible. I do like to play around with alternative scenarios and am not convinced the SBT is absolutely essential to the LN narrative.
The SBT is not only the least likely solution but is impossible. The recent Knott Lab SBT trajectory analysis, the most sophisticated analysis ever done on the SBT, proves the theory is impossible.
The fact that the tie knot had no hole in it proves the SBT is impossible. The fact that the shirt slits were made by the nurses not only obviously refutes the SBT but it explains why the slits were below the collar band, why the FBI found no metallic traces around the slits, why there was no fabric missing from the slits: because no bullet exited the throat. This also explains why the throat wound was so small (3-5 mm), punched-in, and neat, and why the damage beneath/behind the throat wound was larger than the throat wound itself--all classic, textbook indications of an entry wound.
The ARRB medical evidence disclosures are historic, partly because they show that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point. Rigor mortis will not prevent probing of a back wound if you remove the chest organs and manipulate the body "every which way," which is what the autopsy doctors did: they removed the chest organs after the initial probing and then put the body in numerous positions to facilitate and observe the follow-up probing. They probed with fingers and with surgical probes. Witnesses at the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the stomach lining. We now know that Dr. Finck, the only forensic pathologist among the autopsy doctors, also determined from his own probing that the back wound had no exit point. He stated this out loud during the autopsy. That's why the first draft of the autopsy report did not claim that the throat wound was made by the bullet that hit the back.
The SBT is crucial to any lone-gunman theory. If the SBT is wrong, then there had to be two gunman. That's the whole reason the WC cooked up the theory in the first place, since they could not admit that more than three shots were fired. If JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets, then you have at least four bullets: the bullet that hit JFK before Z207 and caused him to reach for his throat, the bullet that hit Connally at Z234-237, the bullet that hit the curb near James Tague, and the bullet that hit JFK's head. And this isn't counting the bullet that five witnesses saw hit the street early in the shooting, the bullet that hit the grass near a manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street (the hole was photographed and appeared in local newspapers the next day), the bullet that tore out 4 inches of concrete on the north side of Elm Street (the Aldredge bullet strike), and the bullet that visibly jolted JFK forward starting in Z226.
-
Something like your alternative scenario is no less implausible than the SBT.
Dear Lance,
The tinfoil-hat JFKA CT scenario I spelled out is so implausible as to be ridiculous, whereas the so-called Single Bullet Theory isn't implausible at all -- especially when one realizes that the reason JBC "reacted so much later than JFK" was because JFK's spinal column was nicked and JBC's wasn't.
In order to discount the SBT (and, by definition, become a tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist) one has to posit that each of the three bullets "hit," but none of them wounded both JFK and JBC.
Regardless, how, under this scenario, does one explain:
1) How it is that CE-399 was so unusually deformed
2) Why CE-399 had marks from Oswald's Carcano on it
3) How CE-399 ended up in Parkland Hospital
4) Where did the bullet that transited JFK's upper-back / lower-neck go when it exited JFK's throat?
5) How is it that the bullet that penetrated JBC's back didn't pass through JFK first?
6) Why seven witnesses (JFK, Jackie, Governor and Mrs. Connally, and Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman in the limo, and Rosemary Willis and Secret Service Agent George Hickey outside it) can be seen in the Zapruder film consciously reacting to the sounds of the first, missing-everything shot in less than half-a-second of each other (except for JBC who took 5 frames longer than the average), indicating that Oswald's first, missing-everything shot was at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming.
Your buddy,
-- Tom (the big guy that you gratefully gave your lunch money to every day -- don't you remember?)
-
Gov Connally had a Collapsed Lung along with other multiple bullet(s) inflicted injuries. NOBODY with a collapsed lung is going to be turning around in their seat to check on whatever is going on behind them. Have you ever had the Wind knocked out of you? People in this state are literally gasping for air. Same goes for a collapsed lung.
-
Fancy Pants,
The tinfoil-hat JFKA CT scenario I spelled out is so implausible as to be ridiculous, whereas the so-called Single Bullet Theory isn't implausible at all -- especially when one realizes that the reason JBC "reacted so much later than JFK" was because JFK's spinal column was nicked and JBC's wasn't.
In order to discount the SBT (and, by definition, become a tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorist) one has to explain:
1) How it is that three shells were found on the Sniper's Nest floor
2) Why the majority of witnesses said they heard three shots
3) How CE-399 was so unusually deformed
4) Why CE-399 had marks from Oswald's Carcano on it
5) How CE-399 ended up in Parkland Hospital
6) Why seven witnesses (JFK, Jackie, Governor and Mrs. Connally, and Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman in the limo, and Rosemary Willis and Secret Service Agent George Hickey outside it) can be seen in the Zapruder film consciously reacting to the sounds of the first, missing-everything shot in less than half-a-second of each other (except for JBC who took 5 frames longer than the average), indicating that Oswald's first, missing-everything shot was at hypothetical "Z-124," i.e., half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming.
7) If Oswald fired all three shots and scored three "hits" but none of the bullets wounded both JFK and JBC, how do answer the following questions:
A) Where did the bullet that transited JFK's upper-back / lower-neck go when it exited JFK's throat?
B) How is it that the bullet that penetrated JBC's back didn't pass through JFK first?
Dear Paranoid Latter-Day McCarthyite,
As stated, I accept the SBT as the most likely explanation. That being said, it is highly problematical. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the throat wound. The appearance of the throat wound as observed at Parkland. The condition and provenance of CE 399. The failure of the autopsy doctors to dissect the back wound. The continuing confusion over the location of the back wound and the need for Gerald Ford to make his convenient alteration to the draft of the Warren Report. The fact that the SBT was the brainchild of Arlen Specter, not of any medical or ballistics expert. The fact that umpteen attempts at forensic reconstruction have produced very differing conclusions. That's a lot of weird guano surrounding one rifle shot.
62 years after the fact, there is still heated debate about the number and timing of the shots. I say the SBT is possible, albeit not plausible. I say it is not impossible, albeit not likely. I am not, alas, a fanatic in either direction. I, unlike the fanatics (on both sides), simply don't "know" what happened or what is "impossible." Because I don't "know" as much as the fanatics (on both sides), I don't necessarily believe there is a straight line from concluding the SBT is incorrect to concluding there were two gunmen.
-
Dear Paranoid Latter-Day McCarthyite,
As stated, I accept the SBT as the most likely explanation. That being said, it is highly problematical. The alignment of the holes in the clothing with the throat wound. The appearance of the throat wound as observed at Parkland. The condition and provenance of CE 399. The failure of the autopsy doctors to dissect the back wound. The continuing confusion over the location of the back wound and the need for Gerald Ford to make his convenient alteration to the draft of the Warren Report. The fact that the SBT was the brainchild of Arlen Specter, not of any medical or ballistics expert. The fact that umpteen attempts at forensic reconstruction have produced very differing conclusions. That's a lot of weird guano surrounding one rifle shot.
62 years after the fact, there is still heated debate about the number and timing of the shots. I say the SBT is possible, albeit not plausible. I say it is not impossible, albeit not likely. I am not, alas, a fanatic in either direction. I, unlike the fanatics (on both sides), simply don't "know" what happened or what is "impossible." Because I don't "know" as much as the fanatics (on both sides), I don't necessarily believe there is a straight line from concluding the SBT is incorrect to concluding there were two gunmen.
Dear Lance,
Did Dr. Perry observe an abrasion collar (indicating entrance wound) around the bullet hole in JFK's throat?
Regarding Ford's heinous crime of "altering" the location of the entry wound in JFK's upper-back / lower-neck, did the "dot" on the autopsy cover sheet accurately reflect the measurements that were written down in the margin of that document?
The condition of CE-399 actually argues *for* the SBT.
How many medical or ballistics experts had opined on the number of shots, where they had come from, the damage (if any) that each one of them had wrought, and the number of seconds involved altogether when Specter "cooked up his cockamamie" SBT?
Your Big Buddy,
-- Tom
PS Although Joe McCarthy was basically right (pardon the pun), he was perverted (pardon the pun) by Roy Cohn.
As was, undoubtedly, your boy, The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx").
-
Forget the "dot" on the autopsy cover sheet. Just look at the JFK Autopsy BACK Photo. The pictured bullet hole is Not at the base of the neck. It's very clear.
-
Forget the "dot" on the autopsy cover sheet. Just look at the JFK Autopsy BACK Photo. The pictured bullet hole is Not at the base of the neck. It's very clear.
Storing,
The AUTOPSY photo was MISLEADING because JFK was a bit of a HUNCHBACK and because RIGOR MORTIS had ALREADY set IN.
Do'h.
-
Certain facts appear to be self-evident and beyond dispute:
-- No bullet exiting the front shirt slits could have nicked the left edge of the tie knot, given the thickness of the knot and given the fact that the knot was neatly centered between the edges of the collar band.
-- The fact that JFK's tie had no hole through it invalidates the single-bullet theory and proves that no bullet exited the throat. A bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the middle part of the tie knot, but we now know that the tie had no hole in it.
-- A throat wound behind/underneath the shirt slits would not have been visible until JFK's shirt and tie were removed, not even partly visible. Yet, three doctors said they saw the throat wound before the shirt and tie were removed, and two of them specified the wound was immediately above the shirt and tie.
-- The FBI found no metallic traces around the shirt slits because no bullet exited the slits and because the slits were cut by the nurses as they hurriedly removed JFK's clothing, as Dr. Carrico and one of the nurses confirmed.
-- Lone-gunman theorists cannot explain the three small puncture wounds in JFK's right cheek. Those wounds are strong evidence that more than one gunman fired at JFK.
-- Lone-gunman theorists cannot explain the back-of-head bullet fragments on the outer table of the skull some 4 inches above the EOP seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Those fragments are powerful evidence that more than one gunman fired at JFK.
-- Lone-gunman theorists cannot explain the autopsy doctors' stunning failure to mention in the autopsy report the high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays. They could not have missed it, and they surely did not "mistake" it for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower at the EOP and ranged upward to the right orbit.
-- Lone-gunman theorists cannot explain the fact that the extant skull x-rays do not show the low fragment trail that the autopsy doctors described in the autopsy report and that they reaffirmed after viewing the autopsy materials for five hours in November 1966. They could not have "mistaken" the low fragment trail for the differently angled and much higher fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays. The high fragment trail's lowest point is at least 2 inches above the EOP and on the opposite end of the skull, while its highest point is over 4 inches above the EOP and does not even extend to the rear outer table of the skull.
-
Certain facts appear to be self-evident and beyond dispute:
-- No bullet exiting the front shirt slits could have nicked the left edge of the tie knot, given the thickness of the knot and given the fact that the knot was neatly centered between the edges of the collar band.
-- The fact that JFK's tie had no hole through it invalidates the single-bullet theory and proves that no bullet exited the throat. A bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the middle part of the tie knot, but we now know that the tie had no hole in it.
Here's another GIF comparison from a completely different angle that absolutely destroys your latest lame "certain fact".
(https://i.postimg.cc/5NdhfMWV/jfk-tie-height-c.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4dFFtws/jfk-tie-height.gif)
JohnM
-
Hey John - How do you explain the claim that 3 Dr's reported seeing the throat wound BEFORE the JFK shirt/tie was removed? Also, based on your diagram of the bullet path, where would the bullet impact Gov Connally or the jump seat? This is why the SBT does Not work. You line up the shot to match the JFK throat wound and it then does Not line up with striking just above the jump seat and the back/armpit of Gov Connally. You have presented only a portion of this equation.
-
Here's another GIF comparison from a completely different angle that absolutely destroys your latest lame "certain fact".
JohnM
More of your bogus graphics. I notice you didn't use any of the photos that we have of JFK in the limo in Dallas shortly before the shooting. Why was that? We both know why.
Even in your silly "GIF comparison," we can plainly see that any bullet exiting the shirt slits would have had to tear through the tie, but the released tie photos prove there was no hole in the tie.
I also notice you said nothing about the fact that three Parkland doctors said the throat wound was visible before JFK's clothes were removed. This would not have been the case if the throat wound had been behind/beneath the shirt slits. Surely even you can see this.
I further notice that you said nothing about the fact that the FBI found no metallic traces around the shirt slits but did find metallic traces around the rear clothing holes, and that the slits had no fabric missing from them. If a bullet had exited the slits, (1) it would have left metallic traces around the edges of the slits, and (2) it would have removed fabric, just as fabric was removed from the rear clothing holes.
Honestly, dealing with SBT believers is like dealing with cultists or with those who claim the Moon landings were faked and/or that 9/11 was an inside job. Even when confronted with undeniable and conclusive evidence that disproves your theory, you refuse to abandon it.
-
Kennedy at Love Field wearing the exact same shirt and tie as when he was shot and as can be clearly seen in every example I have presented, the exiting bullet by definition has to pass at the same height as JFK's tie knot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fXC5Nj5/JFK-Love-Field-x-autopsy-4.gif)
To suggest that Kennedy's professionally fitted shirt and tie were somehow excessively lowered at the time of impact is sheer lunacy. In the following GIF, which vividly demonstrates Kennedy and Connally's violent simultaneous reaction we can easily see JFK's expertly fitted shirt and tie is seated at precisely the same height as every other photo/film taken of Kennedy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMQKHSP4/109-Z225-Z226-Toggling-Clip.gif)
JohnM
-
I further notice that you said nothing about the fact that the FBI found no metallic traces around the shirt slits but did find metallic traces around the rear clothing holes, and that the slits had no fabric missing from them. If a bullet had exited the slits, (1) it would have left metallic traces around the edges of the slits,
"The nine representative rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition were fired into 100% white cotton t-shirts,
fitted over a device to approximate body torso thickness, at a muzzle to target distance of six feet (72 inches) in
a manner that created an entrance hole in the front and an exit hole in the back of the t-shirt for each shot. All
nine bullet entrance holes and exit holes were subjected to XRF analysis. Entrance hole residues ranged in
lead concentration levels from 190 parts per million (ppm) to over 1,000 ppm while exit hole residue lead
levels ranged from zero to 74 ppm. In all cases, entrance hole lead concentrations were at least six times
higher than exit hole lead levels"
https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2009-A181.pdf
-
Hey John - How do you explain the claim that 3 Dr's reported seeing the throat wound BEFORE the JFK shirt/tie was removed? Also, based on your diagram of the bullet path, where would the bullet impact Gov Connally or the jump seat? This is why the SBT does Not work. You line up the shot to match the JFK throat wound and it then does Not line up with striking just above the jump seat and the back/armpit of Gov Connally. You have presented only a portion of this equation.
Which 3 Doctors are you talking about?
If you look through all of Carrico's WC testimony, you'll find this:
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?
Dr. CARRICO - He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by "agonal" if I may interrupt you for just a moment there, Doctor?
Dr. CARRICO - These are respirations seen in one who has lost the normal coordinated central control of respiration. These are spasmodic and usually reflect a terminal patient.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?
Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head. The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzoscope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a [Bennet] respirator to assist the inadequate respiration.
In this account, Carrico said that they didn't see the throat wound until after the shirt, coat, and tie had been "opened." This implies that it wasn't visible until they were removing the clothing.
Perry, who came in at the same time as Jones said that Carrico was already "attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration," so Jones could not have seen the wound before the shirt coat and tie had already been moved out of the way. IIRC Goldstritch said he came in with Clark. But Clark, in his own testimony, said that at the time he entered TR1, Perry was already working on the tracheotomy after taking over from Carrico.
-
Kennedy at Love Field wearing the exact same shirt and tie as when he was shot and as can be clearly seen in every example I have presented, the exiting bullet by definition has to pass at the same height as JFK's tie knot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fXC5Nj5/JFK-Love-Field-x-autopsy-4.gif)
To suggest that Kennedy's professionally fitted shirt and tie were somehow excessively lowered at the time of impact is sheer lunacy. In the following GIF, which vividly demonstrates Kennedy and Connally's violent simultaneous reaction we can easily see JFK's expertly fitted shirt and tie is seated at precisely the same height as every other photo/film taken of Kennedy.
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMQKHSP4/109-Z225-Z226-Toggling-Clip.gif)
JohnM
You seem to have forgotten the "bunching" issue with respect to the Shirt and coat. It could apply here too.
-
You seem to have forgotten the "bunching" issue with respect to the Shirt and coat. It could apply here too.
The rear of JFK's jacket bunching in the following way is independent of the collar and tie, which are fixed securely around the neck.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vB0MbtHc/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif)
We can't see the underlying shirt but there is evidence that Kennedy's shirt demonstrated a near identical bunching.
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2sDj81G/Lowe-JFKphoto1-zpsa4d20835.jpg)
Explain how you believe a similar bunching can occur to the front of the collar and tie?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RzhkJmT/JFK-in-Limo-in-Dallas.jpg)
JohnM
-
The rear of JFK's jacket bunching in the following way is independent of the collar and tie, which are fixed securely around the neck.
How many times are you going to post this bogus "evidence" and ignore the objections to it? Again:
1. Willis slide 5, taken almost at the moment of impact of the first hit, shows JFK's coat lying virtually flat on his back.
2. The modest bunching seen in your GIF could not possibly have produced the 5-inch difference between the rear clothing holes and the WC's location for the back wound. This is not to mention that the modest bunching does not even reach the shirt collar.
We can't see the underlying shirt but there is evidence that Kennedy's shirt demonstrated a near identical bunching.
And I'll again point out:
1. The photo you're using shows Kennedy in a very different position than the position he was in when he was shot. In your photo, he's leaning far forward with his elbows and forearms on his legs. In the motorcade, he was reclining back against the seat, and his back never came off the seat until after he began to react to the first hit. Most of JFK's shirt was pinned against the back seat by his torso until he began to react to the first wound.
2. The photo you're using shows JFK wearing only a shirt and no coat, so there was nothing to keep the shirt from bunching. This was not the case during the motorcade.
3. The close alignment of the rear clothing holes means that the shirt and coat would have had to bunch in nearly perfect correspondence, virtually millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence, an absurd proposition.
Explain how you believe a similar bunching can occur to the front of the collar and tie? JohnM
Huh? Explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have missed tearing through the tie. Even your third photo shows that the top part of the tie was neatly centered between the edges of the collar band. We know the slits were below the interior collar band and parallel with the bottom half of the exterior collar band. There is no way a bullet exiting those slits could have avoided tearing through the tie, but we know there was no hole through the tie, only a small nick on the left edge of the knot.
Explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have magically weaved around the bulk of the tie knot and nicked the left edge. It's just nonsense.
I see that Mitch Todd has misleadingly cherry-picked part of Dr. Carrico's testimony, ignoring the part where Carrico specified to WC member Dulles that the throat wound was above the shirt and tie, and ignoring Carrico's detailed interview with Harold Weisberg in which Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the shirt and tie, that he saw the throat wound before the clothes were removed, and that he saw no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
In the segment quoted by Mitch Todd, Carrico was not saying he did not see the throat wound until after the clothing had been removed. The "we" referred to those in the room, including those who had entered the room after the clothing had been cut away. Dr. Ronald Jones specified that he saw the throat wound above the shirt and tie before the clothing was removed. So did Dr. Goldstrich. I quote from the OP:
Dr. Ronald Jones saw JFK's body before the clothes were removed. Interviewed for the 2023 Paramount documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, Dr. Jones said the throat wound was "visible" and that it was "just above where the shirt and tie was":
The first thing I noticed was a very small wound in his neck in the front. . . .
We could tell that the wound was in the front of the neck just above
where the shirt and tie was. So it was visible to you.
(18:12-18:19, 18:32-18:39)
In the same documentary, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, a fourth-year medical student at Parkland Hospital at the time, said he could see the neck wound when JFK's clothes were still on:
I do remember that very early on, even when his clothes were
still on, I saw the wound in his neck. (18:20-18:28)
There is no way Jones and Goldstrich could have seen the throat wound if it had been beneath/behind the shirt slits. This raises another problem: the shirt slits were simply too low to explain the throat wound.
-
The rear of JFK's jacket bunching in the following way is independent of the collar and tie, which are fixed securely around the neck.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vB0MbtHc/jacket-bunch-elm-st-love-field.gif)
We can't see the underlying shirt but there is evidence that Kennedy's shirt demonstrated a near identical bunching.
(https://i.postimg.cc/m2sDj81G/Lowe-JFKphoto1-zpsa4d20835.jpg)
Explain how you believe a similar bunching can occur to the front of the collar and tie?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RzhkJmT/JFK-in-Limo-in-Dallas.jpg)
JohnM
Come on John. If the shirt can "bunch" in the back, it can do so also in the front. If a shirt is a "tailored" fit, it "bunches" nowhere, front or back. Be objective.
-
I further notice that you said nothing about the fact that the FBI found no metallic traces around the shirt slits but did find metallic traces around the rear clothing holes
"If a bullet goes through multiple layers of cloth, bullet wipe may be present only around the defect in the cloth that was perforated first." -- pages 354 and 355 of Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.
-
I see that Mitch Todd has misleadingly cherry-picked part of Dr. Carrico's testimony, ignoring the part where Carrico specified to WC member Dulles that the throat wound was above the shirt and tie, and ignoring Carrico's detailed interview with Harold Weisberg in which Carrico confirmed that the throat wound was above the shirt and tie, that he saw the throat wound before the clothes were removed, and that he saw no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
In the segment quoted by Mitch Todd, Carrico was not saying he did not see the throat wound until after the clothing had been removed. The "we" referred to those in the room, including those who had entered the room after the clothing had been cut away. Dr. Ronald Jones specified that he saw the throat wound above the shirt and tie before the clothing was removed. So did Dr. Goldstrich. I quote from the OP:
Dr. Ronald Jones saw JFK's body before the clothes were removed. Interviewed for the 2023 Paramount documentary JFK: What the Doctors Saw, Dr. Jones said the throat wound was "visible" and that it was "just above where the shirt and tie was":
The first thing I noticed was a very small wound in his neck in the front. . . .
We could tell that the wound was in the front of the neck just above
where the shirt and tie was. So it was visible to you.
(18:12-18:19, 18:32-18:39)
In the same documentary, Dr. Joe D. Goldstrich, a fourth-year medical student at Parkland Hospital at the time, said he could see the neck wound when JFK's clothes were still on:
I do remember that very early on, even when his clothes were
still on, I saw the wound in his neck. (18:20-18:28)
There is no way Jones and Goldstrich could have seen the throat wound if it had been beneath/behind the shirt slits. This raises another problem: the shirt slits were simply too low to explain the throat wound.
I cherry-picked nothing. The Carrico quote from his 1964 WC testimony is correct and in context. Perry and Jones testified that they went from the cafeteria to TR1 together and entered at the same time. Perry testified (again, in 1964) that when he and Jones arrived, Carrico was "attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration." Further, Perry testified that the clothes had already been cut away when he and Jones entered the room:
"Mr. SPECTER - Upon your arrival in the room, where President Kennedy was situated, what did you observe as to his condition?
Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.
The President was lying supine on the carriage, underneath the overhead lamp. His shirt, coat, had been removed. There was a sheet over his lower extremities and the lower portion of his trunk. He was unresponsive. There was no evidence of voluntary motion. His eyes were open, deviated up and outward, and the pupils were dilated and fixed.
I did not detect a heart beat and was told there was no blood pressure obtainable. He was, however, having ineffective spasmodic respiratory efforts. There was blood on the carriage."
The interviews with Jones and Goldstritch were made 60 years after the fact, and their memories have had decades to decay and be infiltrated by external factors. The WC testimony of Perry, Jones, Carrico, et al, was taken mere months after the assassination when the events in question still lay fresh in their minds. The only real reason to prefer the decades-later recollections over the 1964 testimony is an irrational desire to believe the latter accounts.
You could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1. He's one of those guys who just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later.
-
So they run an inept "investigation" where every single witness inside TR1 is Not interviewed regarding the condition of the JFK Body, and You want to hold that against people that do interview these eyewitnesses 60 yrs later? This is also why the SS had to steal the JFK Body. They needed to erase the condition of the JFK Body as witnessed by the Parkland Dr's only minutes after the Kill Shot.
-
So they run an inept "investigation" where every single witness inside TR1 is Not interviewed regarding the condition of the JFK Body, and You want to hold that against people that do interview these eyewitnesses 60 yrs later? This is also why the SS had to steal the JFK Body. They needed to erase the condition of the JFK Body as witnessed by the Parkland Dr's only minutes after the Kill Shot.
You're so full of beans, Storing.
-
You're so full of beans, Storing.
If that is the best rebuttal you got, I must have presented a very compelling case. Thank you.
-
If that is the best rebuttal you got, I must have presented a very compelling case. Thank you.
LOL!
The probability of your presenting a compelling case regarding any aspect of the JFK assassination, Storing, is about the same as Donald Trump's releasing the complete and unredacted (except for identifying information about the victims) Epstein Files.
-
I cherry-picked nothing. . . .
Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf), p. 14)
Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).
The interviews with Jones and Goldstritch were made 60 years after the fact, and their memories have had decades to decay and be infiltrated by external factors. The WC testimony of Perry, Jones, Carrico, et al, was taken mere months after the assassination when the events in question still lay fresh in their minds. The only real reason to prefer the decades-later recollections over the 1964 testimony is an irrational desire to believe the latter accounts. You could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1. He's one of those guys who just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later.
So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later." You haven't watched the Paramount documentary, have you? Nobody but a diehard SBT believer would believe that Goldstrich fabricated his account. By the way, when Goldstrich was interviewed again in 2023, he said he is "almost certain" the throat wound was an entrance wound, and he noted that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head:
"I am now almost certain that it is an entrance wound. This should have been obvious
to me sooner because the wound at the back of the head was too large to ever be
considered an entrance wound." (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/107504)
-
We don't really "know" this, do we? There is nothing to this effect in the ARRB final report, which does highlight what was learned about the autopsy. Aren't what you are calling "ARRB disclosures" actually more like "Doug Horne's speculation" in this 1996 memorandum: https://documents3.theblackvault.com/documents/jfkfiles/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB/TEAMA/MEDICAL/CHAIN2.WPD.pdf.
Actually, yes, we most certainly do know this. Your reply leads me to wonder what you have read on the subject. Just from the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript alone we know this. Rankin referred to a version of the autopsy report that said the throat wound was made by a fragment from the head shot. Boggs then referred to the FBI report on the autopsy, which said the back wound had no exit point. Multiple official leaks on the autopsy, published soon after the autopsy, said the throat wound was the exit point for a head-shot fragment, and the 1/27/64 WC executive session transcript confirms that those leaks came from sources who had read an early draft of the autopsy report, the same one that Rankin cited.
The ARRB final report said nothing about the vast majority of the historic disclosures from the released autopsy-related files and from the new autopsy witness interviews. The ARRB board members knew little about this evidence. I doubt they even read the released documents and the interview transcripts.
I suggest you sit down and actually watch Doug Horne's detailed and documented video on this evidence: The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report:
-
Mr. Griffith,
Thank you for an interesting OP. I agree with your statements on the cause for the slits in the shirt collar and the nick on the tie. However, I think a number of questions arise from the notion that the throat wound was an entrance wound:
1) the size and shape of the wound; 3 to 5 mm, almost circular. What conclusions can you arrive at using these parameters regarding the caliber of the weapon and the location of the assassin?
2) where did the bullet go after it entered the anterior neck?
3) Do you think Dr. Humes et al were correct in their hypothesis that the bullet that entered the president's back had no point of exit and had fallen out during external cardiac massage? Could this be CE 399? This is in fact my own theory, and it gets rid of ridiculous 'planting' of evidence considerations. But will it damage the chain of custody of CE 399?
4) Dr. Burkley, in JFK's death certificate which the Warren Commission overlooked and forgot to publish, stated the back wound was located at the level of the T3 vertebrae. Do you think that is accurate?
I am here to learn something on the assassination and hope you will be able to answer my questions.
-
"If a bullet goes through multiple layers of cloth, bullet wipe may be present only around the defect in the cloth that was perforated first." -- pages 354 and 355 of Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques. by Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.
Oh, now you're willing to listen to DiMaio! You've ignored the fact that DiMaio said that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo, and that when FMJ bullets do fragment, even when they penetrate bone, the fragments will be "very sparse in number." In fact, let's read him again on this point:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments
are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(p. 166)
Yet, the JFK skull x-rays show a "snow storm" of numerous tiny fragments in the right frontal region and a number of fragments to the left of the cluster that trail upward and backward without reaching the rear of the skull--the exact opposite of what DiMaio said we'll see in x-rays of people shot with FMJ bullets.
Anyway, regarding DiMaio's comment about bullets leaving metallic traces as they go through "multiple layers of cloth," we're talking about the third layer of clothing. And notice that DiMaio did not say it was the norm for bullets to leave bullet wipe only around the cloth layer that was first penetrated. He said this "may" happen, not that it normally happens.
Furthermore, let's keep in mind that the FBI lab initially said the slits looked like they were made by a fragment, not by a whole bullet, and said nothing about the fibers being bent outward. And then there is the crucial fact that no fabric was missing from the slits, a clear indicator that no projectile created the slits. Of course, we know that no bullet made the slits because we know that the Parkland nurses made the slits and nicked the tie knot when they hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing.
"The nine representative rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition were fired into 100% white cotton t-shirts, fitted over a device to approximate body torso thickness, at a muzzle to target distance of six feet (72 inches) in a manner that created an entrance hole in the front and an exit hole in the back of the t-shirt for each shot. All nine bullet entrance holes and exit holes were subjected to XRF analysis. Entrance hole residues ranged in lead concentration levels from 190 parts per million (ppm) to over 1,000 ppm while exit hole residue lead levels ranged from zero to 74 ppm. In all cases, entrance hole lead concentrations were at least six times higher than exit hole lead levels." (https://www.aafs.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/AAFS-2009-A181.pdf)
I guess you failed to notice when you read this article that in every single case, including in the test firing that you didn't mention, the bullets created "holes" when they exited the clothing, not vertical slits with no fabric missing.
Anyway, it's too bad the author did not specify how many of the nine bullets failed to leave any traces of lead. Her wording suggests that the majority of the bullets left lead traces around the exit holes.
When are you guys going to face the determinative fact that the tie had no hole in it, and that no bullet exiting the front shirt slits could have magically weaved around the body of the tie knot and nicked the knot, especially since the nick is actually not on the left edge of the knot but only near the left edge? Even if we assume the tie was untied and then retied before the evidence photos were taken, and that the nick was originally on the knot's left edge, there is still no way that a bullet exiting the slits could have maneuvered around the body of the knot to nick its left edge--it would have had to tear through the knot. The FBI fought so doggedly to keep all the tie photos from being released because they knew they would reveal that the tie had no hole in it. There was a reason the WC's photos of the tie were poor in quality and did not show any closeup views (CEs 394 and 395). There was also a reason the WC did not include the photo of the shirt slits among its published exhibits.
-
Oh, now you're willing to listen to DiMaio! You've ignored the fact that DiMaio said that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo, and that when FMJ bullets do fragment, even when they penetrate bone, the fragments will be "very sparse in number." In fact, let's read him again on this point:
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . .
usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has
perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments
are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(p. 166)
DiMaio didn't say that an x-ray that shows a cluster of numerous tiny fragments rules out FMJ ammo. In fact, he said that there are some FMJs that will massively fragment, even without penetrating bone.
-
I suggest you sit down and actually watch Doug Horne's detailed and documented video on this evidence: The Evolving JFK Autopsy Report:
Thanks for the link to the Horne presentation. I have to watch it again to take it all in as it lasts for more than an hour. One peculiar paragraph in the autopsy report, CE 387, page 4, deserves some attention. Dr. Humes wrote
The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the upper right posterior thorax.
The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical region.
I have emphasized the word presumably twice. English is not my primary language, but when i google translate it, the synonyms are probably, likely, maybe. It seems therefore that the conclusions regarding entry and exit are less based on certainty than perhaps desirable in the homicide of a president.
Another aspect of the autopsy report is that of the 88 facts stated, only 24 have a basis in the notes of the pathologist. 68 have no basis at all.
-
Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf), p. 14)
Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).
So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later." You haven't watched the Paramount documentary, have you? Nobody but a diehard SBT believer would believe that Goldstrich fabricated his account. By the way, when Goldstrich was interviewed again in 2023, he said he is "almost certain" the throat wound was an entrance wound, and he noted that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head:
"I am now almost certain that it is an entrance wound. This should have been obvious
to me sooner because the wound at the back of the head was too large to ever be
considered an entrance wound." (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/107504)
MG: Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
No, he didn't. And let me show you what he actually said, since you totally missed it.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--
In Carrico's own words, the wounds was "located in the lower third of the neck" "just about where your tie would be." His use of "where your/the tie" puts the wound below the top of the collar, ipso facto. And "the lower third of the neck" would also located it under the top of the collar on any human being not named "Giraffe." Note how well these statements matches up to "we opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck." If you go by what Carrico actually says, in his own words, the wound is most definitely below the top of the collar. You, on the other hand, want to rely on something Dulles says about Carrico's hand instead. That's not a very smart way to deal with it.
As to your channeling the ghost of Harold Weisberg:
HW: When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.”
Of course Carrico wouldn't have. His concern was for the patient, not the patient's clothing! Why on earth would Weisberg or you or anyone else expect him to in the first place? Weisberg says as much in Never Again.
HW: I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar.
What a vague and roundabout way of dealing with the problem! You'd think that Weisberg would have directly asked Carrico about the exact location of the wound, and then quoted Carrico's response in one of his writings. I mean, let's say that you are Weisberg. And you are interviewing Carrico about the throat wound. One of the first questions you are going to ask is "where was the throat wound? Was it above or below the collar?" So why don't we hear about that at all? why does Weisberg resort to the vague, indirect, and quoteless reference to Carrico's WC testimony? I'm certain that Weisberg did ask that question, but Carrico's answer wasn't what Weisberg needed to hear. So Weisberg went roundabout, having Carrico "confirm" his testimony. But note that Weisberg doesn't actually quote what Carrico said.
MG: Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding
Reading through Weisberg's comments on the subject I don't get where Carrico actually says they used scalpels. "{Carrico} told me that the President's shirt and tie were cut off in 'the usual emergency procedures,' he demonstrated it using his own tie slashing with an imaginary scalpel." But the only person who seems to be imagining a scalpel here is Weisberg. In fact, all of the "scalpel" talk appears to comes from Weisberg, and no one else. I can't find anyone but Weisberg saying they used scalpels to cut clothing off, unless they are referencing Weisberg. He seems to be the ultimate source of all this scalpel talk.
As for "the big hurry," it would have been faster to use bandage scissors than scalpels. Scalpels are carefully packaged and stored in such a way as to preserve the blade's sharp edge, maintain their sterility, and prevent anyone from being accidentally injured by the things while they are being transported, stored, and readied for action. Getting one out of its packaging and ready to go is not trivial and takes time, especially if you prefer not to maim yourself. On the other hand, almost every nurse involved in clinical activity in a hospital will be carrying bandage scissors, trauma shears, or both, in their pockets. They are also readily available in examination rooms, etc, as they do no need to be sterile, and are fairly safe handle by design. And they are designed specifically to cut through bandages and clothing from a human body without causing injuries in the process. Scalpels are designed specifically to cause injuries in patients. They are not forgiving to misuse, and cutting clothing is not a use they are designed for.
MG: So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
The location that CTs want to put the throat wound has been public knowledge for a long time. CTs aren't shy about pelting witnesses with leading questions, and enough of them over the years will start becoming memory contaminants. Loftus, et al, demonstrated this decades ago. Or Consider the case of the "McClelland drawing." It was originally drawn by a medical illustrator under the commission of Tink Thompson based on comments made by McClelland. Over time, McClelland began to say that he was responsible for having it created. And eventually, he actually started to say that he'd drawn it. He wasn't trying to claim credit for something that he didn't do, but inadvertently came under the influence of the mass of literature and discussion about the assassination. John Connally, in his autobiography, said that most of what he "remembered" about 11/22/63 wasn't actually his own memories, but things he heard from others, watched on TV, or read in the years after the event.
Again, if you go by Jones' and Perry's testimony to the WC in 1964, Jones could not have seen the wound before the shirt and tie had been cut away from that area.
MG: Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later."
The earliest reference to him as a JFKA witness dates to about 2015, 52 years after the assassination. And, again, you could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1 that day. The WC asked the 11/22/63 staffers who was in the room there and involved with the efforts to treat JFK. Who the noted Goldstritch's presence?
-
There is no reason to guess at the location of the anterior neck wound. The autopsy protocol (CE 387) clearly states on page 3:
Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges.
This image might be helpful:
(https://media.istockphoto.com/id/470639367/nl/foto/tracheal-rings.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=DCkuW-LRecp41wCxon25NCbxapqJHfcTWR0XoadCyO4=)
-
In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:
Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.
Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:
“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”
Four days later the same newspaper printed that,
“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”
Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."
Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:
“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”
The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:
“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”
Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .
It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)
Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.
-
In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:
Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.
Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:
“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”
Four days later the same newspaper printed that,
“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”
Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."
Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:
“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”
The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:
“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”
Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .
It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)
Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Please freshen my memory:
Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Please freshen my memory:
Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
Well, the FBI said they were pointed outwards - but then they would say that, wouldn't they?
The big hang-up for me, as Joffrey kind of suggests above, is that with the Griffith/Varnell approach we have (1) a back entry wound so shallow that the bullet falls out; (2) a throat entry wound for which there is no exit; (3) the fibers on the shirt indicating the back wound is one of entry and the throat wound is one of exit; and (4) the two supposed entry wounds and the holes in the clothing "just happening" to line up so closely that umpteen medical and ballistic experts have opined that one is an entry wound and the other an exit. How fantastically unlikely is that? Unlikely enough that Cliff Varnell is forced to resort to a CIA-issued melting ice bullet for the throat wound. I have a feeling William of Ockham would look askance at the Griffith/Varnell approach, which would seem to make the explanation vastly more complicated than the evidence necessitates.
-
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Please freshen my memory: Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
LOL! The nick on the tie???! Umm, you realize that it was just a nick, not a hole, that it did not go through the tie but was only on the surface of the tie knot, right? You know this, right? Right?
Are you ever going to explain how a bullet exiting the shirt slits could have nicked the top of the tie knot without first tearing through the knot, given that we have undeniable photographic proof that the tie knot was neatly centered between the collar band, which proves that any bullet exiting the slits would have had to tear through the center of the bottom half of the knot? I've asked you this at least 10 times now, but you keep ducking it.
As for the direction of the fibers of the shirt slits, you continually dredge up myths that were debunked decades ago and refuse to face contrary evidence. One, the first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers being pointed outward--not one word. I'm guessing you didn't know that. Two, by all accounts, the throat wound itself was punched inward, i.e., the smooth edges of the round wound were facing inward. That's why it was described as "punched in" and as a "puncture." Pray tell how an exiting bullet can created a punched-in wound. Three, Dr. Carrico said he saw no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing. Four, one of the nurses confirmed to Henry Hurt that the nurses made the slits and the tie nick.
The refusal/inability of WC apologists to acknowledge the cold, hard evidence of the shirt slits and the tie resembles the inability of Flat Earthers to acknowledge the cold, hard scientific evidence of a round Earth.
-
The first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers being pointed outward -- not one word.
Comrade Griffith,
You forgot to add the word "inward."
As in, "The first FBI report on the shirt slits said nothing about the fibers' being pointed outward or inward."
Heck, even Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar was honest enough to say that.
Regardless, didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry eventually say that the bullet hole in JFK's throat could have been either an entrance wound or an exit wound, and that its small size is what led him to believe it was an entrance wound?
-
Storing,
The AUTOPSY photo was MISLEADING because JFK was a bit of a HUNCHBACK and because RIGOR MORTIS had ALREADY set IN.
Do'h.
So now in order to make the BACK Wound exit from JFK's throat, the LN's are transforming JFK into a "Hunchback"? What's that tell you? As Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE proved, the SBT "Is Impossible".
-
It is worth repeating that when Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of JFK's shirt at the National Archives, he noticed there was less blood inside the collar band than on the outside, which doesn't fit the SBT scenario. If a bullet had exited the throat, one would expect there would be just as much blood, if not more, on the inside of the collar band as on the outside of it. Not only did Weisberg find this is not the case, but he also discovered that where the sides of the shirt overlapped, there was no blood at all:
There is less blood inside the collar band than on the outside of the fabric, not consistent
with the bloodstains coming from the body side. Where the sides of the shirt overlapped
in wearing, no blood. (Post Mortem, p. 347)
One WC defender in the EF suggested the JFK's neck was shored when the bullet allegedly transited his neck and that this could explain why there was more blood outside the collar band than on inside the collar band, but this won't work. If the throat wound was behind the collar band, i.e., if the collar band was covering the throat wound, as WC apologists claim, any blood exiting the wound could have first hit the inside of the collar band and would have then had to soak through to the outside of the band. Thus, the inside of the collar band should have had the most blood on it, not the outside.
Yet, there was more blood on the outside of the band than on the inside, exactly what you would expect if a bullet entered the throat above the collar band, because blood would then flow out of the wound and onto the outside of the band and would deposit very little blood on the inside of the band. This would also explain why the sides of the shirt that overlapped had no blood on them.
And, of course, we should always remember that we know for an absolute fact that no bullet exited the shirt slits because the tie had no hole through it. Any bullet exiting the slits would have torn through the bottom half of the tie knot, but, again, there was no hole through the tie. This supports a Parkland nurse's report that nurses made the shirt slits and made the shallow nick on the top of the tie knot. This also supports Dr. Carrico's statement that he saw no nick in the tie and no slits in the shirt until after the nurses began hurriedly cutting away JFK's clothing..
-
MG: Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
No, he didn't. And let me show you what he actually said, since you totally missed it.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--
In Carrico's own words, the wounds was "located in the lower third of the neck" "just about where your tie would be." His use of "where your/the tie" puts the wound below the top of the collar, ipso facto. And "the lower third of the neck" would also located it under the top of the collar on any human being not named "Giraffe." Note how well these statements matches up to "we opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck." If you go by what Carrico actually says, in his own words, the wound is most definitely below the top of the collar. You, on the other hand, want to rely on something Dulles says about Carrico's hand instead. That's not a very smart way to deal with it.
As to your channeling the ghost of Harold Weisberg:
HW: When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.”
Of course Carrico wouldn't have. His concern was for the patient, not the patient's clothing! Why on earth would Weisberg or you or anyone else expect him to in the first place? Weisberg says as much in Never Again.
HW: I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar.
What a vague and roundabout way of dealing with the problem! You'd think that Weisberg would have directly asked Carrico about the exact location of the wound, and then quoted Carrico's response in one of his writings. I mean, let's say that you are Weisberg. And you are interviewing Carrico about the throat wound. One of the first questions you are going to ask is "where was the throat wound? Was it above or below the collar?" So why don't we hear about that at all? why does Weisberg resort to the vague, indirect, and quoteless reference to Carrico's WC testimony? I'm certain that Weisberg did ask that question, but Carrico's answer wasn't what Weisberg needed to hear. So Weisberg went roundabout, having Carrico "confirm" his testimony. But note that Weisberg doesn't actually quote what Carrico said.
MG: Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding
Reading through Weisberg's comments on the subject I don't get where Carrico actually says they used scalpels. "{Carrico} told me that the President's shirt and tie were cut off in 'the usual emergency procedures,' he demonstrated it using his own tie slashing with an imaginary scalpel." But the only person who seems to be imagining a scalpel here is Weisberg. In fact, all of the "scalpel" talk appears to comes from Weisberg, and no one else. I can't find anyone but Weisberg saying they used scalpels to cut clothing off, unless they are referencing Weisberg. He seems to be the ultimate source of all this scalpel talk.
As for "the big hurry," it would have been faster to use bandage scissors than scalpels. Scalpels are carefully packaged and stored in such a way as to preserve the blade's sharp edge, maintain their sterility, and prevent anyone from being accidentally injured by the things while they are being transported, stored, and readied for action. Getting one out of its packaging and ready to go is not trivial and takes time, especially if you prefer not to maim yourself. On the other hand, almost every nurse involved in clinical activity in a hospital will be carrying bandage scissors, trauma shears, or both, in their pockets. They are also readily available in examination rooms, etc, as they do no need to be sterile, and are fairly safe handle by design. And they are designed specifically to cut through bandages and clothing from a human body without causing injuries in the process. Scalpels are designed specifically to cause injuries in patients. They are not forgiving to misuse, and cutting clothing is not a use they are designed for.
MG: So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
The location that CTs want to put the throat wound has been public knowledge for a long time. CTs aren't shy about pelting witnesses with leading questions, and enough of them over the years will start becoming memory contaminants. Loftus, et al, demonstrated this decades ago. Or Consider the case of the "McClelland drawing." It was originally drawn by a medical illustrator under the commission of Tink Thompson based on comments made by McClelland. Over time, McClelland began to say that he was responsible for having it created. And eventually, he actually started to say that he'd drawn it. He wasn't trying to claim credit for something that he didn't do, but inadvertently came under the influence of the mass of literature and discussion about the assassination. John Connally, in his autobiography, said that most of what he "remembered" about 11/22/63 wasn't actually his own memories, but things he heard from others, watched on TV, or read in the years after the event.
Again, if you go by Jones' and Perry's testimony to the WC in 1964, Jones could not have seen the wound before the shirt and tie had been cut away from that area.
MG: Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later."
The earliest reference to him as a JFKA witness dates to about 2015, 52 years after the assassination. And, again, you could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1 that day. The WC asked the 11/22/63 staffers who was in the room there and involved with the efforts to treat JFK. Who the noted Goldstritch's presence?
Another sad display of sophistry and distortion. You told me you were going to show me what Carrico "actually" said--and then, incredibly, you ignored the part where Dulles specifically asked Carrico to show him where the wound was, then asked him to confirm that he was putting his hand just above his tie, and then Carrico said yes. So Carrico was demonstrating where the wound was with his hand; he put his hand just above his tie, and then he confirmed this placement when Dulles asked him to confirm it. Let's read it again:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
Your apparent willingness to ignore plain English continues with your curious charge that Weisberg did not directly ask Carrico where the throat wound was! Say what??? Were you just hoping that no one would go back and read what Weisberg said, or that I would forget what he said, which I quoted? I mean, wow. Just wow.
Let's read what Weisberg said, again:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf, p. 14)
This reminds me of your amazing refusal to acknowledge Vincent DiMaio's plain-English statements that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments in bone and that if an x-ray shows numerous small fragments, this rules out FMJ ammo as the ammo. He said this, several times, in plain English. Yet, you danced and danced around his wording, pretended I was talking about a different kind of "lead snowstorm," and then cited one of his x-rays as proof without realizing, or perhaps hoping I wouldn't notice, that the x-ray was of fragments from non-FMJ ammo.
-
What if the bullet was 7.65 mm conical shaped bullet (pointed ) like the one found on the JC stretcher by Wright?
The experiment with the 2 replica torso models seems to show that the SBT trajectory for the 6.5 mm MC ball nose bullet could have been just a bit to the right side of the tie knot and was a little bit lower exiting at top of the right side chest of the JFK model rather than thru the throat.
To explain the initial small hole in the throat could be that someone made an emergency hole with a pen or pointed object as JFK was lifted from the limo and placed on stretcher?
They should revisit the shooting experiment and try using a 7.65mm or 7.62 mm pointed nose bullet to see if there’s less damage to conical shape bullet and how it penetrates thru wrist bone. If the 6.5mm ball nosed bullet was only marginally deformed them I’m wondering if a 7.65 mm conical shaped bullet would be even less deformed such that if such bullet had been discovered by Wright on the JC stretcher, that he would not have noticed any deformation of the bullet?
-
What if the bullet was 7.65 mm conical shaped bullet (pointed ) like the one found on the JC stretcher by Wright?
I agree that the bullet that Wright found could not have been CE 399, but a 7.65 conical-shaped bullet could not have missed tearing through the tie knot either, nor could it have created the nick on the outer surface of the knot.
The experiment with the 2 replica torso models seems to show that the SBT trajectory for the 6.5 mm MC ball nose bullet could have been just a bit to the right side of the tie knot and was a little bit lower exiting at top of the right side chest of the JFK model rather than thru the throat.
This is implausible and impossible, for a number of reasons. For example, we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy pathologists positively, absolutely, definitively established that the back wound had no exit point. They and others around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the stomach lining. We also know that two early drafts of the autopsy report said the back wound had no exit point, and that one of the early drafts said the throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head shot. It was only after Oswald was killed and Humes knew there would be no trial that the throat wound became an exit point for the back wound.
To explain the initial small hole in the throat could be that someone made an emergency hole with a pen or pointed object as JFK was lifted from the limo and placed on stretcher?
We know this did not happen.
They should revisit the shooting experiment and try using a 7.65mm or 7.62 mm pointed nose bullet to see if there’s less damage to conical shape bullet and how it penetrates thru wrist bone. If the 6.5mm ball nosed bullet was only marginally deformed them I’m wondering if a 7.65 mm conical shaped bullet would be even less deformed such that if such bullet had been discovered by Wright on the JC stretcher, that he would not have noticed any deformation of the bullet?
Such speculation is pointless regarding the shooting scenario, since we know that no bullet exited the throat wound and shirt slits. Again, no bullet exiting the slits could have avoided tearing through the tie knot, and no such bullet could have magically weaved around the body of the knot to nick the outer surface of the knot.