JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on September 12, 2025, 09:19:16 PM
-
Someone needs to explain the Connie Kritzberg bombshell (or factoid, as the case may be) to me. Connie is the Dallas Times Herald reporter whose story on JFK’s wounds was “mysteriously altered by the FBI.” Connie quickly (i.e., immediately) became a CTer, attended JFKA conferences, associated with Larry Hancock (or vice versa) and wrote an obscure book, JFK: Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, that readers seem to agree is rather light on secrets. She died at 88 in 2020: https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/18903098/Constance-Elizabeth-Kritzberg/Moore/Oklahoma/John-M-Ireland-Son-Funeral-Home-and-Chapel.
On 11-22-63, Connie was inexperienced as a news reporter. She had started out writing obituaries, written some features when things at the obituary desk were slow, and been promoted to the women’s section as the Home Editor. On 11-22-63, she was excited to be assigned to the City desk where hard news was written. Due to the excitement of JFK’s visit, she would spend the afternoon rewriting articles. She describes the intense deadline pressure at the Herald (because it was the afternoon newspaper) even if there had been no assassination.
My concern is simply the bombshell FBI revelation. We don’t need to speculate about it because in 1996 Connie wrote a wonderful eight-page article about her experiences on 11-22-63 for Volume 1, Issue 3, of the Dealey Plaza Echo, “A Personal Story: Reporting On the Death of a President,” https://ia601206.us.archive.org/28/items/nsia-KritzbergConnie/nsia-KritzbergConnie/Kritzberg%20Connie%2001.pdf.
Connie was not at the press conference that Drs. Clark and Perry gave at Parkland Hospital at 2:15 PM local time on 11-22-63. Surprisingly, there seems to be no video or audio of the event. Nevertheless, someone present generated a verbatim transcript, which you can find at DVP’s site: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/10/parkland-press-conference-11-22-63.html.
There is no question the doctors at that time thought the throat wound was an entrance wound. What they were uncertain about was whether the throat wound and the massive head wound were connected (i.e., one continuous wound with its exit at the back of the head or two separate wounds). Here are some direct quotes:
DR. PERRY -- I noted he was in critical condition from the wound in the neck and the head.
QUESTION -- Could that be done by one shot?
DR. PERRY -- I cannot conjecture. I don’t know.
* * *
DR. PERRY -- The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line.
QUESTION -- What was that?
DR. PERRY -- A bullet hole almost in the mid line.
QUESTION -- Would you demonstrate?
DR. PERRY -- In the lower portion of the neck, in front.
QUESTION -- Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?
DR. PERRY -- Approximately here (indicating).
QUESTION -- Below the Adam’s apple?
DR. PERRY -- Below the Adam’s apple.
QUESTION -- Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?
DR. PERRY -- That would be on [sic] conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say.
QUESTION -- Where was the entrance wound?
DR. PERRY -- There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION -- Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. PERRY -- It appeared to be coming at him.
QUESTION -- And the one behind?
DR. PERRY -- The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?
DR. CLARK -- The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.
Clear enough, it seems to me. The doctors definitely thought the throat wound was an entrance wound but simply weren’t sure whether it had produced the head wound or whether they were two separate wounds. We now know the doctors weren’t aware of the back wound.
Connie, still in the Herald newsroom, interviewed Drs. Clark and Perry by telephone at about 3:30 PM local time. She says Parkland officials weren’t sure that Herald and Morning News reporters had been at the press conference and thus granted them telephone interviews. The doctors told Connie nothing new. She states in her Dealey Plaza Echo article, “They agreed no decision had been made whether there were one or two wounds.”
Connie’s article in the Echo shows her story on the President’s wounds both as written and supposedly altered. As written, the article stated (and all this remained in the supposedly altered version):
Whether there were one or two wounds was not decided.
The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an entrance or tangential exit wound.
She then goes on to quote Dr. Perry and then Dr. Clark:
“There were two wounds. Whether they were directly related I do not know. It was an entrance wound in the neck.”
The doctors were asked whether one bullet could have made both wounds or whether there were two bullets.
Dr. Clark replied, “The head wound could have been either an exit wound or a tangential entrance wound.”
* * *
Dr. Perry added, “It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell. It did however appear to be the entrance wound at the front of the throat.”
Connie noticed the FBI’s devious alteration the next day. Golly, what was it? Did the FBI add language suggesting the throat wound might have been an exit wound? Well, no. Did the FBI add language suggesting the head wound was definitely an entrance wound? Well, no. Did the FBI at least add language suggesting the shots were from the rear, or at least that the head shot was? Well, no.
Well, dadgum it, what did those FBI ne’er-do-wells supposedly add? They ostensibly added the sentence in bold:
The front neck hole was described as an entrance wound. The wound at the back of the head, while the principal one, was either an entrance or tangential exit wound. A doctor admitted it is possible there was only one wound.
Excuse me, but was this inaccurate? In her article, Connie quotes Dr. Perry as saying, “It is conceivable it was one wound, but there was no way for me to tell.” What precisely is the big deal? What did the evil FBI supposedly do that would further the LN narrative?
Connie had gone home the night of the assassination, apparently about 9 PM, with an edition of the Herald that didn’t have her story about the wounds. She saw the story sometime on Saturday. She was stunned.
She says, “That sentence contradicted the story Drs. Kemp Clark and Perry gave to me.” Sorry, Connie, but how did it do that? It was, she says, a “horrible error.” Possibly her story had been “crudely corrected” by some inept editor, Her life, her reputation, were in tatters, all because of that sentence.
She phoned the City desk. Alas, she “can’t remember” to whom she talked, but it was “someone she knew” (well, that certainly narrows it down). This unnamed editor assured her the culprit was “the FBI.” Because people at the Herald by God didn’t joke around about stuff like that, Connie was confident the editor was serious. Her suspicions were confirmed when she learned that FBI agents had been at the Herald to interview photographer Bob Jackson, who had told police he had seen a rifle barrel in the sixth-floor window.
And that’s all there is to it. No follow-up by Connie. Ho-kay ...
Connie’s innocence was shattered (her phrase). “A shot from the front would not be allowed.”
WHAT??? Her story stated three times, twice quoting Dr. Perry, that the throat wound was an entrance wound. The nefarious FBI didn’t change any of that. Moreover, NOTHING in the nefarious FBI’s ostensible insertion suggests there was no shot from the front.
We have the thinnest possible evidence that this insertion was actually made by anyone from the FBI. Whoever made the change did so very late on Friday evening or Saturday morning. It seems vastly more plausible to me that someone at the Herald simply thought the insertion added clarity.
I am completely perplexed by Connie’s hysteria. I am completely perplexed as to why someone at the Dealey Plaze Echo didn't realize this was much ado about nothing. I am completely perplexed by the significance the CT community attaches to this story (an old thread at the Ed Forum has recently been revived). You tell me: bombshell or factoid?
Please, God, just once let me check out one of these conspiracy nuggets and have it actually stand up to scrutiny. Even Factoid Busters need some variety in their lives.