Let's see if we can get the interview more views.

So here we have a prime example of a witness who completely changes his story decades later, yet WC apologists gobble up his new story because it supports their theory of the shooting, i.e., the lone-gunman theory.

When Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg in the late 1960s, he insisted the throat wound was above the collar, just as he told the WC in 1964. He also told Weisberg that he saw no nick in the tie nor slits in the shirt before the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.

In his 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital report, which he wrote just hours after seeing JFK's wounds, Carrico said that there was blood oozing from the cerebellum, and that there was a "penetrating" wound in the throat (Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note, Dr. James Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2; CE 392, pp. 4-5).

In his 11/23/63 summary report, Dr. Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, reported that Dr. Carrico noted a wound "in the occipital region of the skull" (CE 392, p. 2).

When Carrico testified before the WC four months later, in March 1964, he once again put the wound in the back of the head and also said there was shredded brain tissue in the back of the head:

There was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium [skull cap] or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue, present, and initially considerable slow oozing. (3 H 361)

When Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, he once again put the wound in the back of the head, saying the large head wound was "in the right side of the . . . parietal-occipital area" and that he could see "both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound" (7 HSCA 268). As most here know, he could not have seen cerebellar fragments in the wound if the wound did not include a substantial part of the right side of the occiput.

Carrico's repeated statements about JFK's wounds discredit the autopsy brain photos, since they show the cerebellum intact, and also discredit the back-of-head autopsy photos, since they show no large head wound that included any part of the occiput. I should add that Carrico's initial descriptions of the large head wound closely match those given by most of the other Parkland doctors, by the two FBI agents at the autopsy, by the two Secret Service agents who observed the body in the morgue right after the autopsy, by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, and by the three morticians at the autopsy.

But, over 30 years later, in his interview with the Sixth Floor Museum, Carrico uses his right hand to place the large head wound even farther forward than the WC or the HSCA placed it, and you guys just gobble it up. You don't care that he said nothing about his initial description of the wound, given hours after he saw it and repeated by Dr. Clark in his report written the next day, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the WC, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the HSCA. You also don't care that he said nothing about seeing damaged cerebellar tissue in his 11/22/63 admission note, in his March 1964 WC testimony, and in his HSCA interview.

"Nah, never mind all that," right?

I have a rather obvious question. If it ricocheted out, how did he know it was a bullet that went in?