JFK Assassination Forum

I will confess, I had never even heard of Charlie Kirk.

I live in a fairly small, exceedingly liberal college town. I said to my wife long ago that if I were the most enthusiastic Trump supporter on the planet, there would be no Trump signs in my yard or Trump bumper stickers on my car. It simply wouldn't be safe. I don't suppose I'd be shot, but I guarantee you my car wouldn't be safe.

Now that I've read some of Kirk's views - many of which I might agree with in a less incendiary way - if I were him I don't think I would have appeared at open-air events even with an (ineffective) bulletproof vest. Did he "deserve what he got"? No, of course not. Was he taking an extreme risk in today's political climate? Absolutely.

I happen to listen to a lot of Christian talk radio (much of which I can't stand!). Good Lord, on these shows Kirk is a saint, a Christian martyr, the voice of sanity and reason who would surely have been President some day. Some of the hosts literally can't get through their shows without sobbing. Sorry, but much of what I have read places Kirk as the rightwing counterpart to some of the most incendiary Lefties. If you're going to say those sorts of things in that sort of language in today's world, you are taking an extreme risk.

Crazily, my best friend is an absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth Trump hater. I sent him an email this morning, asking if he'd ever heard of Kirk. What he sent back managed to turn the entire incident into Trump's fault, as though the leftwing wacko with a rifle wasn't even part of the equation. His logic must be that young Tyler was just acting out what most sane people are thinking anyway.

It really seems quite hopeless to me. Kirk's death isn't going to "bring us together," make anyone think things have finally gone too far. As long as these extremists on both sides think their extreme views and incendiary rhetoric is "normal" and "reasonable," nothing will change and things will only get worse. You are only "normal" and "reasonable" if you capitulate to their views; there is no in-between. Trump is a lightning rod, of course, but the issues are far deeper than him.

It's a genuine war. I have a number of friends in the same age range who have the same perspective that I have: Thank God I'm 75 and don't have to worry about what the country or the world will look like 25 or 50 years from now. Just let me lay low and get through the remainder of life before the sh*t really hits the fan. The way things are going, I fear the sh*t may hit the fan well within my lifetime. It's becoming almost ... biblical.

   You can not let others dictate what you do or don't do. There's nothing wrong with keeping your head down until you are called on. Not everybody was made to be a leader. But to freely submit to this intimidation only causes it to grow with confidence.  Thou you don't know it, you DO have a role to play. Do not permit yourself to be mentally beat down.

I will confess, I had never even heard of Charlie Kirk.

I live in a fairly small, exceedingly liberal college town. I said to my wife long ago that if I were the most enthusiastic Trump supporter on the planet, there would be no Trump signs in my yard or Trump bumper stickers on my car. It simply wouldn't be safe. I don't suppose I'd be shot, but I guarantee you my car wouldn't be safe.

Now that I've read some of Kirk's views - many of which I might agree with in a less incendiary way - if I were him I don't think I would have appeared at open-air events even with an (ineffective) bulletproof vest. Did he "deserve what he got"? No, of course not. Was he taking an extreme risk in today's political climate? Absolutely.

I happen to listen to a lot of Christian talk radio (much of which I can't stand!). Good Lord, on these shows Kirk is a saint, a Christian martyr, the voice of sanity and reason who would surely have been President some day. Some of the hosts literally can't get through their shows without sobbing. Sorry, but much of what I have read places Kirk as the rightwing counterpart to some of the most incendiary Lefties. If you're going to say those sorts of things in that sort of language in today's world, you are taking an extreme risk.

Crazily, my best friend is an absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth Trump hater. I sent him an email this morning, asking if he'd ever heard of Kirk. What he sent back managed to turn the entire incident into Trump's fault, as though the leftwing wacko with a rifle wasn't even part of the equation. His logic must be that young Tyler was just acting out what most sane people are thinking anyway.

It really seems quite hopeless to me. Kirk's death isn't going to "bring us together," make anyone think things have finally gone too far. As long as these extremists on both sides think their extreme views and incendiary rhetoric is "normal" and "reasonable," nothing will change and things will only get worse. You are only "normal" and "reasonable" if you capitulate to their views; there is no in-between. Trump is a lightning rod, of course, but the issues are far deeper than him.

It's a genuine war. I have a number of friends in the same age range who have the same perspective that I have: Thank God I'm 75 and don't have to worry about what the country or the world will look like 25 or 50 years from now. Just let me lay low and get through the remainder of life before the sh*t really hits the fan. The way things are going, I fear the sh*t may hit the fan well within my lifetime. It's becoming almost ... biblical.

Those under 30 in this country have lived lives online and in social media.  They are isolated and exposed to all manner of disinformation and hate speech.  The loon who assassinated Kirk is a product of that environment.  He was likely convinced that Kirk was a Nazi and he would be a hero for his act.  Instead he will spend the rest of his life in prison.  Maybe face the death penalty.  The propaganda or whatever is going on with the social media algorithms are having an impact on the younger crowd.  They are certainly not getting any smarter as standardized test score are hitting rock bottom but they are also experiencing higher levels of mental health issues and anger.  Not a good combination.

It is open-season in the USA on right-wing political figures speaking at outdoor rallies.

There have been entirely repulsive justifications of the Charlie Kirk shooting, along the lines that Kirk caused his own grief, by having strongly expressed right-wing opinions.

That is surely a steep, slippery slope for us all to get onto to, lefty or rightie. Anyone with opinions on political matters...is asking for it. They all generate hatred.

Good luck out there, everyone.

I will confess, I had never even heard of Charlie Kirk.

I live in a fairly small, exceedingly liberal college town. I said to my wife long ago that if I were the most enthusiastic Trump supporter on the planet, there would be no Trump signs in my yard or Trump bumper stickers on my car. It simply wouldn't be safe. I don't suppose I'd be shot, but I guarantee you my car wouldn't be safe.

Now that I've read some of Kirk's views - many of which I might agree with in a less incendiary way - if I were him I don't think I would have appeared at open-air events even with an (ineffective) bulletproof vest. Did he "deserve what he got"? No, of course not. Was he taking an extreme risk in today's political climate? Absolutely.

I happen to listen to a lot of Christian talk radio (much of which I can't stand!). Good Lord, on these shows Kirk is a saint, a Christian martyr, the voice of sanity and reason who would surely have been President some day. Some of the hosts literally can't get through their shows without sobbing. Sorry, but much of what I have read places Kirk as the rightwing counterpart to some of the most incendiary Lefties. If you're going to say those sorts of things in that sort of language in today's world, you are taking an extreme risk.

Crazily, my best friend is an absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth Trump hater. I sent him an email this morning, asking if he'd ever heard of Kirk. What he sent back managed to turn the entire incident into Trump's fault, as though the leftwing wacko with a rifle wasn't even part of the equation. His logic must be that young Tyler was just acting out what most sane people are thinking anyway.

It really seems quite hopeless to me. Kirk's death isn't going to "bring us together," make anyone think things have finally gone too far. As long as these extremists on both sides think their extreme views and incendiary rhetoric is "normal" and "reasonable," nothing will change and things will only get worse. You are only "normal" and "reasonable" if you capitulate to their views; there is no in-between. Trump is a lightning rod, of course, but the issues are far deeper than him.

It's a genuine war. I have a number of friends in the same age range who have the same perspective that I have: Thank God I'm 75 and don't have to worry about what the country or the world will look like 25 or 50 years from now. Just let me lay low and get through the remainder of life before the sh*t really hits the fan. The way things are going, I fear the sh*t may hit the fan well within my lifetime. It's becoming almost ... biblical.

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.