From the outset, the Dallas doctors’ and nurses’ descriptions of JFK’s throat wound have posed a problem for the lone-gunman theory. All the descriptions of the throat wound described it as an entrance wound. They said it was a small wound (about 5 cm in diameter), that it was punched inward, and that it was neat and circular, all of which are textbook indications of an entry wound. In addition, the descriptions of the damage behind the wound described damage that was larger than the wound itself, another textbook indication of an entry wound.

This explains why Dr. Malcolm Perry diagnosed the throat wound as an entry wound (both in his written report and in his comments to newsmen later in the afternoon), and why Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe, who had seen numerous bullet wounds, was certain it was an entry wound.

It is important to note that the fact that the throat wound was 5 mm in diameter means it was smaller than the back wound, which was 6 x 4 mm in size.

In addition, we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. Indeed, we also know that one of those drafts said the back wound had no exit point.

In order to explain the throat wound’s entry-wound appearance, lone-gunman theorists have had to resort to theorizing that the wound was so small and neat because the skin behind and around the wound was “shored” by the fabric of JFK’s collar band.

There are two fatal problems with this shored-wound theory:

-- One, the throat wound was not behind the collar band. Even if one assumes the front shirt slits were made by an exiting bullet, those slits were clearly below the collar band, as proved by the evidence photo of the slits (see Figure 8 in “JFK’s Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view).

-- Two, shored exit wounds, far from being small and neat, typically have wide and irregular abrasion collars. Dr. Vincent Di Maio, considered one of the leading forensic experts of the modern era, noted that shored exit wounds produce “very wide, irregular abrasion collars” (Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1999, p. 112).

Dr. Gary Aguilar and RN Kathy Cunningham have said the following about the problems with the shored-wound theory:

Lattimer has theorized that Kennedy’s throat wound was so small because it was “shored.” That is, Kennedy’s tight shirt collar confined the skin around Kennedy’s throat, and so kept the tissues from gaping irregularly as the bullet exited. . . .  However, the slits in JFK’s shirt are below the level where the collar button is, and so below the spot where the shoring pressures would have had maximal effect in limiting the gaping of skin.

Information from experiments on more analogous living pigs, and from experience with living gunshot victims, reveals that there are key features of shored exit wounds that are notable by their absence in JFK’s throat. Anesthetized pigs shot through their “shored” bellies had abrasions (scratches) at the margins of the shored exit wounds 100% of the time; contusions (bruises) 63% of the time; and radiating lacerations around the wound margins 33% of the time (D.S. Dixon, “Characteristics of Shored Exit Wounds,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 26(4), 1981, p. 694). Forensic pathologist Josephino Aguilar (no relation to either author) reported that, in humans, shored exit wounds have “abrasion collars” much like entrance wounds do, and they tend to have “radiating lacerations” at the wound margins. “In contrast to the entrance wound,” Aguilar wrote, “the supported exit wound shows a scalloped or punched-out abrasion collar and sharply contoured skin in between the radiating skin lacerations marginating the abrasion” (Josephino C. Aguilar, “Shored Gunshot Wounds of Exit,” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology , vol. 4(3), September 1983, p. 199). (“How Five Investigations Into JFK’s Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong,” https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm)

For more information on this issue, see “Research Notes on the Shored-Wound Theory to Explain JFK’s Throat Wound,” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h48FpT89KrC0rNrl4XC3MDePLDFEBBHb/view.

The Innocence Project has used DNA and other forensic evidence to exonerate people convicted primarily on the basis of eyewitness testimony. Juries tend to give eyewitness testimony for more weight than it deserves.

Incorrect. Some cases are built entirely on witness evidence.Incorrect. It depends on the ability of a human to accurately observe. Besides, the sound source witnesses were not consistent, varying with their location.  You keep using the witbesses who were asked about where they thought the shot sounds originated. The only ones who felt reasonably sure about the source direction were close to the TSBD and even many of those were not sure.  Give us an example of where the witnesses were generally consistent and demonstrably wrong.