Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Version: 1 Date: 2/5/16 Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Version: 2 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) 1. Behind or Above the Tie? Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony) 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... MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left. DR. CARRICO: To the right. Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie. 2. Above the Shirtline Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked 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, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have been persuaded to changed his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.) I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1992 it did change... dramatically. Gerald Posner quotes him, in Case Closed, as saying that the wound was on the right side and that he didn't believe they saw any occipital bone. I suspect he changed his testimony after seeing or hearing about the autopsy photos, which conflicted with the Parkland consensus on the gaping wound. I have a very hard time believing Carrico's testimony would have changed for the Weisberg interview. But I also have no explanation for the seeming difference between his WC testimony and his interview with Weisberg. Because of Carrico's history regarding the rear gaping wound, we know that he was willing to change his testimony under the right circumstances. I suspect he changes his testimony about the location of the neck wound once he realized that the SBT could not have occurred unless the exit wound was above the tie and shirtline. Because he had seen no hole through the tie. 3. Behind the Tie SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony) SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? KELLERMAN: No, sir. SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir. This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Version: 8 Date: 2/7/16 Potential Neck Shot Scenarios Version: 9 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) Below The Collar Line A bone fragment from JFK's neck exited his throat. A plastic projectile either entered or exited JFK's throat. Common Notes: These scenarios have eyewitness support. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. The holes/slits in the shirt were made by the projectile. The nick in the tie may have been made by the projectile. If it's true that the nick was on JFK's left side of the knot, as reported by the FBI, then it could not have been made by the projectile. (Because in that case the nick would be higher than the shirt holes, due to the knot's structure.) Note, however, that if by "JFK's left" the FBI meant the left side of the front of the knot, that would mean the the nick was unrelated to the wound. (This may be the case as there is extant a photo showing the nick in that very position. Though it is unknown to us if the knot shown is the original knot.) It was unrelated to the wound because the trajectory could not include the knot. According to Cliff Varnell, the neck x-ray (declared genuine by Dr. Mantik) conflicts with these scenarios. It shows an air pocket at C7/T1. On the other hand, Jerrol Custer thought the x-ray is fake. (Was he the one who saw bullet fragments or dust in the neck x-ray?) NOTE: The extant x-ray is described as having a couple of "metallic-like" particles in the neck area and are considered by an HSCA witness to be artifacts, even though they have "metallic-like" densities. Above The Collar Line A bullet/fragment entered or exited JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. A plastic, poisonous projectile entered JFK's throat above the shirt's collar. (Cliff Varnell's Theory.) Common Notes: The eyewitness support for these scenarios is questionable. See the Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies document for details. There seems to be no explanation for the two holes/slits in the shirt or the nick in the tie. The true neck wound was successfully covered up, and a lower one faked in its place. It seems that the only reasonable explanation for this cover-up would be to support the SBT. (See the line of reasoning for this in Post 538 on this page.) Due to the SBT's late date, this cover-up had to have been performed by altering the "death stare" autopsy photo, not the body. Non-Projectile Scenarios Theory Based on Ashton Gray's Hypothesis: Everything (wound in throat, hole in shirt, and possibly nick in tie) was made by an assassin with a 1/4" diameter needle connected to a syringe full of non-traceable poison.Related Posts Post 545 on this page: Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Useful Animated GIF (Posted by Ashton Gray years ago. Note that I believe the arrow should be lowered by about 1/4" to aligned with the holes. But I need to carefully check this first.) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.) Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Re Posner saying what Carrico told him. I would take anything Posner said with a large bag of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? And why do you also keep throwing irrelevant hearsay about the head wound into this thread on the throat wound? Why do you keep posting and reposting hearsay at all? Maybe I didn't make a mistake in turning this noise off before. Ashton Edited February 7, 2016 by Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Version: 2 Date: 2/7/16 Opposing Throat Wound Testimonies Version: 3 Date: 2/7/16 (Changes shown in red.) 1. Behind or Above the Tie? Dr. Charles Carrico (WC Testimony) 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... MR. DULLES: A little bit to the left. DR. CARRICO: To the right. Carrico seems to be saying that the neck wound is behind the tie. And Dulles seems to be attempting to lead his testimony elsewhere... above the tie. 2. Above the Shirtline Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked 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, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." This seems to contradict what Carrico stated before the WC (above). Could Carrico have changed his mind? (Note: The interview took place some time between 1967 and 1975.) I checked to see if Carrico's testimony changed over the years regarding the gaping wound in the occipital region. I found that it did NOT change up through the HSCA hearings. But some time between then and 1981 it did change... dramatically. Gerald Posner quotes him, in Case Closed, as saying that the wound was on the right side and that he didn't believe they saw any occipital bone. In a June 21, 1981 Boston Globe article, investigative reporter Ben Bradlee wrote, "Carrico was not Interviewed by The Globe, but in a letter sent in response to questions, he said the official tracing [i.e. the Ida Dox drawing] of the autopsy photograph showed "nothing incompatible" with what he remembered of the back of the head." I suspect he changed his testimony upon seeing the Ida Dox photo, which shows no gaping wound on the back of the head. Because of Carrico's history regarding the rear gaping wound, we know that he was willing to change his testimony under the right circumstances. I suspect he changed his testimony about the location of the neck wound once he realized that the SBT could not have occurred unless the exit wound was above the tie and shirtline. Because he had seen no hole through the tie. 3. Behind the Tie SSA Roy Kellerman (WC Testimony) SPECTER: ...Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area? KELLERMAN: No, sir. SPECTER: From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed? KELLERMAN: It would have been below the shirtline, sir. This testimony seems definitive. But could someone really be able to tell where the tracheotomy would be relative to a neck shirtline when there is no shirt in place? (If the death stare photo shows the true location of the tracheotomy, I would say yes.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? Thanks to you and Ray for your feedback. I have replaced the Posner quote with one from a more reliable source As for the Weisberg hearsay, I kept that because he was a respected researcher. And why do you also keep throwing irrelevant hearsay about the head wound into this thread on the throat wound? If you read carefully my comment about the head wound, you will see that I was using it to determine if Carrico was the type of person who would stick to his guns when confronted with opposing information, or if he would conform to it. I concluded the latter was true of him. This was a relevant and useful exercise. Why do you keep posting and reposting hearsay at all? People can decide for themselves whether hearsay (from a respected source) has any value. Just as they can decide for themselves whether a document has been forged or a photo altered. Maybe I didn't make a mistake in turning this noise off before. If my methodology irritates or offends you, then by all means put me on Ignore. Ashton (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.) Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 If I'm wearing a shirt and tie and have tilted my head down, my adam's apple is below the top edge of my shirt collar. If I'm standing looking straight ahead, the top edge crosses my adam's apple. If I twist my head to the side or tilt my head upward, the top edge can cross under my adam's apple. JFK was not static like a dummy. He was waving and turning to look at the crowd. I believe, therefore, it's possible a bullet fired from somewhere to JFK's front cleared his collar and entered just below his thyroid cartilage. Possible. If it's possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. I 'm looking forward to seeing it. Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) If I'm wearing a shirt and tie and have tilted my head down, my adam's apple is below the top edge of my shirt collar. If I'm standing looking straight ahead, the top edge crosses my adam's apple. If I twist my head to the side or tilt my head upward, the top edge can cross under my adam's apple. JFK was not static like a dummy. He was waving and turning to look at the crowd. I believe, therefore, it's possible a bullet fired from somewhere to JFK's front cleared his collar and entered just below his thyroid cartilage. Possible. If it's possible, then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it once and for all. Therefore, please: 1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.) 2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means. 3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us. I 'm looking forward to seeing it. Ashton I apparently have a very short neck. The only thing I feel between my Adam's apple (thyroid cartilage) and the notch of my sternum (suprasternal notch) is my circoid cartilage. My trachea is completely covered by my sternum. I can feel my trachea only if I tilt my head all the way back. And even then, only the top 1/4" of it. Which strikes me as odd when I look at anatomical diagrams of the neck, and photos like this one: (Source: cerebrovortex.com) (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.) Edited February 7, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? Hello Ashton, From an undated letter regarding Robert Groden using info from Post Mortem sans permission: "They were made by a scalpel in a nurse's hand as Carrico had described to me. I did not note the name of the one who did that when Carrico told me but it was either Margaret Henchcliffe(sic) or Diana Bowron." From a 1977 Letter addressed to Dr. Malcolm Perry: "When I left our last interview I went to the Parkland lobby and made notes immediately." The above statements are verbatim quotes from Harold Weisberg in reference to interviews with Dr. C. James Carrico and Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland hospital on 12-1-1971. It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews. Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews. Tom Edited February 8, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews. Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews. Tom Right. Thanks, Tom, for your usual diligence. As I said: it's hearsay and nothing but. I would say that Weisberg's claims in this regard are worth as much as a charwoman's gossip over a back fence—except I don't know of any charwomen who've had a career in intelligence, as Weisberg had, so I'd have to be partial to the report of a good-hearted cleaning lady who had no agenda. Weisberg's hearsay "evidence" is undiluted poison, and is utterly reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Sandy said: Harold Weisberg on his Interview of Dr. Charles Carrico (Post Mortem, pp. 375-376) Why do you keep propagating this hearsay? Where's this alleged "interview"? Where is a record of it? Who witnessed it? Hello Ashton, From an undated letter regarding Robert Groden using info from Post Mortem sans permission: "They were made by a scalpel in a nurse's hand as Carrico had described to me. I did not note the name of the one who did that when Carrico told me but it was either Margaret Henchcliffe(sic) or Diana Bowron." From a 1977 Letter addressed to Dr. Malcolm Perry: "When I left our last interview I went to the Parkland lobby and made notes immediately." The above statements are verbatim quotes from Harold Weisberg in reference to interviews with Dr. C. James Carrico and Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland hospital on 12-1-1971. It is clear to me that Weisberg neither recorded these interviews nor took notes during the interviews. Mr. Weisberg at no time refers to the presence of a third party during these interviews. Tom Right. Thanks, Tom, for your usual diligence. As I said: it's hearsay and nothing but. I would say that Weisberg's claims in this regard are worth as much as a charwoman's gossip over a back fence—except I don't know of any charwomen who've had a career in intelligence, as Weisberg had, so I'd have to be partial to the report of a good-hearted cleaning lady who had no agenda. Weisberg's hearsay "evidence" is undiluted poison, and is utterly reprehensible as far as I'm concerned. Ashton The two Weisberg quotes Tom refers to in his post are not the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this: "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked 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, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects. Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote? Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) +the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this: "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying No. I asked if he recalled Dulless 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, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects. Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote? Sandy Larsen said: "I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that." Your own statements reveal that you do NOT know who posted it. I have already objected more than once to you misquoting and/or attributing a quote or a theory that is not mine. I am NOT the only person to voice this complaint. You also denied my statement that you are "still" doing this, yet here you go again... You only "thought" I posted the quote, yet despite my multiple objections you once again attached my name to something when you have NO evidence at all that it was my statement. It was not necessary to attach my name to this - you could have simply stated that you don't know WHO posted it! Rather than post "I thought..." why didn't you find the source of this post? Don't you strive for accuracy? Sandy Larsen said: "It wasn't I who first posted it." According to the search function the first time this parsed quote appears on this forum is in YOUR post #541...so unless you can come up with the original post, it is clear that you don't even know what YOU yourself post. But don't let this stop you from denying your own objectionable post...or attempting to foist it off on me. Edited February 9, 2016 by Tom Neal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Why would two obvious scalpel slits in a shirt collar be tested for the presence of metal from a bullet jacket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) +the one Ashton specifically objected to, which is this: "Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this. . . . when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying No. I asked if he recalled Dulless 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, a fact hidden with such care from the (Warren) Report." I don't know how this quote relates to the ones in Tom's post. It wasn't I who first posted it. I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that. If it was Tom who posted it, I will do with it (delete or keep it) as he wishes. If it wasn't Tom, then I will delete the quote unless anyone objects. Tom, do you want me to keep or delete this Weisberg quote? Sandy Larsen said: "I thought Tom did and I was keeping it on my list because of that." Your own statements reveal that you do NOT know who posted it. I have already objected more than once to you misquoting and/or attributing a quote or a theory that is not mine. I am NOT the only person to voice this complaint. You also denied my statement that you are "still" doing this, yet here you go again... You only "thought" I posted the quote, yet despite my multiple objections you once again attached my name to something when you have NO evidence at all that it was my statement. It was not necessary to attach my name to this - you could have simply stated that you don't know WHO posted it! Rather than post "I thought..." why didn't you find the source of this post? Don't you strive for accuracy? Sandy Larsen said: "It wasn't I who first posted it." According to the search function the first time this parsed quote appears on this forum is in YOUR post #541...so unless you can come up with the original post, it is clear that you don't even know what YOU yourself post. But don't let this stop you from denying your own objectionable post...or attempting to foist it off on me. Well, you got me there, Tom. I guess I'm just a scatterbrain. So what do you want me to do about it? See a shrink? Get a lobotomy? As I said before, if I make a mistake all you have to do is ask me to correct it. And BTW, since when is it wrong to say "I think" something? (I did think you posted the quote.) I've seen you do very much the same thing yourself many times, for example when you say "IIRC" ("if I recall correctly"). Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Since Tom Neal disavows the Weisberg quote, I will remove it from my list. (Current Version of The Scenario List: Post 542 on this page.) Edited February 9, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now