Jump to content
The Education Forum

There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat


Ashton Gray

Recommended Posts

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?

The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.

A Castro conspiracy.

Thanks for making my point.

That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly

that a throat wound would be needed..

And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not

even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.

Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems

improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.

...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH

THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?

Jack

Jack, the wound was above the neck tie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?

The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.

A Castro conspiracy.

Thanks for making my point.

That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly

that a throat wound would be needed..

And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not

even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.

Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems

improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.

...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH

THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?

Jack

Jack, the wound was above the neck tie.

Prove it. Others have shown conclusively that it was not.

Even the OFFICIAL STORY is that it nicked the tie and

went thru the shirt. Bloodstains are inconsistent with a

higher wound. Proving it was above the shirt collar is

a tough task. Good luck.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From HSCA: (note location "3 centimeters above the suprasternal notch"

which places the wound UNDER THE COLLAR. The suprasternal notch is

at the very top of the chest, and three centimeters is 1.18 inch.)

2

transparencies and prints Nos. 40 and 41 ; and correspondingly num-

bered 8- by 10-inch color prints. There is no ruler in the photographs,

so measurements are approximate. The maximum transverse diameter

of the incision in the neck is approximately 5 centimeters, while the

maximum vertical diameter is approximately 1.5 to 2 centimeters; it

is approximately 4 centimeters below the shoulder line and 3 centi-

meters above the suprasternal notch.* (See fig. 8, a drawing of the

tracheotomy incision and fig. 9, a closeup photograph of the tracheot-

omy incision.)

FIGURE

8.-Drawing of the anterior neck and thorax, showing the general loca-

tion and appearance of the tracheotomy incision.

FIGURE

D.-Closeup photograph of the tracheotomy incision.

Page 14

93

(262) There is a semicircular missile defect near the center of the

lower margin of the traclwotoiuy incision, approximately in the mid-

line of the neck, with margins which are slightly denuded and red-

dish-brown.

(263) Although the black and white prints are more sharply focused

than the color photographs, none are clear. Figure 19 shows the

wound approximately in the midline of the anterior neck. The panel

suggested photographic* or computer-assisted enhancement* of either

one or both of black and white photographs Nos. 13 and 14, inasmuch

as they were in sharper focus and the results might better delineate

the margins of the exit defect in the anterior neck which was not

properly identified and documented at the time of autopsy.

4

. X-rays

(264) As is detailed in a later section ("Course of the Missile

Through the Body"), the X-rays indicate that the missile track pro-

ceeds toward the midline of the body. This analysis is based on the

fracture of the transverse process of T-1 and the air in the soft tis-

sues, which probably resulted from the laceration of the trachea. The

air could have been caused by either a bullet laceration of the trachea

or the surgeon's tracheotomy. The X-rays show that no missile is

resent and therefore that the bullet exited the body without caus-

ing any fracture other than of the lateral transverse process.

5. Autopsy Report

(265) The autopsy report characterized the anterior neck wound

as :

Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the

level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5-centi-

meter long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular

edges. (12)

The appearance of this wound was further characterized by Dr.

Humes in his report as follows

The wound presumably of exit was that described by Dr.

Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical* re-

gion. When observed by Dr. Perry, "the wound measured" a

few mm in diameter, however it was extended as a trache-

otomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the

time of autopsy. However, there is considerable ecchymosis

of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck and of the

fascia* about the trachea adjacent to the line of the

tracheotomy wound. (13)

(266) This wound is further depicted in the Autopsy Descrip-

tive Sheet, in which the anterior view, showing a semicircular line

with its convex border pointing inferiorly below the lower crease of

the neck, bears the legend "6.5 centimeter." (See fig. 6.) It is con-

spicuously unclear from the autopsy report alone that during au-

topsy, the pathologists were unaware and failed to recognize that

there was a missile performation in the anterior neck. This may

account for the fact that the neck, trachea, strap muscles, and spine

were notdissected and examined.

Page 15

94

6. Statements of the surgeons

(267)

Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that

In the lower part of the neck below the Adams Apple was a

small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter

from which blood was exuding slolviv.(I4) .

In a committee interview, Dr. Perry further characterized the wound

Dr. Perrybegan by stating that one of the wounds that JFK

had suffered was "about

1/,3

of the way" up on the anterior

aspect of the neck. Dark blood (a sign of insufficient oxygen)

was oozing from the wound when Dr. Perry first observed

JFK. Dr. Perrv believes that the wound measured approxi-

inately 6-7 millimeters in size and was roughly round, al-

though he couldn't state for sure since combating the two

primary medical emergencies of restoring breathing and

stopping bleeding prevented him from even taking the time

to wipe the blood from the wound. (15)

The report on the interview continued:

Dr. Perry said that Dr. Jones, who was already treating

JFK when Perry arrived, had inserted a tube down the

trachea to facilitate breathing but that the air passage still

seemed blocked. Due to this dilemma, Dr. Perry determined

that a tracheotomy was necessary "then or never" and there-

fore made a transverse incision straight through the bullet

wound on the anterior aspect of the neck at approximately

the second or third tracheal ring. (16)

(268)

Dr. Perry declined to express an opinion to the AN'arren Com-

mission on the origin of the missiles that caused the damage. He

explained

Ididn't clearly identifv either an entrance or an exit wound.

In the press conference I indicated that the neck wound ap-

peared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its

size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be some-

what ragged and somewhat different from entrance wounds.

Now, this doesn't pertain, of course, in bullets that are

tumblers,* and many bullets, especially fired from the hand

guns and this sort of thing, tend to tumble, and as a result,

they make keyhole injuries and various things. But, in gen-

eral, full-jacketed bullets make pretty small entrance holes.

And so I don't really know. I thought it looked like an en-

trance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any

others, and so that was just a guess. (17)

(269)

Dr. C. James Carrico characterized the Nvound in the anterior

neck as : "One small penetrating wound of the ant.. (anterior) neck in

lower third."(18) Dr. Carrico further characterized this wound in a

Select Committee staff interview

My total recollection of that wound, it was, a small, fairly

circular wound, with material issuing from it. And that's

really my total recollection. (1.9)

Page 16

9 5

When asked whether he was able to

draw any conclusions about the

direction in which the missile had been passing, Dr.

Carrico said "not

for sure." (20)

(270)

The panel considered the appearance of the wound in the

anterior neck as initially described and

subsequently altered. It is of

the opinion that such a wound, uniformly regular in

shape and small

in size, might be anticipated from an intermediate or

even high

velocity missile if the tissues through which the missile exited

were

shored, buttressed or otherwise reinforced by clothing or other external

objects that would minimize the outward displacement

of the skin and

underlying superficial tissue and consequent tearing

and distortion of

these tissues. The similarity between entrance and shored

exit wounds

mayextend to the production of clothing abrasion patterns, that

is, the

imprint of the fabric of the clothing on the skin. because the missile,

prior to exiting through the skin, forces

the skin against the overlying

restraining clothing.

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack you are of course correct that in the first 24 hours (even longer) the need for a SBT to prove alone gunman was not anticipated. That came about in part because of the timing problems caused by the Magruder film (ha!) and the wounding of James Tague.

The points that have been raised about the neck wound are perplexing. I had never thought it could be the entrance of a bullet (where would be the exit place) but clearly it was not the exit of the bullet that struck JFK in the back. I still believe the most likely explanations are the ones proferred by Mr. Purvis (a bullet fragment) or Mr. Speer (a bullet exiting that struck JFK in the lower head).

The idea of a contingency plan at Parkland is far too problematical. How could the conspirators know they would have access to the body? As I have stated before, Gerry Hemming says the contingency plan was a car bomb. That makes sense because it is completely in the control of the conspirators. The conspirators wanted JFK dead before he left Dealey Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been waiting for someone to mention the most OBVIOUS need for

a wound in the throat. Without an EXIT wound in the anterior neck, the

SINGLE BULLET THEORY would not have been possible.

Jack

And how would the need for the SBT be assessed minutes after the shooting?

The murder was designed to look like a conspiracy, after all.

A Castro conspiracy.

Thanks for making my point.

That is the trouble with the "Ashton Theory"...there is no way to know that quickly

that a throat wound would be needed..

And even though the throat wound is essential to the SBT, darlin' Arlen had not

even invented it yet. So that does not fly as a reason.

Therefore theories about a piercing throat wound at Parkland are very iffy. It seems

improbable that the SBT was a planned contingency.

...so back to square one...NO WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A BULLET GOING THROUGH

THE NECKTIE KNOT...so how did such a wound occur?

Jack

Jack, the wound was above the neck tie.

Prove it. Others have shown conclusively that it was not.

Even the OFFICIAL STORY is that it nicked the tie and

went thru the shirt. Bloodstains are inconsistent with a

higher wound. Proving it was above the shirt collar is

a tough task. Good luck.

Jack

From Jerry McKnight:

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...e-Bullet_Theory

Emphasis mine:

It was politics, and only politics, that drove and shaped the evidence in the government’s investigation into the Kennedy assassination. For example, in March 1964 Commission counsel Arlen Specter went to Parkland Memorial Hospital to depose doctors, nurses, and administrators involved in treating the stricken President and the Texas Governor. Dr. Charles J. Carrico was the first physician to examine the agonal Kennedy, whose breathing was spasmodic and his color cyanotic (bluish gray), symptoms associated with a terminal patient. Because time was critical the attending nurses took scalpels and cut off Kennedy’s clothes. In their haste to free the patient from his clothes one of the nurses nicked the tie and left two slits in his shirt collar. As Carrico explained to Specter the use of scalpels was “the usual practice” in a medical emergency of this nature. Allen Dulles, who accompanied Specter to Dallas, asked Carrico twice to show him the location of the hole in Kennedy’s anterior neck. The Parkland doctor responded on both occasions locating a point above the collar line. So Specter had unimpeachable first-hand testimony that would have persuaded any good faith investigation to have ruled out the Commission’s single-bullet explanation.

I wasn't there with a camera, Jack, so you're right -- I'm gonna have a tough

time proving it beyond doubt.

Carrico was there and I have no reason to doubt him.

His account is consistent with no metal traces being found on the tie

or the shirt slits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...

Ashton Gray's ideas about Watergate were pure malarkey.

I tend to agree with Pat on this.

As per this, weren't the idea that McKnight had about the location hotly debated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

It also is counterproductive to the entire reason I have focused narrowly on the throat wound in starting this thread, which is embodied in the following definition:

ANALYSIS: the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements; the separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

The throat wound is one, and only one, constituent part of a case that has been made by various parties for a front shot or shots. I have neither desire nor intention to leap from the specific case of the throat wound to a general supposition about the presence or absence of a sniper ever having been in some location forward of the motorcade.

So in answer I'll say only this:

1. Dawn did not quote me; she assayed to speak for me, and despite her many sterling qualities, speaking for me is not one of them.

2. I have discussed the head shot vis a vis the likelihood of a front shot in other threads in this forum where the discussion was appropriate, including but not limited to this message et seq. in the thread "Who were the shooters?, as well as in this message et seq. in the thread "The Head Wound Explained, and even in a thread I started called "The Back Wound Considered, A Window of Opportunity". If anyone wants to discuss either the head shot or the back shot with me, I'll be happy to take such discussions further in those threads.

3. In another message in the thread "Who were the shooters, I provided a graphic and considerable evidence and discussion going to the question of the likelihood of any shooter ever having been behind the picket fence or in that vicinity. I also graphically explored, by request, many other proposed locations for an outdoor shooter in that thread, and found them all wanting in material ways. But my tests and views on that are memorialized in that thread and need no further discussion here.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton

Using this exact logic, wouldn't the agent at Parkland Hospital have inserted the large bore needle into the back of JFK's neck, if it was intended for all of the shots to have come from the rear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have we eliminated the possibility that the wound/tracheostomy site has been moved in the autopsy photos? The evulsed trach incision in the "Stare of Death" shot in particular looks like a lurid photo fake.

As seen in the National Archives, is JFK's necktie still in one piece, albeit nicked? My mother was an emergency room nurse by 1963, and I know that standard practice is to avoid "haste" and fumbling and just pull up the collar and cut the necktie in two with blunt-tipped bandage scissors, through the narrow band an inch or two away from the knot. Was someone really slicing away with a scalpel near the president's throat, in "haste"? Every emergency room has a surfeit of those blunt-tipped scissors for cutting off clothing as well as cutting gauze bandages.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

It also is counterproductive to the entire reason I have focused narrowly on the throat wound in starting this thread, which is embodied in the following definition:

ANALYSIS: the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements; the separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

The throat wound is one, and only one, constituent part of a case that has been made by various parties for a front shot or shots. I have neither desire nor intention to leap from the specific case of the throat wound to a general supposition about the presence or absence of a sniper ever having been in some location forward of the motorcade.

So in answer I'll say only this:

1. Dawn did not quote me; she assayed to speak for me, and despite her many sterling qualities, speaking for me is not one of them.

2. I have discussed the head shot vis a vis the likelihood of a front shot in other threads in this forum where the discussion was appropriate, including but not limited to this message et seq. in the thread "Who were the shooters?, as well as in this message et seq. in the thread "The Head Wound Explained, and even in a thread I started called "The Back Wound Considered, A Window of Opportunity". If anyone wants to discuss either the head shot or the back shot with me, I'll be happy to take such discussions further in those threads.

3. In another message in the thread "Who were the shooters, I provided a graphic and considerable evidence and discussion going to the question of the likelihood of any shooter ever having been behind the picket fence or in that vicinity. I also graphically explored, by request, many other proposed locations for an outdoor shooter in that thread, and found them all wanting in material ways. But my tests and views on that are memorialized in that thread and need no further discussion here.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton

Using this exact logic, wouldn't the agent at Parkland Hospital have inserted the large bore needle into the back of JFK's neck, if it was intended for all of the shots to have come from the rear?

In a word: No. Assuming, arguendo, that a large-bore needle was used to deliver the coup de grâce, it was applied in the exact location where an intentionally butchered tracheotomy would render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable. I actually already dealt with this in the second post in this thread: Out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound.

There were only six who said they saw the would prior to the throat butchery by Dr. Perry. Of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton Gray's ideas about Watergate were pure malarkey.

I tend to agree with Pat on this.

I love the company you huddle with. How about instead of hiding behind Pat and the opaque generality of a statement as broad as "Ashton Gray's ideas," you step out into the dusty street and face me over in the Watergate forum. There you can identify which specific "ideas" you so haughtily dismiss. I think I can straighten you out about them. You can even bring Pat with you if it will make you feel braver.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And speaking of the head wound. Ashton's position is that there was NO shot from the front, so that includes the headshot.

Dawn

Ashton,

Is Dawn reading you correctly vis a vis her "NO shot from the front" interpretation of your view?

Charles, I am very chary of addressing this at all in this thread because it potentially could open the door to all manner of off-topic garbage. I am going to address it once to answer you briefly because I believe you're asking in good faith, but strictly speaking the question is not at all germane to this thread or to the very clear and inarguable evidence regarding the throat wound.

It also is counterproductive to the entire reason I have focused narrowly on the throat wound in starting this thread, which is embodied in the following definition:

ANALYSIS: the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements; the separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

The throat wound is one, and only one, constituent part of a case that has been made by various parties for a front shot or shots. I have neither desire nor intention to leap from the specific case of the throat wound to a general supposition about the presence or absence of a sniper ever having been in some location forward of the motorcade.

So in answer I'll say only this:

1. Dawn did not quote me; she assayed to speak for me, and despite her many sterling qualities, speaking for me is not one of them.

2. I have discussed the head shot vis a vis the likelihood of a front shot in other threads in this forum where the discussion was appropriate, including but not limited to this message et seq. in the thread "Who were the shooters?, as well as in this message et seq. in the thread "The Head Wound Explained, and even in a thread I started called "The Back Wound Considered, A Window of Opportunity". If anyone wants to discuss either the head shot or the back shot with me, I'll be happy to take such discussions further in those threads.

3. In another message in the thread "Who were the shooters, I provided a graphic and considerable evidence and discussion going to the question of the likelihood of any shooter ever having been behind the picket fence or in that vicinity. I also graphically explored, by request, many other proposed locations for an outdoor shooter in that thread, and found them all wanting in material ways. But my tests and views on that are memorialized in that thread and need no further discussion here.

4. I've said it before and I'll say it again in yet other terms: It seems highly unlikely to me (not to say bunghole-plug dumb) that sophisticated, highly-trained intelligence agents would plot for months, if not years, to set up an assassination of the President of the United States, to set up a Communist patsy to take the fall for it, to set up the location for the patsy behind and above the target at the time of the shooting—and then have the real sniper(s) shoot from in front of the target. Could one possibly conceive of anything more stupid in terms of a sophisticated frame-up of Oswald?

I hope that answers your question, and now I hope that people responsibly will restrict discussion in this thread to discussion of matters related to the throat wound, which I believe deserves a great deal of attention all by itself. If the wound in John F. Kennedy's throat was not caused by a bullet or fragment, but by another device, it truly is proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin," and that there was, in fact, a sophisticated and far-reaching conspiracy to murder.

Ashton

Using this exact logic, wouldn't the agent at Parkland Hospital have inserted the large bore needle into the back of JFK's neck, if it was intended for all of the shots to have come from the rear?

In a word: No. Assuming, arguendo, that a large-bore needle was used to deliver the coup de grâce, it was applied in the exact location where an intentionally butchered tracheotomy would render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable. I actually already dealt with this in the second post in this thread: Out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound.

There were only six who said they saw the would prior to the throat butchery by Dr. Perry. Of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Ashton Gray

I have to take issue with what you refer to as an "intentionally butchered tracheotomy", plus your assumption the tracheotomy would "render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable".

If Perry had been performing a tracheotomy because of a blockage or injury higher up in the trachea, his incision likely would have been much smaller. However, in this case, there were two other factors involved.

1) JFK had a bullet wound in the right side of his trachea. While making the tracheotomy incision, Perry elected to quickly extend the length of this incision to the right, in order to allow him to explore that part of the mediastinum behind the right side of JFK's trachea.

2) JFK's trachea was deviated to the left, as a result of a tension pneumothorax in his right pleural cavity, evidenced by air bubbles in the mediastinum. Upon observing these signs, Perry requested the insertion of bi-lateral chest tubes to relieve one obvious and one potential pneumothorax. It was necessary to extend the tracheotomy incision much further than normal to the left; so far, in fact, Perry describes the necessity of severing the left strap muscle in order to reach the trachea beneath it.

While the trachea was deviated to the left during the tracheotomy procedure, Perry knew that, once the chest tube was inserted in the right pleural cavity and connected to sealed water drainage, the pneumothorax in the right pleural cavity would be relieved, and the trachea would return to its normal mid line position. This, plus the need to explore the wounded area behind the right side of the trachea, made it necessary for Perry to also extend the incision much further to the right as well.

So, instead of an "intentionally butchered tracheotomy", as you claim, Perry made a very neat tracheotomy incision that was, by necessity, somewhat larger than normal, for the above listed reasons. The conspirators would not want Perry discussing the possibility of a pneumothorax in the right lung, as this would reveal the fact that a bullet had entered JFK's right lung and stayed there, as there was no exit wound in his chest. With a bullet staying in his lung, the throat wound was now either 1) an entrance wound or 2) the result of a bullet that grazed the rear base of his skull.

As to the tracheotomy incision making the "exact nature of the wound inscrutable", nothing could be further from the truth.

hqdefault.jpg

As this closeup of the autopsy photo shows, there is no difficulty at all in seeing, especially on the bottom edge of the incision, the semi-circular outlines of the bullet wound in JFK's throat. If Perry meant to obliterate and hide this wound, don't you think he would have been more secretive about it?

From Appendix VIII of the Warren Commission Report (the medical reports):

"At the time of initial examination, the pt. was noted as non-responsive. The eyes were deviated and the pupils were dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage.

Pulse or heartbeat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being assisted. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg.

At this point I noted that respiration was ineffective and while additional venisections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The tracheostomy tube was put in place and the cuff inflated and respiration assisted. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. Electrocardiographic evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart. Resuscitation attempts were abandoned after the team of physicians determined that the patient had expired.

Malcolm O. Perry, M.D.

1630 hr 22 Nov 1963"

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wouldn't the agent at Parkland Hospital have inserted the large bore needle into the back of JFK's neck, if it was intended for all of the shots to have come from the rear?

In a word: No. Assuming, arguendo, that a large-bore needle was used to deliver the coup de grâce, it was applied in the exact location where an intentionally butchered tracheotomy would render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable. I actually already dealt with this in the second post in this thread: Out of 12 Parkland Hospital personnel who testified under oath about the throat wound—10 doctors and 2 nurses—9 were ambiguous about or flat out didn't know whether the wound was a bullet entrance wound or a bullet exit wound.

There were only six who said they saw the would prior to the throat butchery by Dr. Perry. Of the six actual eyewitnesses, half said it could have been either an entrance or an exit wound, one said he thought it was an exit wound, and two people in the entire world who claim they saw the wound—including the ambivalent Jones—said they thought it was a bullet entrance wound.

Ashton Gray

I have to take issue with what you refer to as an "intentionally butchered tracheotomy", plus your assumption the tracheotomy would "render the exact nature of the wound inscrutable".

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Robert. You're welcome to take issue with anything you want to, but you asked a specific question in a specific context, and I answered that question in that context. Why are you asking about the placement of a large bore needle to begin with if you're so enamored of the "Official Story"?

But now you've gone all the way around the mulberry bush, because now you're completely ignoring the issue that started this thread, which is that there was no damage to JFK's tie or shirt that could have been caused by a bullet at that location. You don't address that at all. Instead you just insist there is "the semi-circular outlines of the bullet wound in JFK's throat."

Really? Then was it an entrance wound or an exit wound? Do you know more than the people who say they were there in the room and saw it? I just gave you their testimony. I carefully laid it out in my second post. You still don't address any of that, just trot out Perry's testimony.

I don't feel like turning into butter, so you run 'round and 'round the mulberry holding hands with Perry, okay?

Ashton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton,

You present a mix of fact and opinion.

You maintain JFK was not dead when he reached Parkland. Technically, he wasn't. But his breathing was agonal, his blood pressure was nil, his brain was falling out: hardly the condition of an alive person in common parlance.

I grant that Malcolm Perry may have done what you state. But your opinion is only an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton,

You present a mix of fact and opinion.

You maintain JFK was not dead when he reached Parkland. Technically, he wasn't. But his breathing was agonal, his blood pressure was nil, his brain was falling out: hardly the condition of an alive person in common parlance.

I grant that Malcolm Perry may have done what you state. But your opinion is only an opinion.

You're absolutely correct, Jon, and I've never tried to convince anyone otherwise. I merely presented documented facts in the first two posts of this thread that seem, to me, to be prima facie evidence for any reasonably prudent person to see that it is physically impossible for there ever to have been a front shot that went into JFK's throat at the location indicated in the photos and the testimony. A bullet cannot pass through a tie and shirt and leave no evidence of penetration unless it truly was a "magic bullet" that could somehow defy all laws of physics.

Yes, that is my opinion and I stand by it.

What else that hole in the throat might have been is merely speculation. I was asked, and so I offered one possible explanation, that being the introduction of a poison through a large-bore needle. I didn't introduce that concept in a vacuum, though; there is ample evidence of CIA involvement in just such activities, the most likely engineer of any such artifice being the CIA's Dr. Edward Gunn. There's a bit about him in this research series article for my book, Watergate: The Hoax:

http://www.chaletbooks.com/chaletreports/?p=395

You'll have to search on that page for "Gunn." You can find much more about him if you care to search, and there's a good deal more about him in the book. He was the man behind the trickery in attempts to assassinate a number of world leaders, including Castro. He also met with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt at a crucial time relative to Watergate to discuss various ways of poisoning or introducing drugs to someone to incapacitate such a target. (If you want to believe that the target was actually Jack Anderson, I hope you don't also believe in unicorns, but the point is that Liddy and Hunt had someone in their sights for that kind of operation. Who that actually might have been is addressed in the book.)

But the larger point, which no other analysis of Watergate ever has turned up that I have found—and lord knows how many we've gone through in this research—is that when Gunn met with Hunt and Liddy on 24 March 1972, Gunn was on staff at James McCord's company, McCord Associates, in Rockville, Maryland.

We found that information in an FBI report.

None of the above is any claim that Dr. Gunn was involved in any way in the JFK assassination. Nor does it say that he wasn't involved in any way.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...